With the Lakers and Magic duking it out right now on the tube I gotta wonder again about whether or not Phil Jackson might not be the best coach in NBA history. 9 championship rings and more than likely a 10th in the near future are nothing to balk at. Granted he has had pretty much the best teams in NBA history to coach and granted he coached my childhood hero Bulls to legendary status, but I’ve never liked the Lakers (don’t tell anybody in Los Angeles please) so maybe I can try my hand at an objective conclusion here. Maybe I better leave off, this is quite a subject to try and tackle in a post. Here’s what Jay Mariotti at Fanhouse had to say about it:
Some coaches merely dream the dream. Others actually live it, 10 times. We are watching the greatest NBA coach ever, America.
Appreciate him. For tonight might be the last time you see Phil Jackson on a sideline, even if he doesn’t have to do anything but call timeouts.
A quick word to be true (the article Mr. Mariotti has written is quite good and much longer), but to the point. I suppose it’s fun to try and decide who really is the best coach in history. Here’s an idea too though, is success necessary to be great? I agree that they seem to go pretty hand-in-hand, but skill has taken a back seat to luck and tragedy plenty of times before. Who’s to say really? Personally, I thought Larry Brown coming into Detroit and leading that team to a championship over the heavily favored Lakers was some of the best coaching I can remember. On the other hand, I might just have it out for the yellow and purple.
OK, hands up everybody who knows the relegation system of Barclay’s Premier League. Nobody? No worries I gotcha covered. As the Associated Press reports (and I got this from Sports Illustrated btw):
Newcastle and Middlesbrough were relegated from the Premier League on Sunday, while Hull and Sunderland stayed up.
Newcastle lost 1-0 at Aston Villa and Middlesbrough was beaten 2-1 at West Ham to finish in the last three teams on the final day of the league season.
Hull lost 1-0 to newly crowned champion Manchester United and Sunderland went down 3-2 at home to third-place Chelsea.
Last-place West Bromwich Albion was already certain to go down and drew 0-0 at Blackburn.
If this will insult your intelligence as a “football” fan, then feel free to skip to the next paragraph. Let me quickly go through the idea of relegation: The 3 bottom-placed teams at the end of each season of the Premier League are busted down to what amounts to kind of a minor league system. The 3 top teams from that league take the place of the losers from the Premier League. Thus, the bottom of the roster in the Premier League changes quite a bit from season to season.
So let me propose an idea here. Relegation is something that basically doesn’t exist here stateside. But I think there’s an argument to be made that it could be advantageous to install something like that in some of the more inflated sports leagues we have. Read the rest of this entry »
Top ten lists are fun, but many of them can be dumb as hell.
ESPN is getting into the act as well, which shouldn’t be a surprise given their groundbreaking debates such as which athletes were the most “Now” - quite possibly the dumbest feature ever produced on cable television.
With the bar set so low, ESPN’s DJ Gallo tries to live down to that standard with his latest column about the Steelers’ defense. The Steelers have been having a great season, but apparantly Gallo couldn’t write a column that just discussed their accomplishments. No, he had to proclaim that this Steelers defense is one of the greatest in NFL history. And, they’re not just one of the greatest, but they’re the 3rd best in NFL history, ranked ahead of even the 2000 Ravens, who managed to set records for fewest points and rushing yards in NFL history and managed to give Trent Dilfer a Super Bowl ring.
Is it asking too much to wait until this team wins a friggin’ playoff game before annointing them as one of the best defenses ever?
While I was at the gym this morning, I caught some NFL highlights on ESPN including some of the taped commentary from Chris Berman and Tom Jackson. For the record, no one recaps games better than those two guys, not even the 11 or 12 characters on NBC, who just keep trying to outwit each other. Anyway, Jackson said something really, really intriguing. Something to the effect of that while no one is saying it out loud, you can make a case for Titans’ quarterback Kerry Collins for NFL MVP after nine games.
Now think about that for a minute. Yes, it’s a strange year in the NFL, and yes, the Titans are 9-0 and way out in front of the AFC pack. But when you first think about it, Collins in MVP conversations sounds ridiculous. He is somewhere toward the bottom of the pack in passing yards, with 1525 (169 per game in 8-plus games), with just 5 touchdown passes and 3 interceptions and a QB rating of just 78.8. But here’s the thing. Drew Brees is putting up Tom Brady/Peyton Manning type numbers, with 2985 yards, 17 TDs and 10 picks. But Brees’ Saints are 4-5 and bringing up the rear in the AFC South. Jay Cutler is second in passing yards with 2616, and his team is 5-4 (and leading a pathetic AFC West). In fact, in pure yardage, you have to scroll down to number 10 (Brett Favre) to find a QB with more than five wins. Eli Manning of the 8-1 Giants is 12th and has a QB rating of 88.8.
