Gambling has long been one of the biggest threats to sports in our country. While there are certainly issues like player safety and competitive balance that are more significant, the effects that gambling could potentially have on sports is very large. It may not seem as much on the surface, but the reason we all watch sports is because it is the ultimate reality show. The Chicago Cubs breaking a World Series curse of over a century. George Mason making a shocking run to the Final Four. The Cleveland Cavaliers coming back from a 3-1 deficit in the NBA Finals. Leicester City winning the Premier League title in England. And my personal favorite, the New York Giants beating the undefeated New England Patriots in Super Bowl 42.
If sports were played on paper and based on probability alone, none of those things would have happened. However, because these games play out in real time in front of the eyes of the world, we become transfixed by them. The best teams don't always win. It is why we cheer for upsets in the NCAA Tournament. It is why we hate Kevin Durant for joining the Golden State Warriors. It is why we can't stand how the Yankees and Dodgers have more money to spend on free agents than everyone else in baseball. Reality shows don't happen in one hour, weekly increments on MTV and CBS. They happen on Sundays during football season. They are why Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith have to stay up until the wee hours of the morning to watch overtime games. The very essence of our love of sports is summed up best by what Chris Berman used to say. "That's why they play the games."
This morning, it was announced that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalized sports gambling, and all 50 states have been given the right to decide whether or not to legalize gambling on sports. In states like Nevada and New Jersey, it will certainly be allowed. Other states like Florida and Utah may be late to join the party, but in the end, I am pretty sure that sports gambling will be legalized throughout the country. Could this possibly be a bad thing? Yes, it could. However, will it end up being a bad thing? I don't think so.
As is the case with pretty much everything in the world today, this all comes down to money. While sports gambling was illegal until today, it was still a multi-billion dollar industry in the black market. Is the injury report in the NFL in any way beneficial to the league? Does the difference between a stint on the 10 day disabled list as opposed to the 60 day disabled list really matter to Major League Baseball? If you want to justify those things, then yes, they do matter. But in reality, they are more important to gambling than they are to anything involving strategy or game planning. Professional sports leagues might not have been willing to admit it, but those things are really much more beneficial to gamblers than they are to coaches, players, and general managers. It used to be something that was inferred but not mentioned. Now, these league can officially acknowledge the reason for the existence of injury reports. They are there because it matters to gamblers far more than it matters to the people actually playing the games.
People that oppose this Supreme Court decision will surely point out things like the Black Sox scandal of 1919. They will bring up Pete Rose and Tim Donaghy. And they will do so rightfully. However, the things that those people will fail to mention far outweigh what they do mention. There are outliers when trying to find a solution to any problem. However, just because outliers do exist does not mean that there is an obvious solution to the problem that is being addressed.
To prove my point, let's look at each of those cases individually, and let's start with Donaghy. Until his exposure as a game-fixing NBA official, Donaghy was unknown to almost the entire sporting public. Officials in any sport are mostly unknown, and Donaghy fell right into that category of an unknown guy wearing a grey shirt with a whistle on an NBA court. However, when it was revealed in 2007 that he was involved with people in the black market and fixing games by giving favorable calls to teams that he and others had bet on, he immediately became the most noteworthy referee in the entire league. What did he get from that? 15 months in prison and a divorce from his wife. Does that sound like something that was worth what he did? Absolutely not.
Next up is Pete Rose. While the true extent of his gambling on games is still unknown, he has admitted to gambling on games after years of denial. He says that he only wagered on his own teams, and only did so while he was a manager, but thanks to his dishonorable and slimy past, I think anyone should pause before believing anything that man says. He is the all-time hits leader. He was a great player. However, he still has not been enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame, and thanks to many years of baseball commissioners denying his ability to be voted in, in my opinion, he has no chance of enshrinement during his lifetime. Any professional athlete will tell you that their ultimate goal is to be enshrined into the Hall of Fame of their respective sport, and when it comes to Pete Rose, he is not going to live to see that happen. Another known gambler disgraced for a lifetime.
The last, and in my opinion, most compelling argument against the legalization of sports gambling is the Black Sox scandal during the 1919 World Series. Tim Donaghy and Pete Rose were individual men who succumbed to the vices of gambling. There are a whole lot of people throughout the country that succumb to that vice, but the only difference is the public has no idea who they are. The members of the 1919 Chicago White Sox that threw the World Series are not only a highly compelling group because of what they did, but they are even more compelling because they are evidence that if the vices of gambling can reach enough men in unison, game fixing in professional sports could be possible.
Most sports fans in 2018 might vaguely know of the Black Sox scandal, but they most likely don't know anything more than it involved "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. However, it was far deeper than just that one man, and it was the only evidence we have in this country of how gambling could truly negatively impact sports as we know it. I will try to make this brief, but doing so may not be easy.
The Chicago White Sox in 1919 were fully equipped to be one of the best teams in all of baseball. The owner of the team, Charles Comiskey, was a very penurious man. Despite the greatness of multiple members of his team, he was unwilling to pay them what they felt they were worth, and what the open market suggested they were worth. Of the eight members of the team involved with the fix, none made more than $4,000 per season. All of them were unhappy with their salaries. When they were approached by black market gamblers, they were offered $100,000 to split amongst them however they saw fit. Divided evenly into eight, that means each man would get $12,500. That was over three times the salary of most of them. Joe Jackson was one of the best players in all of baseball. Eddie Cicotte and Lefty Williams were front of the line starting pitchers. It was a plan that could possibly work, and because the payoff was so high, the men accepted the offer. Why did they accept the offer? The answer is simple. Money. As I stated before, most things in this world come down to money. That is why people who do not agree with this Supreme Court ruling will argue against it. Players could possibly be baited into throwing games because of big payoffs. However, thanks to our obsession with sports, and our undying need to consume them, in my opinion the money is not enough now.
The only reason the Black Sox were willing to throw the World Series is because as a group, they were willing to take the risk because they believed they were not being compensated for their abilities on the field. It would not have worked if the lowest paid members of the team were paid off. Surely, guys that sat on the bench for the 1919 White Sox must have felt like they were not making the money they thought they deserved. However, the throwing of the series only worked (and in reality, it did not actually work in the long run) because the best players on the team were involved. In order for gamblers to truly cause something like that to happen again, the money would simply not be enough.
Kevin Durant makes $26 million per year. LeBron James makes just under $31 million per year. James Harden makes $28 million. Is it possible to buy those guys off? Maybe. Realistically though, the answer is absolutely not. Joe Jackson was paid three times his salary to throw the World Series. That means that in order to tempt Kevin Durant to throw the NBA Finals, the cost would be $78 million. And that still does not account for his teammates that are also making millions of dollars. The benefit is not even close to what the cost is. I don't care what year it is, and what kind of numbers you can present to me that involve inflation or anything else like that. There is no way that the premier players of all professional sports can be bought off in 2018. They simply make too much money. Could you possibly pay the 12th man on the bench of the Warriors to do their best to throw a game? It's possible, but unlikely. Could you possibly pay a back end of the rotation starting pitcher to throw a game in the World Series? Once again, it's possible but not probable. And even if that did happen, those guys just simply are not important enough to have an impact on the outcome of something that could be worth a payoff big enough to be worth the risk to gamblers.
Despite a whole lot of history and rambling here, my point is simple. Sports can still be susceptible to the vices of gambling. However, I think we have reached a point where the money simply does not make it possible to have any real impact. A $12 beer at AT&T Park might be excessive, but if gambling windows were situated right next to those beer stands, I could guarantee that there would be a longer line there than at the concession stand. With the possibility of professional leagues now being able to reap the rewards of yet another vice of its patrons, my only question is why it took this long for such a thing to happen. Within the next decade, I think we will see enormous profits for all sports leagues in this country thanks alone to gambling. How confident am I that such a thing will happen? Tell me the odds as of today, and I will bet a whole lot of money that my payoff will be twice as large in half as many years.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Coming off a tough series against the Nationals, Arizona will open a series at home tonight against a Milwaukee Brewers team that has been pretty good through the first month of the season. Patrick Corbin will take the mound, and hopefully he can continue what has been a magnificent start to the season for him.
Daily Giants Update: In a bit of a surprise, the Giants cut offensive lineman Adam Bisnowaty today. I thought he would get a shot to compete for a starting job on the offensive line, so it was unexpected to see him gone before training camp even started. He wasn't anything special last year, but he still seemed worthy of a look for the upcoming season. I'm not there at the facility watching him every day though, so if he is gone, then I'm sure the team found it justified.
Daily NHL Update: The Washington Capitals finally climbed the mountain that is defeating the Pittsburgh Penguins in the playoffs, and now hold a 2-0 series lead on the Tampa Bay Lightning. If they have any chance of finally winning it all, it looks like this might be the year. Game 2 of the Western Conference Finals is tonight, as Winnipeg looks to take a commanding lead of the Golden Knights.
Daily NBA Update: The Celtics beat the Cavaliers last night to take a 1-0 lead in the Eastern Conference Finals. The Western Conference Finals begin in just over an hour, and with all due respect to the Celtics and Cavs, whoever comes out of the West will be a sure favorite to beat whoever comes out of the East and win it all.
Monday, May 14, 2018
Friday, February 9, 2018
The next LeBron James decision
The NBA trade deadline often times passes with only small moves being made, but yesterday's deadline was far different than that. There were a ton of moves made, and the team that was at the focus of many of those moves were the Cleveland Cavaliers. Cleveland has been to the NBA Finals in three consecutive years, winning the title one of those times. It was widely believed that they would return to the Finals again this year, but the team has not exactly met expectations thus far, as they are currently 7.5 games behind the Boston Celtics in the Eastern Conference.
While I was beginning to be somewhat skeptical of their chances to reach the NBA Finals, I still did believe that when the playoffs rolled around, they would legitimately be the betting favorite to win the East, despite what seemed like mounting uncertainty. However, I think that no matter who wins the East, that team will still ultimately fall to the Golden State Warriors in the Finals. The only question is how many games it will take the Warriors to win the series.
I have heard some people say that this revamped Cavs roster is improved and has a better chance to compete with Golden State, but in the end, in my opinion, Golden State is just too good. If anyone has a chance to beat them, it is the Houston Rockets, not the winner of the Eastern Conference. So that brings into question this upcoming offseason, and the possibility of the best player in the league, LeBron James, potentially being a free agent again.
When this happened the first time, a whole lot of teams thought they could possibly sign James, and it turned out that many of those potential suitors were delirious. This time around, I think there are going to be just as many teams that are kidding themselves thinking they have a shot at getting James.