So throw the stats aside, and think purely in terms of MVP for a minute. Manning and Brandon Jacobs deserve consideration, because they lead an 8-1 team in the NFL’s toughest division. But the Giants have a whole team of great players and the G-men would still be very competitive if either of those guys missed a game or two. The Panthers are 7-2, but have also had many contributors. And among the teams that are 6-3 (Jets, Pats, Steelers, Ravens, Redskins, Bucs and Falcons), you can make a case for a handful of players–Favre, Clinton Portis, and Matt Ryan. But even Ryan has had help from Michael Turner and Roddy White and John Abraham.
Then look at the Titans themselves. Aside from Collins, you have LenDale White and Chris Johnson piling up yards behind a very underrated offensive line. You have Albert Haynesworth absolutely terrorizing offensive coordinators and Cortland Finnegan playing out of his mind. All of them Pro Bowl possibilities, but not really MVP material. Collins, though, stepped in for Vince Young and has been a steady hand leading a very talented team to an undefeated record so far. You can’t say the Titans would be better than maybe 5-4 with Young as the starter right now. 9-0 with the veteran Collins is the only number that should be mentioned in MVP talk at this point, and for that I have to say Tom Jackson is on to something.
Bookmark this page for when the real talk begins, and don’t forget you heard it here second.
I know, everyone asks the dynamic duo this and they both say it’s a stupid question. But there’s a reason people want to know what they think. Maybe the press is trying to drive a wedge or create some conflict between the two. (The Kobe/Shaq relationship made for some very interesting drama, didn’t it?) Or maybe people are genuinely curious to know how each player views herself in the realm of beach volleyball.
After pondering this question for a few days now, I think I have come up with an answer. Misty May-Treanor is the better player, but Kerri Walsh would be more difficult to replace, and therefore is more valuable.
May-Treanor does it all. She’s arguably the best defensive player in beach volleyball, she’s an excellent passer and setter, and she’s a very good hitter. (She actually started as an outside hitter at Long Beach State before the coaching staff converted her to a setter. While in college, her team won the NCAA title and she was the NCAA Player of the Year twice.) There are no easily discernable weaknesses in her game.
In short, she’s beach volleyball’s best all-around player.
Kerri Walsh stands 6’3”, and for a woman of that height, she has superior quickness and speed. She’s a force at the net, and a semi-recent shoulder injury forced her to develop a finesse game, which makes her nearly unstoppable as a hitter. She’s a capable passer and setter, though since she spends so much time at the net, her partner does most of the digging.
In short, with her size and athleticism, she’s a truly unique player. She’s irreplaceable, really. Where else are you going to find a player her height that can run and jump like she can?
So that’s my answer. It all depends on your definition of the word “better.” Does it mean the game’s best all-around player? Then May-Treanor is better. Does it mean the game’s most valuable/irreplaceable player? Then Walsh is your girl.
Karch Kiraly said it best - with a win in the gold medal match tonight, May-Treanor and Walsh will go down as the best (men’s or women’s) beach volleyball team ever. Whomever you favor, it’s abundantly clear that in the case of this pairing, the sum is greater than its parts.
As long as there have been barstools, there have been men sitting on those barstools arguing about sports. This week, John Paulsen and Anthony Stalter debate the worst #1 pick in the NBA’s modern era. Is it the Wizards’ pick of Kwame Brown or the Clippers’ pick of Michael Olowokandi? They’re both bad, but which is the worst?
John: This is a tough call, but I’m going to have to go with Kwame Brown as the worst #1 pick in the modern era of the NBA. In his seven seasons, he has averaged 7.5 points and 5.7 rebounds, while shooting 48.4% from the field, which is pretty pathetic for a guy his size (6’11”). He has turned himself into a decent defender, but he has only averaged 0.7 blocks per game, so he’s at best a backup center in this league. Michael Olowokandi was a truly awful pick, but his numbers (8.3 points, 6.3 rebounds, 1.4 blocks) are a little better. (Boy, his shooting percentage - 43.5% - is even worse than Kwame’s!) Anyway, the Kandi Man managed a couple of decent seasons with the Clippers. He averaged 12.3 points and 9.1 rebounds in the 2002-03 season.
Anthony: I think what makes the case for Olowokandi being the worst No. 1 pick in the modern era is whom he was taken ahead of. When you see the names Vince Carter, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Mike Bibby, Antawn Jamison and Rashard Lewis, it just makes you shake your head at how bad of a pick the “The Kandi Man” was for the Clippers in 1998. He was taken before four All-Stars and even worse, Nazr Mohammed (the last pick in the first round) arguably had a better career.
John: Not to get off topic, but Rashard Lewis does have one All-Star nod to his credit, so the Kandi Man was actually drafted ahead of five All-Stars. Kwame was drafted ahead of four (Pau Gasol, Joe Johnson, Tony Parker and Gilbert Arenas) as well as Tyson Chandler, Jason Richardson, Shane Battier, Richard Jefferson, Zach Randolph and Gerald Wallace, who are all good players in their own right. What makes Kwame the worst #1 pick is the fact that when the Clippers took Olowokandi, there was only one other “big guy” in the top 5 – Raef LaFrentz – and he was more of a face up shooter. The Clippers were desperate for a post presence so they reached for the Kandi Man. The Wizards’ pick of Kwame Brown was followed by the 7’ Tyson Chandler, the 7’1” Pau Gasol and the 6’11” Eddy Curry. The Wizards had four true centers to choose from and they ended up with the one guy who wasn’t going to turn into a player.
Anthony: But wasn’t Olowokandi off everyone’s radar in 1998 until the draft eased closer? If I remember correctly, he kind of worked his way into being a top 5 pick, but wasn’t always viewed as “the guy” of that draft. I don’t know if this helps or hurts my argument, but I read somewhere that Olowokandi picked up the game of basketball just six years before he was drafted. So it appears that the Clippers reached big time on a player whose draft stock was better than his overall potential. My point being, the warning signs on the Kandi Man were pretty obvious, yet the Clippers still reached and wound up with one of the worst No. 1 picks in NBA Draft history.
John: I think what makes the Kwame Brown pick the worst in the modern era is that the guy who was responsible for the selection is regarded as the best player ever to step on the court… Michael Jordan. How could someone so good at basketball be so bad at judging a prospect? Let’s just say that these two guys tied for worst pick in the modern era and leave it at that. I don’t think I can dedicate any more time to Kwame Brown and/or the Kandi Man!
As long as there have been barstools, there have been men on those barstools arguing about sports, from the big questions all the way down to the minutiae. This week, in light of Tiger Woods’ recent win at the U.S. Open, Anthony Stalter and John Paulsen debate whether or not golf is really a sport.
John: I don’t consider golf a sport. This is not to say that it doesn’t take a lot of skill to master (or to even become good), but the most strenuous thing about it is walking. Walking. A sport is defined as “an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.” There is no physical exertion, so therefore golf is not a sport. Any competition where a 60 year-old can dominate a 25 year-old is a game. Golf is more similar to pool, darts and bowling than it is to basketball, football or tennis.
Anthony:A sport is defined as “an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.” Golf has everything but physical exertion, so why wouldn’t it be deemed a sport? You’re still competing against other individuals and there’s arguably more skill involved in golf than pool, darts and bowling. While I agree that golf isn’t on the same level as basketball, football or baseball, it’s still a competition that requires people to have a lot of skill in order to master.
John: Right, but a competition requires skill and physical exertion to be a sport, not just one or the other. Due to all the different types of shots, golf definitely requires more skill than those other games, but it’s still a game.
Anthony: Why can’t it be both? I tend to lean towards calling something a sport if it can be played at a professional level. Of course I say that not truly believing bowling is a sport and that can be played on a professional level. Tiger Woods is a great athlete (as was Jack Nicklaus), so I hate to downplay golf and call it a game instead of a sport.
John: You bring up an interesting point. An athlete is defined as “a person who is proficient in sports and other forms of exercise.” Since golf really isn’t sport, one could argue that Tiger Woods is not an athlete at all. I’m not willing to go that far, as I do think all the walking in golf should be considered a form of exercise. But back to your point about a sport being something that can be played on a professional level. Competitive eating is “played” on a professional level, and I doubt you consider that a sport. I will say this – of all the different games out there, golf probably requires the most skill to master.
Anthony: You’re right about competitive eating; that’s why I mentioned that bowling isn’t really a sport even though it can be played on a professional level. Obviously there’s a fine line between calling something a sport, game or activity. I understand the point that golf doesn’t require physical exertion, but after watching Tiger play the U.S. Open recently, it’s hard not to call him an athlete and therefore, one of the best at his sport. This might be putting too much thought into it, but I almost think calling golf a game takes away how good Tiger is. But maybe that’s just me.