To start, I do think that there is surely a possibility that James stays in Cleveland. It is his hometown team, and despite whatever sort of divide there may be between James and the owner of the Cavs, Dan Gilbert, it is a fact that Gilbert has been willing to pay a whole lot of money to players in order to support James. This is a note that can be discussed another time, but Gilbert has been ready to spend money at the drop of a hat for LeBron, and I think that is mostly overlooked.
Following the trades made yesterday, so many people want to point to the Lakers as a leading candidate in being the destination for LeBron. They cleared a ton of cap space, Magic Johnson is in charge, and James has a home in Los Angeles. LeBron James is worth almost $90 million. People with that much money have the ability to own houses in multiple places. And if you could own a second home, Los Angeles would surely be a good place for it to be. I am sure plenty of rich people own second homes in Los Angeles, so I don't know why talking heads think that matters.
Another potential suitor I have heard mentioned is the Philadelphia 76ers. With all of the young talent they have on the roster, LeBron would surely want to join that team. Is that reality though, or is that just wishful thinking?
Is the potential in Philadelphia for success there already? Yes, it is. However, are there any sort of recent results to suggest that success will occur? No. Does Magic Johnson being in control of the Lakers help their case? Yes, it does. But is it going to be the deciding factor? In my opinion, the answer to that question is absolutely not. And I will present my case for that right now, with a little help from the career of Magic Johnson.
In no particular order here, I think that when any basketball fan talks about the best players to ever play the game, they would include the following men: Kobe Bryant, Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Bill Russell, Shaquille O'Neal, Larry Bird, and Michael Jordan. Not only were all of those men some of the best to ever play, but they all won multiple championships as well. If you look a little closer though, we can find a serious connection between all of those guys and LeBron James.
The last time Kobe Bryant won a championship, he was 32 years old. The last time Chamberlain won, he was 36. The last time Larry Bird won he was 30. At the time of their last championships, Russell was 35. O'Neal was 34. Jordan was 35. What really shocked me was when I looked at how old Magic Johnson was when he won his final championship. He was only 29! Magic Johnson is one of the greatest basketball players to ever play the game, but after he turned 30, he never won another title.
If you take all of those men and their ages at the time of their last title, the average age is 33. Two months ago, LeBron James celebrated his 33rd birthday. For that reason, I think you need to throw the 76ers and the Lakers out of the equation when it comes to trying to decide the next destination for James if he does end up leaving Cleveland.
The "process" is underway in Philadelphia, and they are a borderline playoff team this year. Ben Simmons seems like he will be a very good NBA player. Joel Embiid has been very good when he is on the court, but he has never played more than 50 games as a pro. Markelle Fultz was drafted first overall and has yet to play a game in the NBA. Is there potential for success in Philadelphia? Certainly. However, is there any sort of proof that they can win right now? Absolutely not. So, at this point in his career, why would James want to play with a team full of uncertainties? I highly doubt that he would.
When it comes to the Lakers, I have legitimate reason to be even more skeptical. Who is the best player on the Lakers right now? Brandon Ingram? Kyle Kuzma? Lonzo Ball? I hate to break it to LA fans, but those are not names that I would consider championship caliber. LeBron might own a house near the Staples Center, but in no way does that mean he is going to be playing there any time soon.
Even though I know that LeBron James will never read this, I don't care. Here is my advice to him. If you do not want to re-sign with Cleveland, there is one place you should go where you will have the best chance to win another title. That place is San Antonio.
It has been proven over the past decade that one superstar cannot win a title by himself. You need at least two superstars to win it all. The San Antonio Spurs already have that in place. Kawhi Leonard is in the prime of his career. He has already won one title, and is ready to win another. Gregg Popovich is arguably one of the best coaches in the history of the game. He is the master of taking heat off his players and shutting down the media. LeBron James would be perfect on a Popovich team.
Were James to go to the Spurs, they would have two legitimate superstar players, and they would have a legitimate chance to compete for an NBA title. Do James and Leonard play similar positions? Yes, they do. However, players that good can figure out roles for one another, especially when they are being coached by an all-time great.
As I said before, if LeBron James wants to be considered one of the best players in the history of the game, the window on the prime of his career is closing right now. Kobe Bryant, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird never won a title after they turned 33, and James is already there. He should not go to a team like the 76ers or the Lakers and bank on a bunch of unproven and "potential" guys. He needs to go to a team that is in a position to win right now. Maybe Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram will hit their peaks a few years from now. When that time comes though, LeBron James will have already passed his peak.
If James is really about winning championships, then I think the best way he can do that is to sign with the San Antonio Spurs. They are already a very good team, and while they may not be able to beat the Warriors as of now, they may just be a LeBron James away from being the best team in the NBA. Not five years from now, but right now. And if I were James, I would not be focused on trying to win a title five years from now, I would be focused on winning a title right now.
Daily Rangers Update: The organization wrote a letter to the fans about how much they cared for the team while at the same time saying they might plan for the future and some of the biggest names on the roster might have to be traded for that to happen. At this point, I am just hoping I can identify whoever is out on the ice for the team for the remainder of the season.
Daily NBA Update: As I just mentioned, the trade deadline was crazy yesterday. However, despite that, the Warriors are still better than everyone else.
Daily Giants Update: Nothing too much new here. I am starting to like the thought of picking Saquon Barkley second overall because he is so talented, but I still think that the team has to take a quarterback here, because picking second overall does not happen very often, and you need to take advantage of it when it does happen.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: As the date for pitchers and catchers reporting is now a week away, this crazy offseason continues and J.D. Martinez still remains unsigned. It seems like he is souring on the offers from Boston, and I think the possibility of him returning to Arizona gets greater and greater by the day.
This will be a subject for another day, but the fact that there is a possibility of a spring training for in-signed free agents is something I have never heard of. I can get into the details of it all at another time, but for right now, maybe we can get the man who helped slug us into the playoffs last season.
While I was beginning to be somewhat skeptical of their chances to reach the NBA Finals, I still did believe that when the playoffs rolled around, they would legitimately be the betting favorite to win the East, despite what seemed like mounting uncertainty. However, I think that no matter who wins the East, that team will still ultimately fall to the Golden State Warriors in the Finals. The only question is how many games it will take the Warriors to win the series.
I have heard some people say that this revamped Cavs roster is improved and has a better chance to compete with Golden State, but in the end, in my opinion, Golden State is just too good. If anyone has a chance to beat them, it is the Houston Rockets, not the winner of the Eastern Conference. So that brings into question this upcoming offseason, and the possibility of the best player in the league, LeBron James, potentially being a free agent again.
When this happened the first time, a whole lot of teams thought they could possibly sign James, and it turned out that many of those potential suitors were delirious. This time around, I think there are going to be just as many teams that are kidding themselves thinking they have a shot at getting James.
To start, I do think that there is surely a possibility that James stays in Cleveland. It is his hometown team, and despite whatever sort of divide there may be between James and the owner of the Cavs, Dan Gilbert, it is a fact that Gilbert has been willing to pay a whole lot of money to players in order to support James. This is a note that can be discussed another time, but Gilbert has been ready to spend money at the drop of a hat for LeBron, and I think that is mostly overlooked.
Following the trades made yesterday, so many people want to point to the Lakers as a leading candidate in being the destination for LeBron. They cleared a ton of cap space, Magic Johnson is in charge, and James has a home in Los Angeles. LeBron James is worth almost $90 million. People with that much money have the ability to own houses in multiple places. And if you could own a second home, Los Angeles would surely be a good place for it to be. I am sure plenty of rich people own second homes in Los Angeles, so I don't know why talking heads think that matters.
Another potential suitor I have heard mentioned is the Philadelphia 76ers. With all of the young talent they have on the roster, LeBron would surely want to join that team. Is that reality though, or is that just wishful thinking?
Is the potential in Philadelphia for success there already? Yes, it is. However, are there any sort of recent results to suggest that success will occur? No. Does Magic Johnson being in control of the Lakers help their case? Yes, it does. But is it going to be the deciding factor? In my opinion, the answer to that question is absolutely not. And I will present my case for that right now, with a little help from the career of Magic Johnson.
In no particular order here, I think that when any basketball fan talks about the best players to ever play the game, they would include the following men: Kobe Bryant, Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Bill Russell, Shaquille O'Neal, Larry Bird, and Michael Jordan. Not only were all of those men some of the best to ever play, but they all won multiple championships as well. If you look a little closer though, we can find a serious connection between all of those guys and LeBron James.
The last time Kobe Bryant won a championship, he was 32 years old. The last time Chamberlain won, he was 36. The last time Larry Bird won he was 30. At the time of their last championships, Russell was 35. O'Neal was 34. Jordan was 35. What really shocked me was when I looked at how old Magic Johnson was when he won his final championship. He was only 29! Magic Johnson is one of the greatest basketball players to ever play the game, but after he turned 30, he never won another title.
If you take all of those men and their ages at the time of their last title, the average age is 33. Two months ago, LeBron James celebrated his 33rd birthday. For that reason, I think you need to throw the 76ers and the Lakers out of the equation when it comes to trying to decide the next destination for James if he does end up leaving Cleveland.
The "process" is underway in Philadelphia, and they are a borderline playoff team this year. Ben Simmons seems like he will be a very good NBA player. Joel Embiid has been very good when he is on the court, but he has never played more than 50 games as a pro. Markelle Fultz was drafted first overall and has yet to play a game in the NBA. Is there potential for success in Philadelphia? Certainly. However, is there any sort of proof that they can win right now? Absolutely not. So, at this point in his career, why would James want to play with a team full of uncertainties? I highly doubt that he would.
When it comes to the Lakers, I have legitimate reason to be even more skeptical. Who is the best player on the Lakers right now? Brandon Ingram? Kyle Kuzma? Lonzo Ball? I hate to break it to LA fans, but those are not names that I would consider championship caliber. LeBron might own a house near the Staples Center, but in no way does that mean he is going to be playing there any time soon.
Even though I know that LeBron James will never read this, I don't care. Here is my advice to him. If you do not want to re-sign with Cleveland, there is one place you should go where you will have the best chance to win another title. That place is San Antonio.
It has been proven over the past decade that one superstar cannot win a title by himself. You need at least two superstars to win it all. The San Antonio Spurs already have that in place. Kawhi Leonard is in the prime of his career. He has already won one title, and is ready to win another. Gregg Popovich is arguably one of the best coaches in the history of the game. He is the master of taking heat off his players and shutting down the media. LeBron James would be perfect on a Popovich team.
Were James to go to the Spurs, they would have two legitimate superstar players, and they would have a legitimate chance to compete for an NBA title. Do James and Leonard play similar positions? Yes, they do. However, players that good can figure out roles for one another, especially when they are being coached by an all-time great.
As I said before, if LeBron James wants to be considered one of the best players in the history of the game, the window on the prime of his career is closing right now. Kobe Bryant, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird never won a title after they turned 33, and James is already there. He should not go to a team like the 76ers or the Lakers and bank on a bunch of unproven and "potential" guys. He needs to go to a team that is in a position to win right now. Maybe Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram will hit their peaks a few years from now. When that time comes though, LeBron James will have already passed his peak.
If James is really about winning championships, then I think the best way he can do that is to sign with the San Antonio Spurs. They are already a very good team, and while they may not be able to beat the Warriors as of now, they may just be a LeBron James away from being the best team in the NBA. Not five years from now, but right now. And if I were James, I would not be focused on trying to win a title five years from now, I would be focused on winning a title right now.
Daily Rangers Update: The organization wrote a letter to the fans about how much they cared for the team while at the same time saying they might plan for the future and some of the biggest names on the roster might have to be traded for that to happen. At this point, I am just hoping I can identify whoever is out on the ice for the team for the remainder of the season.
Daily NBA Update: As I just mentioned, the trade deadline was crazy yesterday. However, despite that, the Warriors are still better than everyone else.
Daily Giants Update: Nothing too much new here. I am starting to like the thought of picking Saquon Barkley second overall because he is so talented, but I still think that the team has to take a quarterback here, because picking second overall does not happen very often, and you need to take advantage of it when it does happen.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: As the date for pitchers and catchers reporting is now a week away, this crazy offseason continues and J.D. Martinez still remains unsigned. It seems like he is souring on the offers from Boston, and I think the possibility of him returning to Arizona gets greater and greater by the day.
This will be a subject for another day, but the fact that there is a possibility of a spring training for in-signed free agents is something I have never heard of. I can get into the details of it all at another time, but for right now, maybe we can get the man who helped slug us into the playoffs last season.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
When common sense is more important than the tradition of the game
It was announced yesterday that starting on Opening Day of this season, all Major League Baseball teams will be required to have protective netting at least to the far end of each dugout in order to protect fans from foul balls and/or bats that may be launched into the stands during games. In my opinion, this is something that is long overdue.
Going to see a baseball game is an experience that every fan should be able to enjoy. I still remember the first baseball game I ever witnessed in person at Shea Stadium many years ago. Walking up the stairs and into your seating section for the first time gives you an unbelievable feeling. Seeing the freshly trimmed grass and the carefully maintained infield gives young fans a feeling of awe and amazement. No matter how many games a young kid might watch on television, it in no way comes close to the feeling of seeing a game in person for the first time. Hearing the crack of the bat and the snapping of a catcher's mitt is unlike anything else when you are there for the first time. No matter where your seats are, it is something you will never forget. Being able to witness a game from only a few rows back is even better, and is an even more unforgettable experience. However, with that up close and personal experience comes some dangers that now it seems the league is finally stepping up and trying to legitimately prevent.
Forgive me for not remembering who said this, but I do recall a third base coach in recent years saying that he was more concerned with the safety of fans when it comes to hard hit foul balls than his own safety, despite the fact that he is much closer to the action than any fans are. Coaches and players alike, while on the field, are totally focused on the game. Since that is the case, there are constantly aware of what is going on, and in most cases able to escape any danger caused by line drives outside the field of play. The same cannot be said for all fans though. Once again, I apologize for not remembering who said this, but he said that he would look into the stands and see so many people not completely focused on the game that he feared far more for their safety. Whether it was people with their heads buried in their phones, or younger fans just simply with an attention span not long enough to be aware during every pitch, there are many people in the stands who are very vulnerable when it comes to errant foul balls.
Although it does not happen often, there have been some cases of fans being seriously injured by balls or bats flying into the stands. The most recent example was a young girl hit by a scorching line drive just last season. Even if fans are focused on the game, it is sometimes hard to react in time to avoid balls that can be hit at speeds of over 100 miles per hour. For that reason, I am glad that the league is mandating that all teams be required to have protective netting that extends to the far ends of both dugouts. Opponents of this idea will say that it takes away the ability to have the thrill of catching a foul ball, but I think the positives of doing this far outweigh the negatives. If one had to choose between catching a foul ball or trying to avoid a line drive hit directly at them while they may or may not be paying attention, I think any sensible person would choose the safety that the nets will now provide.
Could having front row seats at a baseball game be the thrill of a lifetime? Yes, it could be. The proximity to the players and the field is understandably exhilarating. Being able to sit that close to the field and maybe even getting the autograph of your favorite player makes the price of admission absolutely worth it. But despite that, I still cannot understand how anyone would be against this happening.
The NFL has netting that they lift up behind the goal posts any time a field goal or extra point is being attempted. When neither of those are happening, the netting is taken down, and I think if baseball could institute something like that, it would be good for everyone. That way, prior to any game, fans would still be able to experience the intimacy of being so close to their favorite players. At the same time, once the game started, they would also be protected from possibly fatal occurrences. In this age where so many people have attention spans that are seemingly infinitesimal, everyone would benefit from protective netting, and I applaud Major League Baseball for making sure that this happens in all 30 parks throughout the league.
The fan experience at a baseball game should provide many things. Entertainment and excitement are two of the most important things it should provide, but the safety of the fans should supersede everything else. Traditionalists might argue that this change is not for the better, but after a short period of time, this is something that everyone will get used to, and in the not too distant future, it will be accepted and be considered both normal and necessary. There are many things in this world that exist now but may not have initially been met with complete approval. However, many of those things are now accepted as normal, and I think this change will surely be one of those things. Soon people will stop complaining about netting causing a view that will hardly be obstructed and while it might not protect every fan during every game, I am sure that it will prevent that obscure case of a foul ball causing serious injury to a fan.
As I said before, going to a game is an experience like no other, especially if you are there for the first time. All fans should be able to be guaranteed that the experience is not only fun, but also totally safe, and I think the institution of this rule by Major League Baseball will assure that happens for every fan in the ballpark.
Daily Rangers Update: A disappointing shutout loss at home to Toronto tonight dropped the Rangers out of a playoff spot, but there are still a lot of games left to play. At this point though, my expectations are not very high for the team, even if they do make the playoffs.
Daily NBA Update: James Harden had yet another big night as the Rockets went into San Antonio and got an impressive win against a very good Spurs team. If anyone can knock off the Warriors, I think Houston might be that team.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Alex Avila was signed with an invitation to spring training yesterday, and if nothing else he will at least provide depth at catcher, which was one of the weaker parts of the team last year. It will also be very interesting to see who wins the closer job going into the season, as I think the spot is fully up for grabs with a whole lot of potential candidates to do the job.
Daily Giants Update: Nothing too much to update here, as it is pretty much just a countdown to the draft for the team now. I did see an interview with Sam Darnold this morning, and I was impressed with how he answered the questions that were posed to him. I'm not sure if he will end up being the best quarterback in this draft class, but I initially liked Josh Rosen the best. With the second overall selection, the Giants will definitely have a shot at getting at least one of those guys, and maybe be able to choose between both of them. I expect the new front office to make the right choice, and I could see why they might be impressed by either of those kids.
Going to see a baseball game is an experience that every fan should be able to enjoy. I still remember the first baseball game I ever witnessed in person at Shea Stadium many years ago. Walking up the stairs and into your seating section for the first time gives you an unbelievable feeling. Seeing the freshly trimmed grass and the carefully maintained infield gives young fans a feeling of awe and amazement. No matter how many games a young kid might watch on television, it in no way comes close to the feeling of seeing a game in person for the first time. Hearing the crack of the bat and the snapping of a catcher's mitt is unlike anything else when you are there for the first time. No matter where your seats are, it is something you will never forget. Being able to witness a game from only a few rows back is even better, and is an even more unforgettable experience. However, with that up close and personal experience comes some dangers that now it seems the league is finally stepping up and trying to legitimately prevent.
Forgive me for not remembering who said this, but I do recall a third base coach in recent years saying that he was more concerned with the safety of fans when it comes to hard hit foul balls than his own safety, despite the fact that he is much closer to the action than any fans are. Coaches and players alike, while on the field, are totally focused on the game. Since that is the case, there are constantly aware of what is going on, and in most cases able to escape any danger caused by line drives outside the field of play. The same cannot be said for all fans though. Once again, I apologize for not remembering who said this, but he said that he would look into the stands and see so many people not completely focused on the game that he feared far more for their safety. Whether it was people with their heads buried in their phones, or younger fans just simply with an attention span not long enough to be aware during every pitch, there are many people in the stands who are very vulnerable when it comes to errant foul balls.
Although it does not happen often, there have been some cases of fans being seriously injured by balls or bats flying into the stands. The most recent example was a young girl hit by a scorching line drive just last season. Even if fans are focused on the game, it is sometimes hard to react in time to avoid balls that can be hit at speeds of over 100 miles per hour. For that reason, I am glad that the league is mandating that all teams be required to have protective netting that extends to the far ends of both dugouts. Opponents of this idea will say that it takes away the ability to have the thrill of catching a foul ball, but I think the positives of doing this far outweigh the negatives. If one had to choose between catching a foul ball or trying to avoid a line drive hit directly at them while they may or may not be paying attention, I think any sensible person would choose the safety that the nets will now provide.
Could having front row seats at a baseball game be the thrill of a lifetime? Yes, it could be. The proximity to the players and the field is understandably exhilarating. Being able to sit that close to the field and maybe even getting the autograph of your favorite player makes the price of admission absolutely worth it. But despite that, I still cannot understand how anyone would be against this happening.
The NFL has netting that they lift up behind the goal posts any time a field goal or extra point is being attempted. When neither of those are happening, the netting is taken down, and I think if baseball could institute something like that, it would be good for everyone. That way, prior to any game, fans would still be able to experience the intimacy of being so close to their favorite players. At the same time, once the game started, they would also be protected from possibly fatal occurrences. In this age where so many people have attention spans that are seemingly infinitesimal, everyone would benefit from protective netting, and I applaud Major League Baseball for making sure that this happens in all 30 parks throughout the league.
The fan experience at a baseball game should provide many things. Entertainment and excitement are two of the most important things it should provide, but the safety of the fans should supersede everything else. Traditionalists might argue that this change is not for the better, but after a short period of time, this is something that everyone will get used to, and in the not too distant future, it will be accepted and be considered both normal and necessary. There are many things in this world that exist now but may not have initially been met with complete approval. However, many of those things are now accepted as normal, and I think this change will surely be one of those things. Soon people will stop complaining about netting causing a view that will hardly be obstructed and while it might not protect every fan during every game, I am sure that it will prevent that obscure case of a foul ball causing serious injury to a fan.
As I said before, going to a game is an experience like no other, especially if you are there for the first time. All fans should be able to be guaranteed that the experience is not only fun, but also totally safe, and I think the institution of this rule by Major League Baseball will assure that happens for every fan in the ballpark.