John: I’m not trying to diminish how good Tiger is at golf. He is a master of what he does, but I believe he’s a master of a game, not a sport.
Skill-wise, Kobe Bryant is (probably) the best player in the NBA, and since he’s won a few championships and plays shooting guard, the comparisons to His Airness are inevitable.
But has Kobe done enough in his career to deserve to be compared to MJ? John Paulsen and Anthony Stalter discuss this very topic in this week’s Barstool Debate.
John: I don’t know that there is anyone that truly compares to Jordan, even Kobe. They do have several similarities. Both are phenomenal all-around athletes. They’re both fierce competitors. But there’s something that sets Jordan apart. MJ won six rings and was the main guy for all of those championships. Kobe was Shaq’s sidekick during the Lakers’ three-peat, and while he was (and is) a great player, he was not the main reason that L.A. won those titles. He certainly made a big contribution, much in the same way Scottie Pippen contributed to the Bulls’ championships, but without Shaq, those Laker teams weren’t going anywhere. However, if Kobe and his Lakers can win a title this year, it will help his case. I think he needs to win two or three more rings as the lead guy in order for us to have a real debate about who is the better player.
Anthony: I don’t know if it’s fair to compare the two with Kobe still being an active player. Quite frankly, right now there is no comparison. MJ has four more league MVP awards, three more NBA Finals MVP awards, four more All-Star appearances and over 10,000 more points. It’s probably safe to assume Kobe will at least match MJ’s All-Star Game appearances, but it’s so hard to compare everything else considering Kobe’s full body of work isn’t completed yet. And while it’s true Kobe did have Shaq, it wasn’t like Jordan was playing with Teddy Ruxpin and the Hamburglar during the Bulls’ championship runs. Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong formed a formidable team, plus Jordan eventually played with one of the best rebounders in NBA history when Dennis Rodman played in Chicago from 1995-1998. This might be another discussion in itself, but were MJ’s championship Bulls teams better than Kobe’s championship Laker squads?
John: You’re not getting off that easy, Stalter. You want to wait until Kobe is done playing before comparing the two players? What fun is that? It’s not like this is a 24 year-old we’re talking about. Kobe turns 30 this August and has played in the league for 12 years. Certainly, we must have some idea how he’ll compare with MJ when he finally hangs ‘em up. You’re right about the All-Star appearances – Kobe will probably get at least three or four more. If he plays for five more seasons, he’s likely to approach MJ’s point total as well. But he’s going to have a tough time catching Jordan in MVP awards and championships, and that might have more to do with Kobe’s personality than his sheer talent. Jordan had a reputation for being a hard ass, but his teammates wanted to go to war with him, and I don’t think there are too many Laker fans that would seriously argue that Kobe is a good teammate. For all the talk about L.A.’s magical season, I’ve seen the same ol’ Kobe in the 2008 Finals – barking at teammates, poisonous body language and condescending facial expressions. This is what sets Jordan apart – he didn’t show up his teammates (nearly as much).
Anthony: Damn it JP, you caught me. I was trying to sneak out of this one with my dignity since you’ve schooled me on previous NBA debates! I think if we’re comparing sheer numbers and achievements, we do have to wait until Kobe is done playing. But if we’re taking less of an analytical approach to the debate, then yes, Kobe has a long way to go to get on Jordan’s level. There’s a fine line between the two player’s styles of play. In some respects, one could view Jordan as being a selfish player with the amount of shots he took. But Jordan was rarely, if ever, accused of being a me-first guy. The same cannot be said for Kobe. So what does Kobe have to do then to get on Jordan’s level then? Win, but win the way Jordan did by becoming a team player? What defines a team player? As a non-Kobe supporter, what would he have to do to earn your respect as a fan and therefore, even mention him in the same breath as Jordan?
John: One thing that really jumps out at me when comparing these two players is their FG%. Jordan shot a career 49.7% from the field while Kobe shoots 45.3%. If not for MJ’s last few seasons, he would have finished over 50%, which is astounding for a guard. I don’t think anyone can criticize Jordan for being selfish when he is hitting half of his shots. Moreover, Kobe’s numbers will likely go down a bit as he gets older. He has always been a little suspect in his shot selection, and I don’t think anyone would say that about Jordan. But back to Kobe’s legacy… his numbers will ultimately compare, but Kobe has to be “The Man” on two or three more championship teams before a real comparison can be made. Winning one will be a big load off his shoulders, but it won’t be enough to erase four years of selfishness, perceived or not. For Kobe to be considered “The Greatest,” he has to stop with all the faces/barking at his teammates, quit complaining so much to the refs, and win a few more championships. The Lakers are young and talented, and are poised for a great run, but it’s up to Kobe to lead them to the Promised Land.