Daily Rangers Update: A disappointing shutout loss at home to Toronto tonight dropped the Rangers out of a playoff spot, but there are still a lot of games left to play. At this point though, my expectations are not very high for the team, even if they do make the playoffs.
Daily NBA Update: James Harden had yet another big night as the Rockets went into San Antonio and got an impressive win against a very good Spurs team. If anyone can knock off the Warriors, I think Houston might be that team.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Alex Avila was signed with an invitation to spring training yesterday, and if nothing else he will at least provide depth at catcher, which was one of the weaker parts of the team last year. It will also be very interesting to see who wins the closer job going into the season, as I think the spot is fully up for grabs with a whole lot of potential candidates to do the job.
Daily Giants Update: Nothing too much to update here, as it is pretty much just a countdown to the draft for the team now. I did see an interview with Sam Darnold this morning, and I was impressed with how he answered the questions that were posed to him. I'm not sure if he will end up being the best quarterback in this draft class, but I initially liked Josh Rosen the best. With the second overall selection, the Giants will definitely have a shot at getting at least one of those guys, and maybe be able to choose between both of them. I expect the new front office to make the right choice, and I could see why they might be impressed by either of those kids.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Why $4.76 billion is not worth it
The climax of the NFL season is now less than a week away, and with parties being planned, game plans being drawn up, and performances being rehearsed, there is also a whole lot of bets being thrown down. According to reports, almost $5 billion will be wagered on the Super Bowl this Sunday. You can bet on simple things like which team will win the game, or you can bet on things like how long it will take Pink to sing the national anthem and what color ties Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth will be wearing.
Therefore, it seems that during this time of year the conversation always arises about whether or not the NFL, and all professional leagues, should begin to take steps to legalize gambling. Of that close to $5 billion being wagered, over 95% of it will be wagered illegally. That means that in a league like the NFL where, like pretty much every other business, money is the first priority, there is a whole lot of money to be had if gambling on the game were legalized. The NBA even recently took more steps in the direction of legalizing gambling on its product, and commissioner Adam Silver has said that he would be interested in eventually making it legal to bet on NBA games, so long as the league gets some percentage of the money that is wagered. It seems to me like Silver is praised for this stance more often than he is criticized, and with each passing day, it seems like legalized NBA gambling might actually one day happen. In a league that is already being infused with a ton of money, this would boost profits exponentially, and maybe it will happen. However, I am here to say that while it is probably tough to find fault with the stance of Silver and the NBA, this is entering territory that is full of slippery slopes.
Even though it is not officially decreed as one, Super Bowl Sunday is pretty much a national holiday in this country. Not only is it popular here, but the game will be watched throughout the entire world. Because of that attention, it seems like legalizing gambling so long as the NFL were able to take a portion of that money would make sense. Although that might make sense financially, as an ardent fan of the sport, I do not think it would make sense in my eyes. The stakes are too high, and the chance of manipulation is too much for me to ignore. I don't care how much money the players are making. Everyone in this world has a price, whether they want to admit it or not.
The most famous sports scandal of all is, in the eyes of most, the throwing of the 1919 World Series by multiple members of the Chicago White Sox team. The names of guys like Eddie Cicotte and Joe Jackson and Chick Gandil will forever be associated with being bought off to lose the 1919 World Series. Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame, but because of his role in that scandal, he never will be. "The integrity of the game" is a phrase thrown around in many different circumstances, but what those guys did in 1919 was ignore the integrity of the game. They laid down and threw games because they were enticed by gamblers and their money. That is why I believe that any professional sports league that legalizes gambling is opening itself up to all kinds of possibilities just like those of 1919.
I know what opponents of my theory will say. The salaries paid to those players in 1919 were nothing compared to what they would be making by throwing games today. Is that true? Yes. Does it make me somewhat understand why they chose to do so in 1919? Yes. However, times have changed. Athletes now make a lot more money than they did a century ago. One thing I do know though, is that people with a lot of money usually are mainly focused on one thing; making even more money. Like I said before, everyone in this world has a price. I don't care if you are the highest paid player on the team or the last man on the roster. And that does not even take into account the possibility of people not playing in these games and their effect on the outcome. If anyone should know that, it is the NBA.
Players surely have the biggest outcome on games being played, but they are not the only people who do impact those outcomes. Tim Donaghy was an NBA official for over a decade. In 2007, he resigned from the league because of allegations that he had bet on games and officiated in such a way that affected the outcomes of the games he worked. Following his resignation, he pleaded guilty in court to multiple federal charges and served time in prison because of what he did.
The salary of NFL referees is between about $25,000 and $70,000. Let's cut that down the middle and say that refs get paid about $50,000 per year. Practice squad players in the league, who are basically what would be defined as the "worst" players in the league, make about $7,200 each week that they are on a roster. If they stay with a team and never get into a game all season, that equals over $115,000. That means that the players on the back end of any roster are making almost $50,000 more than even the highest paid officials. So that begs the question, why are there not Tim Donaghys in every professional sports league? Is it because they have not been found guilty, or is it because the money they could potentially make is not large enough yet? I think it is the latter.
It does not stop with officials though. Rob Gronkowski suffered a hit to the head in the AFC Championship game and has been in the league's concussion protocol since then. Gronkowski is one of the best players in the game. When asked about whether or not he would be playing this Sunday (we all expect that he will), he said that is what not his decision or the decision of the coaches, it was a matter that was to be decided by the doctors. So what that means is that one doctor out there somewhere in the country supposedly has the status of Gronkowski sitting in the palm of their hands. If that doctor did not allow Gronkowski to play this Sunday, it would have enormous ramifications on the outcome of the game. Is whoever that doctor is most likely paid well? Yes, I would believe so. However, is that person paid well enough to where they never need to work another day in their life? No, I guarantee that they are not. So what would prevent that doctor from placing a bet against New England and then ruling Gronkowski out for the game this Sunday if gambling on the NFL were legalized? Nothing would prevent it.
I know that some of these ideas might be outlandish, but when there is large amounts of money involved, nothing is outlandish. I love sports because it is the ultimate reality show. Reality shows don't air on MTV or VH1 or any of those other stupid channels airing those stupid shows. Sports is the ultimate reality show, because literally anything is possible. I do not want that to be changed. Although legalizing betting may not immediately lead to that change taking place, I do think that it could at least plant the seeds for it taking place some day. For that reason, I dearly hope that, despite what could be huge profits, these leagues at least can put aside thoughts of their bank accounts for just a few seconds and realize that what they are giving the fans is beautiful, and we don't want our reality television to come in the form of a bunch of drunk people fighting in some house in front of television cameras and edited for hours and hours before being shown to the world. We want our reality television to happen in real time, and that is what we get with sports.
Daily Rangers Update: The team currently sits ninth in the Eastern Conference, but with still many games to play. Everyone will be rested following the All Star break, and next up for the Rangers is the Toronto Maple Leafs tomorrow night.
Daily NBA Update: James Harden went absolutely berserk last night, recording the first 60 point triple-double in the history of the league. In a league that has existed for decades and featured stat sheet stuffers like Wilt Chamberlain, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James, what Harden did last night is really spectacular.
Daily Giants Update: Nothing much new to report here, but once the season officially ends this Sunday night, all eyes will be focused on the draft, and now that the Giants have a front office and a coaching staff in place, I assume that they will be well prepared going into draft night on April 26th.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: This does not really affect Arizona, as I think our team is pretty much set to go into Spring Training, but there are still multiple free agents who have yet to sign with new teams, and we are now only a few weeks away from pitchers and catchers reporting. J.D. Martinez is still out there and available, but I never expected him back with the Diamondbacks to begin with, and despite him still being available, I still do not expect the team to pay him the exorbitant amount of money that I assume he is asking for. In any case, I like the roster going into camp, and I am excited going into 2018.
Therefore, it seems that during this time of year the conversation always arises about whether or not the NFL, and all professional leagues, should begin to take steps to legalize gambling. Of that close to $5 billion being wagered, over 95% of it will be wagered illegally. That means that in a league like the NFL where, like pretty much every other business, money is the first priority, there is a whole lot of money to be had if gambling on the game were legalized. The NBA even recently took more steps in the direction of legalizing gambling on its product, and commissioner Adam Silver has said that he would be interested in eventually making it legal to bet on NBA games, so long as the league gets some percentage of the money that is wagered. It seems to me like Silver is praised for this stance more often than he is criticized, and with each passing day, it seems like legalized NBA gambling might actually one day happen. In a league that is already being infused with a ton of money, this would boost profits exponentially, and maybe it will happen. However, I am here to say that while it is probably tough to find fault with the stance of Silver and the NBA, this is entering territory that is full of slippery slopes.
Even though it is not officially decreed as one, Super Bowl Sunday is pretty much a national holiday in this country. Not only is it popular here, but the game will be watched throughout the entire world. Because of that attention, it seems like legalizing gambling so long as the NFL were able to take a portion of that money would make sense. Although that might make sense financially, as an ardent fan of the sport, I do not think it would make sense in my eyes. The stakes are too high, and the chance of manipulation is too much for me to ignore. I don't care how much money the players are making. Everyone in this world has a price, whether they want to admit it or not.
The most famous sports scandal of all is, in the eyes of most, the throwing of the 1919 World Series by multiple members of the Chicago White Sox team. The names of guys like Eddie Cicotte and Joe Jackson and Chick Gandil will forever be associated with being bought off to lose the 1919 World Series. Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame, but because of his role in that scandal, he never will be. "The integrity of the game" is a phrase thrown around in many different circumstances, but what those guys did in 1919 was ignore the integrity of the game. They laid down and threw games because they were enticed by gamblers and their money. That is why I believe that any professional sports league that legalizes gambling is opening itself up to all kinds of possibilities just like those of 1919.
I know what opponents of my theory will say. The salaries paid to those players in 1919 were nothing compared to what they would be making by throwing games today. Is that true? Yes. Does it make me somewhat understand why they chose to do so in 1919? Yes. However, times have changed. Athletes now make a lot more money than they did a century ago. One thing I do know though, is that people with a lot of money usually are mainly focused on one thing; making even more money. Like I said before, everyone in this world has a price. I don't care if you are the highest paid player on the team or the last man on the roster. And that does not even take into account the possibility of people not playing in these games and their effect on the outcome. If anyone should know that, it is the NBA.
Players surely have the biggest outcome on games being played, but they are not the only people who do impact those outcomes. Tim Donaghy was an NBA official for over a decade. In 2007, he resigned from the league because of allegations that he had bet on games and officiated in such a way that affected the outcomes of the games he worked. Following his resignation, he pleaded guilty in court to multiple federal charges and served time in prison because of what he did.