Anthony: I wonder which player had/has it tougher in terms of winning championships. As you noted, the Lakers are a solid young team, but the Western Conference is brutally tough and it’s so hard to repeat in the salary cap era. By no means am I saying Jordan and the Bulls had it easier, but was the league as competitive as it was in the mid-90’s as it is now? Who knows, maybe this is the last chance Kobe has to win a championship. After all, it took Kobe and the Lakers five years to get back to the NBA Finals. Nothing is guaranteed.
John: Well, the Lakers just lost Game 4 at home, so it looks like a title in 2008 is a long shot. Kobe still has a lot of work to do if he wants to pass up MJ. With the return of a healthy Andrew Bynum, I think the Lakers will be the favorite to win the 2009 NBA title.
As long as there have been barstools, there have been men on those barstools arguing about sports. In this week’s Barstool Debate, Anthony Stalter and John Paulsen ask the question – which is the more storied franchise, the Lakers or the Celtics?
John: Those that know me know that I am no Laker lover, but it is my premise that the Los Angeles Lakers are the most successful franchise in the NBA. Counting its stint in Minneapolis, the franchise has 14 championships and 29 Finals appearances in 60 seasons. That’s an amazing stat – the Lakers have gone to Finals 48% of the time.
Anthony: Hold on a second, sports fan – what do you mean the Lakers are the most successful franchise in the NBA? By my count (and when I say that, I mean by Wikipedia’s count), the Celtics have hoisted 16 NBA Championships, which gives them two more than the Lakers’ 14. Plus, Boston won 11 titles in 13 years from 1957 to 1969, which is an incredible stat. An even better stat that relates more specifically to this debate is that the Celtics have absolutely owned the Lakers in head-to-head matchups, winning eight of the 10 times they faced L.A. in the NBA Finals.
John: True, true, the Celtics have owned the Lakers in their head-to-head meetings, but seven of those wins over the Lakers came in the ‘50s and early ‘60s when the league had a grand total of nine teams. That’s right, the Celtics typically just had to win one (sometimes two) playoff series and they were in the Finals. Then they were fortunate to have the league’s best player (Bill Russell), who towered over everyone else on the court. It’s not the Lakers fault that they happened to be the second-best team during Russell’s reign. Had the Celtics been able to get to the Finals during George Mikan’s run in Minneapolis, the series record would be a whole lot closer. Besides, what has Boston done lately? They haven’t won a title since 1986 and the Lakers have won five championships since the Celtics won their last. Plus, L.A. has won its last two Finals meetings with Boston. I’d say that the mantle of “success” is on the Lakers’ side.
Anthony: True, the Celtics haven’t done much lately. But look at this list of past greats the organization has turned out: Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Paul Pierce, Sam Jones, Jo Jo White, Tommy Heinsohn, Tiny Archibald and of course, the original “Big Three” – Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish. You can’t overlook how good the organization was for decades. Plus, can any area trump the Garden? Nowadays, the Lakers get just as much attention for what celebrity is courtside as they do for their play on the court. The Celtics organization and fan base has always been about basketball and not Hollywood!
John: Have you seen all the celebs sitting courtside in Boston these days? Sure, L.A. is more star-studded, but the Celtics can no longer talk about their blue-collar work ethic with the new arena and ticket prices the way they are. But since we’re talking about the most successful franchise, let me list a few Laker greats: Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, James Worthy, Elgin Baylor, Byron Scott, George Mikan, Jamaal Wilkes, Norm Nixon, and let’s not forget the “Big Two” - Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal - who won just as many titles together as Boston’s original “Big Three.” While it’s true that the Celtics have the head-to-head edge and two more titles, if it weren’t for one player – Bill Russell – the head-to-head numbers would be much different. The Lakers have won through so many different teams and eras (and have won lately, during the salary cap era) that they have to be considered the most successful NBA franchise of all-time. Let me ask you this – if the Lakers prevail this year, will you change your tune? That would make the total titles 16 to 15 (in favor of the C’s) but the Lakers would have won six titles since the Celtics’ won their last.