The salary of NFL referees is between about $25,000 and $70,000. Let's cut that down the middle and say that refs get paid about $50,000 per year. Practice squad players in the league, who are basically what would be defined as the "worst" players in the league, make about $7,200 each week that they are on a roster. If they stay with a team and never get into a game all season, that equals over $115,000. That means that the players on the back end of any roster are making almost $50,000 more than even the highest paid officials. So that begs the question, why are there not Tim Donaghys in every professional sports league? Is it because they have not been found guilty, or is it because the money they could potentially make is not large enough yet? I think it is the latter.
It does not stop with officials though. Rob Gronkowski suffered a hit to the head in the AFC Championship game and has been in the league's concussion protocol since then. Gronkowski is one of the best players in the game. When asked about whether or not he would be playing this Sunday (we all expect that he will), he said that is what not his decision or the decision of the coaches, it was a matter that was to be decided by the doctors. So what that means is that one doctor out there somewhere in the country supposedly has the status of Gronkowski sitting in the palm of their hands. If that doctor did not allow Gronkowski to play this Sunday, it would have enormous ramifications on the outcome of the game. Is whoever that doctor is most likely paid well? Yes, I would believe so. However, is that person paid well enough to where they never need to work another day in their life? No, I guarantee that they are not. So what would prevent that doctor from placing a bet against New England and then ruling Gronkowski out for the game this Sunday if gambling on the NFL were legalized? Nothing would prevent it.
I know that some of these ideas might be outlandish, but when there is large amounts of money involved, nothing is outlandish. I love sports because it is the ultimate reality show. Reality shows don't air on MTV or VH1 or any of those other stupid channels airing those stupid shows. Sports is the ultimate reality show, because literally anything is possible. I do not want that to be changed. Although legalizing betting may not immediately lead to that change taking place, I do think that it could at least plant the seeds for it taking place some day. For that reason, I dearly hope that, despite what could be huge profits, these leagues at least can put aside thoughts of their bank accounts for just a few seconds and realize that what they are giving the fans is beautiful, and we don't want our reality television to come in the form of a bunch of drunk people fighting in some house in front of television cameras and edited for hours and hours before being shown to the world. We want our reality television to happen in real time, and that is what we get with sports.
Daily Rangers Update: The team currently sits ninth in the Eastern Conference, but with still many games to play. Everyone will be rested following the All Star break, and next up for the Rangers is the Toronto Maple Leafs tomorrow night.
Daily NBA Update: James Harden went absolutely berserk last night, recording the first 60 point triple-double in the history of the league. In a league that has existed for decades and featured stat sheet stuffers like Wilt Chamberlain, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James, what Harden did last night is really spectacular.
Daily Giants Update: Nothing much new to report here, but once the season officially ends this Sunday night, all eyes will be focused on the draft, and now that the Giants have a front office and a coaching staff in place, I assume that they will be well prepared going into draft night on April 26th.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: This does not really affect Arizona, as I think our team is pretty much set to go into Spring Training, but there are still multiple free agents who have yet to sign with new teams, and we are now only a few weeks away from pitchers and catchers reporting. J.D. Martinez is still out there and available, but I never expected him back with the Diamondbacks to begin with, and despite him still being available, I still do not expect the team to pay him the exorbitant amount of money that I assume he is asking for. In any case, I like the roster going into camp, and I am excited going into 2018.
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
The Hall of Fame debate
The 2018 Major League Baseball Hall of Fame class was announced today, and with that, I think it would be a good time to express my thoughts on who is in the Hall, who is not in, and what I think about the most talked about members and non-members.
The elections of Chipper Jones, Vladimir Guerrero, Trevor Hoffman, and Jim Thome were announced today, and Alan Trammell and Jack Morris will also be inducted this summer. Jones received the highest percentage of votes out of all of those men, with 97.2% of voters listing him on their ballots. Are all six of these men deserving of election? Certainly, they are. However, as has been the case for multiple years now, the bigger story was who was still not elected.
Roger Clemens received votes on 57.3% of ballots, and Barry Bonds received votes on 56.4% of ballots. In order to be elected into the Hall, a player must receive votes on at least 75% of all ballots. So while both of these men did garner a lot of votes, they are still seemingly quite far from gaining entrance into baseball's most hallowed museum. And I use the word museum quite literally there. It may not be the opinion of every baseball fan, but I believe that the Hall of Fame is a museum documenting the history of the sport. It is called the Hall of Fame for a reason. It isn't the Hall of Nice Guys or the Hall of Humanitarians. It is called the Hall of Fame because it represents the most famous people in the sport, and fame does not always come about through good will or good behavior.
If you look in the baseball record books, it is impossible to get very far without seeing the names of both Bonds and Clemens. One of the most sacred record in not only baseball, but all of sports, is the individual record for home runs in a career. If you are even a casual fan of the sport, you most likely know the career home run totals of Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. Aaron's 715th home run, breaking Ruth's record of 714, was one of the most memorable moments in the history of the sport. And then when Bonds hit his 756th home run, it was just as historic. Bonds' single season record of 73 home runs is also nearly as historic. His name is at the top of two of the most significant lists in all of sports.
Roger Clemens won 354 games in his career and struck out 4,672 batters along the way. That ranks him 9th and 3rd respectively in both of those categories. Out of the top 14 pitchers in career strikeouts, Clemens is the only one not currently a member of the Hall of Fame. There are 24 pitchers that have won at least 300 games in their career. Out of all of them, Clemens is the only one not in the Hall of Fame. The numbers of both Bonds and Clemens are not borderline Hall of Fame numbers. They are numbers that absolutely warrant election. However, since both of these men have the dark cloud of steroids hanging over their heads, they have yet to been granted entry in the Cooperstown museum.
Do steroids give players an unfair advantage over others who do not use steroids? The answer is almost certainly yes. Are the suspensions for steroid use now extremely harsh? Yes. However, those regulations did not exist when Bonds and Clemens played, and therefore it should not be held against them that they were using performance enhancers that have been deemed illegal after their careers ended. I know what the detractors will say. These men, as well as other steroid users, knew they were gaining an unfair advantage over their competition. And they probably did know that. But if it was not against the rules when they were playing, why should these guys be punished?
All you need to do is a little bit of research and you can find multiple examples of how this argument can be used against many players who currently are in the Hall of Fame. Ask baseball fans if they have ever heard of Charles "Old Hoss" Radbourn. If they have, then they most likely can tell you that he won 59 games during the 1884 season. And, you did not read that wrong. He won FIFTY-NINE games during the 1884 season. During his entire career, he won 309 games. But, the game of baseball was much different during Radbourn's career.
The current distance from the pitching rubber to home plate is 60 feet and 6 inches. A pitcher's foot must remain on the rubber from start to finish of any given pitch. So one would assume that any pitcher throwing from a distance other than that should not be compared to pitchers who threw from that distance. In the late 19th century when Radbourn played, the concept of a "pitching mound" did not exist. Instead, there was a "pitcher's box," somewhat similar to what we now call a batter's box. The box was much larger than a modern day pitching rubber, and its distance was 45 feet from home plate, a distance that is considerably less than the current day distance. Also, unlike modern day rules that state a pitcher's foot must be on the rubber at all times during any given pitch, players in the 19th century could throw from wherever they wanted as long as they were within that pitcher's box, which was considerably larger than a pitching rubber we use in the 21st century. So does that extra 15 feet give 19th century pitchers a clear advantage over 21st century pitchers? Without question it does. Should Radbourn be denied entry into the Hall of Fame because of that? Apparently not, because he has been a member since 1939.
Next up, we have Bob Gibson. Gibson is, in the eyes of many that watched him, arguably the greatest pitcher to ever play the game. Although he had many great seasons, his best was 1968, when won 22 games and had a historically great ERA of 1.12. In the 21st century, an ERA under 3.00 is considered great, but an ERA of 1.12? That is absolutely unbelievable. It is a record that will probably never be broken. Is Gibson a Hall of Famer? He most certainly is. But was the game different in 1968? Yes, it was.
In lieu of that pitcher's box I spoke of with Radbourn, later years brought about another change in pitching style. Pitchers found that they could throw pitches with more force while striding downhill, and eventually, what we know today as the pitcher's mound was formed. Originally, the height guidelines stated that mounds be no more than 15 feet high, but these rules were lightly enforced, and in some stadiums, mounds were higher than that. Throwing pitches from higher elevations gave pitchers a bigger advantage over hitters, and therefore these pitchers welcomed stadiums that were notorious for mounds of increased height. However, after Gibson's historic 1968 season, the league decided that, in an effort to lessen this advantage that pitchers had, they would set new regulations that would be enforced much more strictly. The pitching mound would be 10 inches high, and there were no more excuses for every mound at every stadium being that way. Was it a coincidence that these changes happened because of Gibson's historically low ERA? Some could say no, but it surely played at least some part in it happening. Does that sound familiar? Following a power outburst that brought about an era of unprecedented home run numbers, did the league make new rules? Yes, it did. Were Bonds and Clemens subject to these new rules? Yes, they were. However, since the rules were not in place while they were both setting records, those records still correctly remained.
There is still another example of how the game has changed though that I would like to use. In 1901, a rule was adopted by the league that foul balls counted as strikes. Up until that point, strikes were only called if a batter swung and missed, or a batter took a pitch that was judged to be in the strike zone. Therefore, striking batters out was much harder for pitchers to do than it is today, since foul balls were basically the equivalent of a do-over.
Giancarlo Stanton won the National League MVP award this past season. He struck out 163 times. Willie Keeler, a member of the Hall of Fame, played 19 seasons and struck out 136 times. That's right. The 2017 MVP struck out more times in one season than Keeler did in 19 seasons. The most times Keeler struck out in a single season was 13. Omitting seasons at both the beginning and ends of his career when he played limited amounts of games, Keeler had nine seasons in which he played at least 100 games and struck out less than 10 times. In the 21st century, it is not uncommon for a player to strike out 10 times within the course of one week. Did the rules back in the late 19th and early 20th century clearly favor Keeler and all other batters? They absolutely did. Is Keeler still a member of the Hall of Fame? He certainly is.
What I mean by telling you all of this is that the game of baseball, just like any sport and any part of life in general, evolves over time. The world of 2018 is far different from the world that was lived in over a decade ago, let alone a century ago, and that evolution should not affect the standing of guys like Bonds and Clemens. Did they do things that are now considered offensive and illegal in the baseball world? Yes, they did. But, were these things illegal when they were active players? No, they were not.
The Hall of Fame is a museum depicting the history of the sport of baseball. While there are all sorts of great baseball moments that are commemorated in Cooperstown, a true museum does not just focus on the positives. It focuses on the negatives as well, so long as those negatives were significant enough to be an integral part of history. There is no denying that the careers of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are integral pieces in the story of baseball. For that reason, they absolutely deserve induction into the Hall of Fame, and even though opinions may be very slowly changing and accepting of this idea, I doubt that these men will gain induction any time soon.
Ty Cobb, considered by many to be one of, if not the greatest player of all time was a member of the first ever Hall of Fame class. Cobb used to physically fight opponents, umpires, and sometimes even spectators. Cap Anson was a known and unapologetic racist. Orlando Cepeda served almost a year in prison for a drug conviction. Countless members of the Hall of Fame, including Babe Ruth, who has an entire room in the museum dedicated solely to him, were outright and unashamed alcoholics and carousers.
What I am trying to say is, Bonds and Clemens need to be in the Hall of Fame. They may not have been the nicest of friendliest men in the world, but the Hall of Fame is full of men just as, if not more so, angry and tempestuous. Will either of these guys eventually end up members of the Hall of Fame? Only time will tell. But one thing I can say without question is that if the story of the history of baseball is being told, it is not nearly complete without Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
Daily Giants Update: James Bettcher was named today as the new defensive coordinator, while Thomas McGaughey is the new special teams coach. I'm not too familiar with either of them, but I do know that Bettcher favors a 3-4 style of defense, and I am not a fan of playing defense that way. Olivier Vernon and Jason Pierre-Paul are studs as 4-3 defensive ends, and I would hate to see them standing up and playing as outside linebackers in a 3-4 system. Also, the Giants have not had any good inside linebackers in years, so shifting to a 3-4 would not only call for one good inside linebacker, but it would call for two. Bettcher has obviously not been in charge for very long, so hopefully he isn't stubborn in his methods, because I do not think that the Giants have the personnel in place to be able to effectively run a 3-4 defense.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: No new news here, but the countdown to pitchers and catchers reporting continues.
Daily Rangers Update: The last game for the Rangers ended in a 6-3 loss to the Anaheim Ducks. Next up is a game in San Jose against the Sharks. It will end a four-game west coast trip that has thus far yielded nothing but losses for the team.
Daily NBA Update: Dan Gilbert is reportedly interested in selling the Cleveland Cavaliers, and there are a whole bunch of interesting ways to look at this that I will probably try to write about if and when this sale actually takes place. On the court, Ben Simmons posted a monstrous triple-double this past night, and he seems like an obvious choice for rookie of the year.
The elections of Chipper Jones, Vladimir Guerrero, Trevor Hoffman, and Jim Thome were announced today, and Alan Trammell and Jack Morris will also be inducted this summer. Jones received the highest percentage of votes out of all of those men, with 97.2% of voters listing him on their ballots. Are all six of these men deserving of election? Certainly, they are. However, as has been the case for multiple years now, the bigger story was who was still not elected.
Roger Clemens received votes on 57.3% of ballots, and Barry Bonds received votes on 56.4% of ballots. In order to be elected into the Hall, a player must receive votes on at least 75% of all ballots. So while both of these men did garner a lot of votes, they are still seemingly quite far from gaining entrance into baseball's most hallowed museum. And I use the word museum quite literally there. It may not be the opinion of every baseball fan, but I believe that the Hall of Fame is a museum documenting the history of the sport. It is called the Hall of Fame for a reason. It isn't the Hall of Nice Guys or the Hall of Humanitarians. It is called the Hall of Fame because it represents the most famous people in the sport, and fame does not always come about through good will or good behavior.
If you look in the baseball record books, it is impossible to get very far without seeing the names of both Bonds and Clemens. One of the most sacred record in not only baseball, but all of sports, is the individual record for home runs in a career. If you are even a casual fan of the sport, you most likely know the career home run totals of Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. Aaron's 715th home run, breaking Ruth's record of 714, was one of the most memorable moments in the history of the sport. And then when Bonds hit his 756th home run, it was just as historic. Bonds' single season record of 73 home runs is also nearly as historic. His name is at the top of two of the most significant lists in all of sports.
Roger Clemens won 354 games in his career and struck out 4,672 batters along the way. That ranks him 9th and 3rd respectively in both of those categories. Out of the top 14 pitchers in career strikeouts, Clemens is the only one not currently a member of the Hall of Fame. There are 24 pitchers that have won at least 300 games in their career. Out of all of them, Clemens is the only one not in the Hall of Fame. The numbers of both Bonds and Clemens are not borderline Hall of Fame numbers. They are numbers that absolutely warrant election. However, since both of these men have the dark cloud of steroids hanging over their heads, they have yet to been granted entry in the Cooperstown museum.
Do steroids give players an unfair advantage over others who do not use steroids? The answer is almost certainly yes. Are the suspensions for steroid use now extremely harsh? Yes. However, those regulations did not exist when Bonds and Clemens played, and therefore it should not be held against them that they were using performance enhancers that have been deemed illegal after their careers ended. I know what the detractors will say. These men, as well as other steroid users, knew they were gaining an unfair advantage over their competition. And they probably did know that. But if it was not against the rules when they were playing, why should these guys be punished?
All you need to do is a little bit of research and you can find multiple examples of how this argument can be used against many players who currently are in the Hall of Fame. Ask baseball fans if they have ever heard of Charles "Old Hoss" Radbourn. If they have, then they most likely can tell you that he won 59 games during the 1884 season. And, you did not read that wrong. He won FIFTY-NINE games during the 1884 season. During his entire career, he won 309 games. But, the game of baseball was much different during Radbourn's career.
The current distance from the pitching rubber to home plate is 60 feet and 6 inches. A pitcher's foot must remain on the rubber from start to finish of any given pitch. So one would assume that any pitcher throwing from a distance other than that should not be compared to pitchers who threw from that distance. In the late 19th century when Radbourn played, the concept of a "pitching mound" did not exist. Instead, there was a "pitcher's box," somewhat similar to what we now call a batter's box. The box was much larger than a modern day pitching rubber, and its distance was 45 feet from home plate, a distance that is considerably less than the current day distance. Also, unlike modern day rules that state a pitcher's foot must be on the rubber at all times during any given pitch, players in the 19th century could throw from wherever they wanted as long as they were within that pitcher's box, which was considerably larger than a pitching rubber we use in the 21st century. So does that extra 15 feet give 19th century pitchers a clear advantage over 21st century pitchers? Without question it does. Should Radbourn be denied entry into the Hall of Fame because of that? Apparently not, because he has been a member since 1939.
Next up, we have Bob Gibson. Gibson is, in the eyes of many that watched him, arguably the greatest pitcher to ever play the game. Although he had many great seasons, his best was 1968, when won 22 games and had a historically great ERA of 1.12. In the 21st century, an ERA under 3.00 is considered great, but an ERA of 1.12? That is absolutely unbelievable. It is a record that will probably never be broken. Is Gibson a Hall of Famer? He most certainly is. But was the game different in 1968? Yes, it was.
In lieu of that pitcher's box I spoke of with Radbourn, later years brought about another change in pitching style. Pitchers found that they could throw pitches with more force while striding downhill, and eventually, what we know today as the pitcher's mound was formed. Originally, the height guidelines stated that mounds be no more than 15 feet high, but these rules were lightly enforced, and in some stadiums, mounds were higher than that. Throwing pitches from higher elevations gave pitchers a bigger advantage over hitters, and therefore these pitchers welcomed stadiums that were notorious for mounds of increased height. However, after Gibson's historic 1968 season, the league decided that, in an effort to lessen this advantage that pitchers had, they would set new regulations that would be enforced much more strictly. The pitching mound would be 10 inches high, and there were no more excuses for every mound at every stadium being that way. Was it a coincidence that these changes happened because of Gibson's historically low ERA? Some could say no, but it surely played at least some part in it happening. Does that sound familiar? Following a power outburst that brought about an era of unprecedented home run numbers, did the league make new rules? Yes, it did. Were Bonds and Clemens subject to these new rules? Yes, they were. However, since the rules were not in place while they were both setting records, those records still correctly remained.
There is still another example of how the game has changed though that I would like to use. In 1901, a rule was adopted by the league that foul balls counted as strikes. Up until that point, strikes were only called if a batter swung and missed, or a batter took a pitch that was judged to be in the strike zone. Therefore, striking batters out was much harder for pitchers to do than it is today, since foul balls were basically the equivalent of a do-over.
Giancarlo Stanton won the National League MVP award this past season. He struck out 163 times. Willie Keeler, a member of the Hall of Fame, played 19 seasons and struck out 136 times. That's right. The 2017 MVP struck out more times in one season than Keeler did in 19 seasons. The most times Keeler struck out in a single season was 13. Omitting seasons at both the beginning and ends of his career when he played limited amounts of games, Keeler had nine seasons in which he played at least 100 games and struck out less than 10 times. In the 21st century, it is not uncommon for a player to strike out 10 times within the course of one week. Did the rules back in the late 19th and early 20th century clearly favor Keeler and all other batters? They absolutely did. Is Keeler still a member of the Hall of Fame? He certainly is.
What I mean by telling you all of this is that the game of baseball, just like any sport and any part of life in general, evolves over time. The world of 2018 is far different from the world that was lived in over a decade ago, let alone a century ago, and that evolution should not affect the standing of guys like Bonds and Clemens. Did they do things that are now considered offensive and illegal in the baseball world? Yes, they did. But, were these things illegal when they were active players? No, they were not.
The Hall of Fame is a museum depicting the history of the sport of baseball. While there are all sorts of great baseball moments that are commemorated in Cooperstown, a true museum does not just focus on the positives. It focuses on the negatives as well, so long as those negatives were significant enough to be an integral part of history. There is no denying that the careers of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are integral pieces in the story of baseball. For that reason, they absolutely deserve induction into the Hall of Fame, and even though opinions may be very slowly changing and accepting of this idea, I doubt that these men will gain induction any time soon.
Ty Cobb, considered by many to be one of, if not the greatest player of all time was a member of the first ever Hall of Fame class. Cobb used to physically fight opponents, umpires, and sometimes even spectators. Cap Anson was a known and unapologetic racist. Orlando Cepeda served almost a year in prison for a drug conviction. Countless members of the Hall of Fame, including Babe Ruth, who has an entire room in the museum dedicated solely to him, were outright and unashamed alcoholics and carousers.