Anthony: What happened to you, JP? You’re such a Lakers lover now… Sure, I’ll change my tune if L.A. wins this year. That would still only give them three out of 11 head to head victories against the Celtics in the Finals, but your point about the Lakers being incredibly successful in the past decade would be even more validated.
John: Laker lover – ha! I just call them like I see them. The main advantage the C’s have is in the head-to-head matchup, and that’s because nobody could cover Bill Russell for a decade. You could make a strong argument for either franchise, but I think the Lakers have to get the nod due to their consistent success.
As long as there have been barstools, there have been men on those barstools debating the most important topics in sports. In this week’s Barstool Debate, Anthony Stalter and John Paulsen discuss the pros and cons of the NBA’s current lottery system and what can be done to fix it.
John: The current NBA lottery system just isn’t working. It was designed to give the worst teams in the league the best draft picks while eliminating (or at least limiting) teams tanking in order to get a better pick. But every March, we start to see teams that are out of the playoff hunt shutting down their “injured” stars while “developing” their younger players. To be fair, these teams aren’t intentionally losing games, but they are intentionally not giving themselves the best chance to win. One way to eliminate this would be to give each lottery team an equal chance at the top (let’s say seven) picks, and go by record after that. Sure, decent teams will occasionally get the top pick (like in 1993, when the 41-41 Orlando Magic landed the #1 pick), but it will eliminate most of the tanking and put a better product on the floor later in the season.
Anthony: I agree that having a system in place that would give all lottery teams a fair shot at the No. 1 pick would eliminate tanking even more, but is it really fair that the fourth- or fifth-worst team gets a shot at the best player in the draft? Look the Spurs the year they drafted Tim Duncan. The only reason they were a lottery team that year was because David Robinson got hurt and missed most of the season. Now they’re a dynasty thanks to that draft. Isn’t there even a better way than giving all lottery teams a shot at the No. 1 pick? I understand that the NBA can’t adopt the NFL’s draft approach and pick just based on win-loss records, but it just doesn’t seem right that a decent team can become great just because they finished in the lottery one year.
John: I guess it depends on whether or not it’s right to reward failure. The idea is for the worst teams to have a shot at the best players so they can improve their teams and increase parity in the league. But look at the lottery this year. The Bulls overcame 1.7% odds to get the overall pick. Chicago was a playoff team two years ago and now it gets to add Derrick Rose or Michael Beasley to its talented roster. Meanwhile, the Heat are picking #2. Of all the teams in the lottery, Miami is the only one with a true superstar to build around and now they get to add whomever the Bulls pass on to a talented core that includes Wade and Shawn Marion. So even without an equal chance, decent teams are still getting the top picks, so why not make all the odds even so that we can at least eliminate tanking at the end of each season? I know that fans that fork out big money for seats want to see the stars play, but if they’re going to a game that features two non-playoff teams in March, chances are they will only get to see the scrubs in action. The most important thing is the product that is put out on the court, and tanking undermines that product.
Anthony: The overall goal in having a lottery is twofold. One, the NBA wants to encourage parity and two, it wants to avoid teams tanking at the end of the year. Unfortunately, it appears that there’s no way to accomplish both. If you want parity, you have to give teams with poor records a shot at the best prospects. But to avoid several teams “resting” their starters at the end of the year in order to get a better pick, you have to have a lottery. And in a lottery, you run the risk of decent teams like the Bulls and Heat coming away with some of the best talent. It seems like a no-win situation.
John: I say that the product that the league puts on the floor should be the priority. Therefore, it is most important to eliminate tanking, so the league should give each team even odds at winning the top seven picks. Then picks #8-#14 should be based on record. That, or devise a win-or-go-home playoff system that would keep some or all of the lottery teams involved until the very end. Maybe seed the top 14 teams in the playoffs and then take the other 16 teams and have a single-elimination tournament that would yield the final two playoff teams. Not only would that be exciting, but it would discourage tanking for most teams as they would still be playing their stars in an attempt to make the playoffs. Whatever the direction, the league should do something. Right now, tanking is running rampant and some good (or at least decent) teams are getting the top picks.
Granted, they’re not as important as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but as long as there have been barstools, there have been men sitting on those stools arguing about sports. This week, John Paulsen and Anthony Stalter sit at a virtual bar and debate what life would be like if the NFL didn’t have a salary cap. Take a seat, order a beverage and feel free to give us your two cents.
Anthony: With the NFL threatening to have an uncapped year following the 2009 season, the first thing most fans want to do is panic. Who wants a situation in the NFL with haves and have-nots like they do in baseball? Well, the fact of the matter is that small market teams can still survive and MLB has proved that. Small market teams (i.e. teams that don’t spend big in order to win) like the 2007 Rockies and 2003 Marlins are prime examples that winning is accomplished on the field and not with a big budget.
John: I’m glad you brought up the Marlins. It’s true that a small-market/low-budget team can succeed for a year or two with a great farm system and good scouting, but what happens to those small market World Series teams the following year? Or the year after that? They either sell of their parts because they can’t afford to keep them or they are raided by the big market teams, who are looking to simply buy themselves a championship. In the four seasons since the Marlins’ 2003 World Series win, they haven’t finished higher than third in their division. It’s true that they can be competitive for a year or two, but they can’t sustain their excellence like the big market teams can. And that’s simply not fair.
Anthony: But at least these teams can still be competitive. Some fans assume that just because a team doesn’t spend a lot, it means that team is destined to finish in the cellar every year. And besides, it’s up to the owners whether or not to spend. We can assume that there’s going to be a huge gap in terms of budget between a team like the Cowboys (we know owner Jerry Jones will spend to win) and maybe a smaller market team like the Seahawks, but we simply don’t know what owners are going to be willing to spend. In other words, we don’t know if the NFL would turn into MLB if the league went without a cap. It sounds like a crazy thought now, but maybe not having a cap will drive the competition even more because owners in the lower market cities will still be willing to spend to win. (Unlike how it is in baseball, where clubs like the Marlins, Royals and Pirates simply don’t want to spend.)
John: It’s definitely possible for a small budget team to make a run here and there, but think what it must be like to be an American League team competing with the payrolls of the Yankees and Red Sox. Since MLB expanded its playoffs in 1995, the Yankees have made the postseason every single season, essentially gobbling up one of the four AL playoff spots each year. Now that the Red Sox started to catch up in payroll, they have made the postseason four of the last five years. So if you’re an AL team other than the Yankees or Red Sox, you’re basically competing for the two other division titles because the AL East and Wild Card berths are pretty much decided going into the season. Then imagine being a fan of the Devil Rays, Orioles or the Blue Jays, who are also in the AL East. Why even bother? In the NFL, the small market teams are already at a disadvantage when it comes to generating stadium revenue and attracting free agents. Removing the salary cap will only serve to eliminate the one thing keeping a competitive balance in the NFL. It’s parity that makes the league so popular, because most fans know that if their favorite team catches a few breaks, they’ve got a good shot to make the postseason. It’s no coincidence that the league exploded in popularity at the same time the salary cap was implemented.
Anthony: I actually agree 100%, John. I love how parity has made the NFL ultra competitive, but it’s interesting to play devil’s advocate regarding this topic. While I don’t think an uncapped year in the NFL would be a total disaster, I would much rather see things continue the way they are and preserve the balance in the league. How great is it that your favorite team has a shot to win every year if they can have a solid draft and make wise free agent pickups? It’s fun for fans.
Granted, they’re not as important as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but as long as there have been barstools, there have been men sitting on those stools arguing about sports. This week, John Paulsen and Anthony Stalter sit at a virtual bar and debate whether or not the San Antonio Spurs qualify as a dynasty. Take a seat, order a beverage and feel free to give us your two cents.
Anthony: The first thing anyone looks at when considering whether or not a team should be viewed as a dynasty is the number of championships won in a certain amount of time. Well, since the strike-shortened season of 1999, the Spurs have won four titles. While none of those have been back to back, there’s no denying how hard it is to win one NBA title, nevertheless four in nine years. They’ve also won six division titles in nine years, which is quite an accomplishment in the stacked Western Conference. Another thing to consider is that they’ve largely kept the same core of players throughout the years and only Tim Duncan can really be considered a superstar. (Although Tony Parker might be on his way.)
John: The Merriam-Webster definition of a dynasty is “a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time.” Applying this to sports is a little tricky. There’s no doubt that the Boston Celtics - who won 11 total titles from 1957 to 1969 (including eight straight titles from ‘59 to ‘66) - were a dynasty. Michael Jordan’s Chicago Bulls won six titles in eight years from 1991-1998, so they should be considered a dynasty, especially considering that His Airness missed all of the 1993-94 season and most of the following season, the only two years the Bulls didn’t win the title in that span. The 2000-02 Los Angeles Lakers were probably a dynasty, albeit a short one, as they won three straight titles (and dominated the league) with Shaq and Kobe leading the way. After that, things get a little dicey. The 1980-88 Los Angeles Lakers won five titles in the nine seasons - were they a dynasty? A dynasty is a period of dominance, and while the Lakers were amazing during that span - five titles and four other Finals appearances in 12 seasons – they didn’t dominate the league. And I’d put these Spurs a notch below those Lakers. They have won four titles in nine years, but in the years they didn’t win a championship, they didn’t make a single Finals appearance. In fact, they only went to the Western Conference Finals once during those five non-title years. How can a team be dominant if it can’t make it out of its own Conference Semifinals in four of the nine years of its so-called dynasty?