What I am trying to say is, Bonds and Clemens need to be in the Hall of Fame. They may not have been the nicest of friendliest men in the world, but the Hall of Fame is full of men just as, if not more so, angry and tempestuous. Will either of these guys eventually end up members of the Hall of Fame? Only time will tell. But one thing I can say without question is that if the story of the history of baseball is being told, it is not nearly complete without Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
Daily Giants Update: James Bettcher was named today as the new defensive coordinator, while Thomas McGaughey is the new special teams coach. I'm not too familiar with either of them, but I do know that Bettcher favors a 3-4 style of defense, and I am not a fan of playing defense that way. Olivier Vernon and Jason Pierre-Paul are studs as 4-3 defensive ends, and I would hate to see them standing up and playing as outside linebackers in a 3-4 system. Also, the Giants have not had any good inside linebackers in years, so shifting to a 3-4 would not only call for one good inside linebacker, but it would call for two. Bettcher has obviously not been in charge for very long, so hopefully he isn't stubborn in his methods, because I do not think that the Giants have the personnel in place to be able to effectively run a 3-4 defense.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: No new news here, but the countdown to pitchers and catchers reporting continues.
Daily Rangers Update: The last game for the Rangers ended in a 6-3 loss to the Anaheim Ducks. Next up is a game in San Jose against the Sharks. It will end a four-game west coast trip that has thus far yielded nothing but losses for the team.
Daily NBA Update: Dan Gilbert is reportedly interested in selling the Cleveland Cavaliers, and there are a whole bunch of interesting ways to look at this that I will probably try to write about if and when this sale actually takes place. On the court, Ben Simmons posted a monstrous triple-double this past night, and he seems like an obvious choice for rookie of the year.
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
The definition of self-centered
On February 11th, the Cleveland Cavaliers will go to Boston to play the Celtics. It will be a battle of two of the best teams in the Eastern Conference, and possibly a preview of the Conference Finals that will take place this coming summer. However, this night will be significant for another reason as well.
Paul Pierce played the first 15 seasons of his career with Boston, and was a crucial part of the team that won a championship in 2008. Therefore, on February 11th, the Celtics are going to retire his #34 jersey, as he will join 22 other former team members to be honored in such a way.
And just as a side note here, the fact that the Celtics have 22 numbers retired is amazing and shows how great a franchise they have been for so long.
But getting back to Pierce, he recently announced that he wanted the night to belong to him. The team had scheduled a video tribute to honor Isaiah Thomas' time as a Celtic since he now plays for Cleveland, but Pierce did not agree with the decision. Even though Thomas was a beloved figure in Boston during his time there, and even though he gave his heart and soul to the team in the playoffs just days after his sister was tragically killed in a car accident, Pierce seemingly doesn't care about that.
I have seen video tributes to players by teams before. They usually last at most about two minutes. Two minutes. That means that Pierce is unwilling to have to see a two minute video praising Isaiah Thomas' time with Boston. I have four words for Paul Pierce: Are you kidding me? Is he so egotistical that he can't have his special day interrupted for 120 seconds? I cannot believe that Pierce has a problem with this.
Does Pierce deserve to have his jersey retired? He absolutely does. Are there special honors that come with having your jersey retired? Yes, there are. But the fact that Pierce will somehow be offended by a short video tribute to Isaiah Thomas comes across to me as unbelievably narcissistic. Pierce will be honored by having his jersey retired that night. But does he know that something else will happen that night as well? Apparently not. There is also going to be a basketball game between two of the best teams in the NBA. Pierce's tribute is not going to be the only thing going that night, so I don't understand how he could believe that the night should be about him and nothing else.
The Cavaliers did visit Boston in early January, but Isaiah Thomas was injured and did not play in the game. Could they have played the video tribute then even though he was hurt? Yes, they could have, but they did not because he was not playing in the game. Could the team have scheduled Pierce's jersey retirement on a different night? Yes, they could have, however it isn't like Pierce is coming out of hiding from his retirement to make one last public appearance in Boston. Pierce is employed by ESPN and his face is on television all the time. People still see him and remember him as one of the great Boston Celtics, so the fact that Pierce is self-centered enough to demand the team not play a short video tribute to Thomas during what he believes should be "his night" is ridiculous.
I'm not sure how long Pierce's jersey retirement ceremony will last, but I'm about 99% sure it won't last 48 minutes. The game is going to last 48 minutes, unless Pierce wants to attempt to call that off and focus even more on himself. Jersey retirement ceremonies are special. I understand that. But in this case Paul Pierce comes off as so egotistical and selfish that it changes my perception of him.
God, forbid someone from stealing his spotlight for a few minutes. We might as well let Pierce play the game against Cleveland by himself with no one on the floor for the Cavaliers so we can watch an entire game of him winning one last time and taking all the glory for himself. For him to demand that the spotlight shine only on him is so selfish and absurd, and even though he obviously does not recognize that right now, I hope that some day eventually he does.
Daily Rangers Update: Nothing to report here as the team is off today. Tomorrow brings a game against Buffalo, who currently own the worst record in the Eastern Conference, so it should be a game that the Rangers win.
Daily Giants Update: Now that it seems "unofficially official" that Pat Shurmur is going to be the new head coach, the focus should shift to who he hires as his assistants. Steve Spagnuolo hired Shurmur as one of his assistants during his short term as the head coach of the Rams, so it is likely that Shurmur might return the favor here and keep Spagnuolo as the defensive coordinator. There were serious issues both on and off the field with the defense this past year, and I'm not sure how much Spagnuolo had to do with those, so this may or may not be a good thing.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Nothing new here as well since Spring Training is still far away, but the San Francisco Giants just acquired Andrew McCutchen, so it seems like the NL West is going to be one of the toughest, if not the toughest division in all of baseball in 2018.
Daily NBA Update: Yesterday was a light night in terms of the number of games, but Anthony Davis was the standout with 45 points and 16 rebounds in a Pelicans win over the Celtics (I'm terribly sorry Mr. Pierce). There are 10 games tonight though, so it will be much busier during NBA talk shows tomorrow morning.
Paul Pierce played the first 15 seasons of his career with Boston, and was a crucial part of the team that won a championship in 2008. Therefore, on February 11th, the Celtics are going to retire his #34 jersey, as he will join 22 other former team members to be honored in such a way.
And just as a side note here, the fact that the Celtics have 22 numbers retired is amazing and shows how great a franchise they have been for so long.
But getting back to Pierce, he recently announced that he wanted the night to belong to him. The team had scheduled a video tribute to honor Isaiah Thomas' time as a Celtic since he now plays for Cleveland, but Pierce did not agree with the decision. Even though Thomas was a beloved figure in Boston during his time there, and even though he gave his heart and soul to the team in the playoffs just days after his sister was tragically killed in a car accident, Pierce seemingly doesn't care about that.
I have seen video tributes to players by teams before. They usually last at most about two minutes. Two minutes. That means that Pierce is unwilling to have to see a two minute video praising Isaiah Thomas' time with Boston. I have four words for Paul Pierce: Are you kidding me? Is he so egotistical that he can't have his special day interrupted for 120 seconds? I cannot believe that Pierce has a problem with this.
Does Pierce deserve to have his jersey retired? He absolutely does. Are there special honors that come with having your jersey retired? Yes, there are. But the fact that Pierce will somehow be offended by a short video tribute to Isaiah Thomas comes across to me as unbelievably narcissistic. Pierce will be honored by having his jersey retired that night. But does he know that something else will happen that night as well? Apparently not. There is also going to be a basketball game between two of the best teams in the NBA. Pierce's tribute is not going to be the only thing going that night, so I don't understand how he could believe that the night should be about him and nothing else.
The Cavaliers did visit Boston in early January, but Isaiah Thomas was injured and did not play in the game. Could they have played the video tribute then even though he was hurt? Yes, they could have, but they did not because he was not playing in the game. Could the team have scheduled Pierce's jersey retirement on a different night? Yes, they could have, however it isn't like Pierce is coming out of hiding from his retirement to make one last public appearance in Boston. Pierce is employed by ESPN and his face is on television all the time. People still see him and remember him as one of the great Boston Celtics, so the fact that Pierce is self-centered enough to demand the team not play a short video tribute to Thomas during what he believes should be "his night" is ridiculous.
I'm not sure how long Pierce's jersey retirement ceremony will last, but I'm about 99% sure it won't last 48 minutes. The game is going to last 48 minutes, unless Pierce wants to attempt to call that off and focus even more on himself. Jersey retirement ceremonies are special. I understand that. But in this case Paul Pierce comes off as so egotistical and selfish that it changes my perception of him.
God, forbid someone from stealing his spotlight for a few minutes. We might as well let Pierce play the game against Cleveland by himself with no one on the floor for the Cavaliers so we can watch an entire game of him winning one last time and taking all the glory for himself. For him to demand that the spotlight shine only on him is so selfish and absurd, and even though he obviously does not recognize that right now, I hope that some day eventually he does.
Daily Rangers Update: Nothing to report here as the team is off today. Tomorrow brings a game against Buffalo, who currently own the worst record in the Eastern Conference, so it should be a game that the Rangers win.
Daily Giants Update: Now that it seems "unofficially official" that Pat Shurmur is going to be the new head coach, the focus should shift to who he hires as his assistants. Steve Spagnuolo hired Shurmur as one of his assistants during his short term as the head coach of the Rams, so it is likely that Shurmur might return the favor here and keep Spagnuolo as the defensive coordinator. There were serious issues both on and off the field with the defense this past year, and I'm not sure how much Spagnuolo had to do with those, so this may or may not be a good thing.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Nothing new here as well since Spring Training is still far away, but the San Francisco Giants just acquired Andrew McCutchen, so it seems like the NL West is going to be one of the toughest, if not the toughest division in all of baseball in 2018.
Daily NBA Update: Yesterday was a light night in terms of the number of games, but Anthony Davis was the standout with 45 points and 16 rebounds in a Pelicans win over the Celtics (I'm terribly sorry Mr. Pierce). There are 10 games tonight though, so it will be much busier during NBA talk shows tomorrow morning.
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
A (very) far-fetched idea
Over the past few months, story after story has come out about sexual abuse in the world of entertainment. It started in Hollywood and in politics, and eventually it surfaced in the world of sports. The stories are sad and shameful in a multitude of ways and it has come to the point where we should not be surprised if they continue to come out. I don't want to focus on the stories as a whole, but I do want to focus on one in the sports world. However, I only want to talk about the effects that it will have on the world of football, and not the individual details that are, like I said, both sad and shameful.
Jerry Richardson, the owner of the Carolina Panthers, was named as one of the offenders, and it made him and his franchise look so bad that he is now putting the team up for sale. While the sale has not taken place yet, and is most likely far from taking place since we are talking about a $2.3 billion investment that someone, or more likely, some group of people will have to make, it will have an impact on the NFL. In all likelihood, the new owners will be people that are unknown in the world of sports but just have a whole lot of money. And by a whole lot of money, I don't mean millions of dollars, I mean billions of dollars.