Anthony: I’ll go back to my argument about how the Spurs have kept the same core group of players over the years. It’s amazing what the Spurs have been able to do on the court and yet keep everyone happy off it. Amazingly, they arguably haven’t overspent for any one player, either. Duncan’s two-year, $40 million contract extension in October of last year was certainly reasonable for a player of his stature, while Parker’s $10.5 million salary for 2008 is peanuts compared to what Dallas is paying Jason Kidd ($19.7 mil). And Parker is arguably more effective and not to mention much younger. So when you consider what teams have to go through as far as retaining their players in this salary cap era, it’s even more impressive what the Spurs have been able to accomplish.
John: The NBA implemented the salary cap in 1984 to improve competitiveness of small market teams, which actually helped the Spurs as they play in a small market. That said, the Spurs have done a terrific job of locking up their stars to long, reasonably priced contracts, but some of that was luck. Both Parker and Manu Ginobili signed deals just before they made big jumps in their respective games. In Ginobili’s case, the Spurs just matched an offer sheet made by the Nuggets, so timing played a big part in getting those guys for a good price. And unlike some other “max contract” players who are more talk than walk, Tim Duncan is actually a no-brainer max contract guy. While I agree that the definition of “dynasty” certainly has to change with and without a salary cap, both MJ’s Bulls and the 2000-02 Lakers were able to win multiple titles in a row during their reign under the salary cap. Isn’t part of being a dynasty dominating for consecutive years?
Anthony: Good points. I guess what this all depends on your definition of “dynasty.” To me, it’s being able to win multiple championships within a certain period of time. Four titles in nine years qualifies and, therefore, I don’t have any qualms about saying the Spurs are a dynasty.
John: If the Spurs had played better in the years they didn’t win the title, I’d be more agreeable to anointing them a dynasty. But, thus far, they’ve been unable to make back-to-back Finals appearances, much less win two consecutive titles. So for now, they’re a great team and an even better franchise, and the closest thing we have to a dynasty in the NBA.
Every Friday, Anthony Stalter and I are going to pose the week’s most pressing question and each pick a side. With the NFL Draft coming up tomorrow, we were going to argue about who the Miami Dolphins should take with the first overall pick, but since they’ve already made their choice (tackle Jake Long), we’ll move on to #2. Who should the Rams select? Glenn Dorsey or Chris Long? Or should they thumb their nose at Stephen Jackson or Marc Bulger and take Darren McFadden or Matt Ryan? Here’s our take…
John Paulsen: This we know… Glenn Dorsey is a monster. He is super-quick for his size (6’2”, 297 lbs) and demands a double-team. He’s more of a pass-rushing DT, which is why he makes sense for the Rams. The team drafted Adam Carriker in the first round last season, and moved him from DE to DT, but he’s capable of playing on the outside as a run-stopper. Put the two players on the same side of the defense and the Rams D - with Leonard Little on the opposite side - will create some serious havoc. With Bulger and Jackson on the roster, the debate is between Dorsey and Long, so the question is what to do with Carriker. If the team thinks he can be effective on the outside, Dorsey is the right choice.
Anthony Stalter: The Rams weren’t enamored with Carriker’s speed on the edge, so they made him a defensive tackle. Word is that if the Rams take Glenn Dorsey, Carriker would move back to the end position, but why? Why teach him a new position at the pro level and let him get comfortable only to move him back to the position he played in college? I understand the learning curve probably won’t be that high since he’s already familiar at end, but at 6’6, 303-pounds, he’s more suited to play inside. Long is a true end that can play the run, rush the passer and is incredibly relentless. Dorsey would be a fantastic pick, but taking Long allows Carriker to stay inside and keep developing at a single position.
So who should the Rams take? We’ll discuss the draft in further detail during our live Happy Hour chat at 4 PM ET / 1 PM PT. We’ll also be blogging the Draft starting tomorrow at 3 PM ET.