Stephen Curry is a known Panthers fan. Sean "Puffy" Combs is known for his musical career as well as a very successful line of clothing. Both of them have claimed to have interest in joining together to buy the team. And today, the most popular NASCAR driver, Dale Earnhardt Jr. threw his name into the ring as willing to go into part ownership of the team. Even Colin Kaepernick, the exiled NFL quarterback, has said he would like to be part of this ownership group. It's nice that these guys are showing interest in breaking into the world of sports business as a team, but I have a sad thing to say to them. I'm sorry, but you guys have no chance of actually making this happen. It isn't even worth giving it a second thought either.
Curry is worth about $77 million. Kaepernick is reportedly worth about $39 million. Combs is by far the wealthiest of the three men, being worth over $800 million. Earnhardt is worth around $300 million. While these values are far from chump change, I hate to break it to these guys, but they are numbers that make them nowhere near owning an NFL franchise.
Paul Allen owns the Seattle Seahawks. His net worth is almost $18 billion. That is billion with a B. Stan Kroenke, owner of the Los Angeles Rams, is worth about $7.5 billion. The owners of the Oakland Raiders, the children of Al Davis, are the LEAST valued owners, and they are worth about $500 million. And these two are only the owners because they took over the team when their father died, but his net worth was over $500 million. The Green Bay Packers are the outlier here because they are a publicly owned team by over 360,000 stockholders, but the estimated value of the franchise is over $1 billion.
What these numbers all mean are that the world of NFL owners is a world that not many people can be a part of. If you are not a billionaire, or your father did not pass a team onto you when he died, you are not getting into that club. And that is the reality of what Curry, Combs, Earnhardt, and Kaepernick are claiming they can make happen. If they all combined every penny that they reportedly owned, they would be worth just over $1 billion. The Panthers are supposedly on sale for over double that value. I'm sorry to break the news to those men, but this dream they have is nothing more than that: a dream. But this dream will never come true. And that isn't even taking into account the most preposterous part of this proposition.
Colin Kaepernick is seemingly going to end up being remembered as a pariah in the football world. Some believe that he was blackballed from the league because of his political stances, but I don't believe that is true. I do not believe that 32 owners colluded to keep Kaepernick out of the league. I believe that 32 owners came to that decision on their own and did not need to be convinced by anyone else. Say what you want about him, but he currently is unemployed and cannot even get a job as a backup quarterback in a league where simply competent quarterbacks are hard to come by. If he can't get a job as a backup QB, do you think that at least 24 of the 32 owners (that is the number needed for approval to become even part of the owner of any given team) would grant him the chance to be even a minority owner of the Panthers? There is absolutely no chance that would happen. If there was a percentage lower than zero, that would be how likely it would be that Kaepernick would be granted permission to own any percentage of any NFL team.
You can think whatever you want about Kaepernick and realize that this idea has no chance at all of working. I happen to think he is certainly at least a backup level quarterback, and he did take a team to the Super Bowl, even though the 49ers ultimately lost to the Ravens. Can he kneel during the singing of the national anthem? Sure, I have absolutely no problem with that. It is totally harmless, and in my opinion anyone who somehow takes offense to it has a pre-conceived agenda against Kaepernick for whatever reason they might choose to use. But that doesn't change the fact that the owners of these teams have clearly shown they do not want any part of employing Kaepernick.
It is nice that Combs and Curry and Earnhardt have aspirations to one day own a team. It is not every day that we know the owners of any sports franchise, and that is because most of us do not live in a world where millionaires are considered to be close to nothing in terms of value. Whoever ultimately buys the Carolina Panthers is going to be another one of those billionaires that have hardly any connection to the world of sports. And that is why this idea of these guys is far-fetched just like I claimed. In fact, it is even more than far-fetched. It is about as possible as a human civilization on Neptune. We have not even gotten to Mars yet, so I guarantee you that the idea of getting to Neptune is not going to happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this. It is just as realistic as Combs, Curry, Earnhardt, and Kaepernick owning the Carolina Panthers. The percent chance of it happening is clearly and absolutely zero.
Daily Giants Update: Whenever the Minnesota Vikings season ends, it seems like a given that Pat Shurmur will be the new head coach of the Giants. Whether or not this hire works out is unknown, but one thing that surely is known is that the Giants are behind the 8-ball when it comes to offseason improvement. Shurmur has yet to even meet the players on the team let alone begin thoroughly examining the roster going into the draft. Here is to selfishly hoping that the Vikings season ends on Sunday so the Giants can put all of their focus on improving the team going into next year.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers put in a nice effort in beating the Flyers 5-1 today, ending a three game losing streak. There are still 37 games left to play, and at this point the Rangers sit in the 8th and final spot for the playoffs in the Eastern Conference. Next up is a home game with the Sabres on Thursday.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Nothing new to report here as the roster is pretty much set for the 2018 season. We still have a long way to go until the games actually count, but we know who will be vying for the 25 roster spots that will be available.
Daily NBA Update: It was a light night in the NBA, as only four games were on the schedule. Anthony Davis stood out, going for 45 points and 16 rebounds in a win for New Orleans over the Boston Celtics. Boston still remains 3.5 games clear of the field in the East, while it seems likely the Pelicans will be vying for a playoff spot, but destined to lose in the first round even if they do make it to the postseason.
Jerry Richardson, the owner of the Carolina Panthers, was named as one of the offenders, and it made him and his franchise look so bad that he is now putting the team up for sale. While the sale has not taken place yet, and is most likely far from taking place since we are talking about a $2.3 billion investment that someone, or more likely, some group of people will have to make, it will have an impact on the NFL. In all likelihood, the new owners will be people that are unknown in the world of sports but just have a whole lot of money. And by a whole lot of money, I don't mean millions of dollars, I mean billions of dollars.
Stephen Curry is a known Panthers fan. Sean "Puffy" Combs is known for his musical career as well as a very successful line of clothing. Both of them have claimed to have interest in joining together to buy the team. And today, the most popular NASCAR driver, Dale Earnhardt Jr. threw his name into the ring as willing to go into part ownership of the team. Even Colin Kaepernick, the exiled NFL quarterback, has said he would like to be part of this ownership group. It's nice that these guys are showing interest in breaking into the world of sports business as a team, but I have a sad thing to say to them. I'm sorry, but you guys have no chance of actually making this happen. It isn't even worth giving it a second thought either.
Curry is worth about $77 million. Kaepernick is reportedly worth about $39 million. Combs is by far the wealthiest of the three men, being worth over $800 million. Earnhardt is worth around $300 million. While these values are far from chump change, I hate to break it to these guys, but they are numbers that make them nowhere near owning an NFL franchise.
Paul Allen owns the Seattle Seahawks. His net worth is almost $18 billion. That is billion with a B. Stan Kroenke, owner of the Los Angeles Rams, is worth about $7.5 billion. The owners of the Oakland Raiders, the children of Al Davis, are the LEAST valued owners, and they are worth about $500 million. And these two are only the owners because they took over the team when their father died, but his net worth was over $500 million. The Green Bay Packers are the outlier here because they are a publicly owned team by over 360,000 stockholders, but the estimated value of the franchise is over $1 billion.
What these numbers all mean are that the world of NFL owners is a world that not many people can be a part of. If you are not a billionaire, or your father did not pass a team onto you when he died, you are not getting into that club. And that is the reality of what Curry, Combs, Earnhardt, and Kaepernick are claiming they can make happen. If they all combined every penny that they reportedly owned, they would be worth just over $1 billion. The Panthers are supposedly on sale for over double that value. I'm sorry to break the news to those men, but this dream they have is nothing more than that: a dream. But this dream will never come true. And that isn't even taking into account the most preposterous part of this proposition.
Colin Kaepernick is seemingly going to end up being remembered as a pariah in the football world. Some believe that he was blackballed from the league because of his political stances, but I don't believe that is true. I do not believe that 32 owners colluded to keep Kaepernick out of the league. I believe that 32 owners came to that decision on their own and did not need to be convinced by anyone else. Say what you want about him, but he currently is unemployed and cannot even get a job as a backup quarterback in a league where simply competent quarterbacks are hard to come by. If he can't get a job as a backup QB, do you think that at least 24 of the 32 owners (that is the number needed for approval to become even part of the owner of any given team) would grant him the chance to be even a minority owner of the Panthers? There is absolutely no chance that would happen. If there was a percentage lower than zero, that would be how likely it would be that Kaepernick would be granted permission to own any percentage of any NFL team.
You can think whatever you want about Kaepernick and realize that this idea has no chance at all of working. I happen to think he is certainly at least a backup level quarterback, and he did take a team to the Super Bowl, even though the 49ers ultimately lost to the Ravens. Can he kneel during the singing of the national anthem? Sure, I have absolutely no problem with that. It is totally harmless, and in my opinion anyone who somehow takes offense to it has a pre-conceived agenda against Kaepernick for whatever reason they might choose to use. But that doesn't change the fact that the owners of these teams have clearly shown they do not want any part of employing Kaepernick.
It is nice that Combs and Curry and Earnhardt have aspirations to one day own a team. It is not every day that we know the owners of any sports franchise, and that is because most of us do not live in a world where millionaires are considered to be close to nothing in terms of value. Whoever ultimately buys the Carolina Panthers is going to be another one of those billionaires that have hardly any connection to the world of sports. And that is why this idea of these guys is far-fetched just like I claimed. In fact, it is even more than far-fetched. It is about as possible as a human civilization on Neptune. We have not even gotten to Mars yet, so I guarantee you that the idea of getting to Neptune is not going to happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this. It is just as realistic as Combs, Curry, Earnhardt, and Kaepernick owning the Carolina Panthers. The percent chance of it happening is clearly and absolutely zero.
Daily Giants Update: Whenever the Minnesota Vikings season ends, it seems like a given that Pat Shurmur will be the new head coach of the Giants. Whether or not this hire works out is unknown, but one thing that surely is known is that the Giants are behind the 8-ball when it comes to offseason improvement. Shurmur has yet to even meet the players on the team let alone begin thoroughly examining the roster going into the draft. Here is to selfishly hoping that the Vikings season ends on Sunday so the Giants can put all of their focus on improving the team going into next year.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers put in a nice effort in beating the Flyers 5-1 today, ending a three game losing streak. There are still 37 games left to play, and at this point the Rangers sit in the 8th and final spot for the playoffs in the Eastern Conference. Next up is a home game with the Sabres on Thursday.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Nothing new to report here as the roster is pretty much set for the 2018 season. We still have a long way to go until the games actually count, but we know who will be vying for the 25 roster spots that will be available.
Daily NBA Update: It was a light night in the NBA, as only four games were on the schedule. Anthony Davis stood out, going for 45 points and 16 rebounds in a win for New Orleans over the Boston Celtics. Boston still remains 3.5 games clear of the field in the East, while it seems likely the Pelicans will be vying for a playoff spot, but destined to lose in the first round even if they do make it to the postseason.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)