Seesaw Sports has permanently moved to BuzzChomp.com
Find all the sports debate HERE.
Showing posts with label NBA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NBA. Show all posts
Monday, March 3, 2014
Monday, February 24, 2014
"Do you like turtles?" - What ha... happened?
This week we ask "What ha... happened?" The internet was scoured for a crazy sports photo or GIF and someone must try to explain it. Seesaw Sports asks what ha... happened? Monday: Opening statement. Friday: Rebuttal.
Real photos. Real results. But what in the heck happened?
Read the full post on BuzzChomp HERE.
Friday, February 21, 2014
All-Star Shakeup in the NBA
NBA All-Star weekend is fun, but w/ so many great ideas for improvement,
where to begin? New Dunks, new events; we rank all the crazy options in
our #NBA #Sports #Debate #TGIF
Read the full post on Buzzchomp HERE
Monday, February 17, 2014
NBA All-Star weekend Unraveled
NBA All-Star weekend saw changes to the dunk contest and other events. It wasn't enough! We need the high-dunk, 2on2, and more. Sports debate.
Read the full post on Buzzchomp HERE.
Friday, January 31, 2014
NBA All Stars: Should fans decide - part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-31-14)
[Part one - All Star teams collide]
TODD:
I have to address the more important issue now, Kobe Bryant. His inclusion in the starting lineup of the NBA All-Star game bothers me for myriad of reasons. This is a fan vote of course, but that doesn't mean the fans deserve it.
What is happening here is the NBA is turning into the MLB. Either the game counts or it doesn't. And what I mean is not literally whether who wins the All-Star game matters in basketball like in baseball. But the game acknowledgement does. A player making an All-Star game is historic. It matters for the legacy of a player, as well as the story of the league.
As you pointed out, Kobe's run of All-Star invites will continue. This will mark his 16th selection in his 18-year career. When it comes time to determine Hall of Fame resumes and where a player stands in the pantheon of his sport, All-Star games are often referenced. When next generation's Bill Simmons releases The Book of Basketball Part Two and tries to determine who is the better Laker between Kobe and Magic Johnson, the All-Star game appearances will come up. And you know what? In forty years, no one is going to remember that Kobe's 2014 selection was a joke and a debacle. It will just be an appearance like any of the others.
I guess my problem with the fan vote is that they are too stupid to be given this kind of power. There are only three solutions. Here they are, in order of practicality from "impossible" to "why is this not already the case?!?":
1. Lessen the historical value of a player making an All-Star game. Value All-NBA team selections instead and phase out the worth of the All-Star game appearance itself.
2. Don't let fans vote. Fans are, by definition, biased and crazy.
3. Give the fans a crop of players to vote from for the starting lineups. A player such as Kobe Bryant would not be eligible since he's barely played this season.
Tell me why number three wouldn't work.
DAN:
I'm glad you acknowledged the ridiculousness of options one and two. There are very few benchmarks to compare players between generations. All Star game appearances is one of the best, disregarding the obvious caveat where a player past his prime continues to get voted in. And we have to let the fans vote. The All Star game is just a show. There is little to no defense played, so it is literally (spoken a la Rob Lowe's character from Parks and Recreation) a fun event for the fans to enjoy. They should get to see who they want, with one caveat that you very nicely addressed in option three.
I really like the idea of giving the fans a specific ballot, but leaving Kobe Bryant off entirely would be a HUGE mistake by the NBA. The All Star voting is international. The NBA wants to grow the sport internationally. Kobe Bryant is the most popular and most famous NBA player internationally. See the problem? He got voted in because the world still loves him and probably doesn't even realize he's been injured, or doesn't care. I know this speaks to a different issue, but the NBA has to market its most popular players and Kobe Bryant is up there in the top three, if not number one.
It would however be easy for the NBA to get the final All Star voting results, look at them and rule that a player must have played in at least 50% of his team's games this season to be a starter. The player can still be on the All Star team, but they can't be considered a starter if they've played less than half of his team's games. This is not a particularly unfair rule and still leaves voting in the hands of the fans. Let them vote in all the hurt guys they want, but they won't be named a starter because they've been injured or suspended.
Did I solve your problem?
TODD:
That fails to solve the problem of a player's career resume being bumped up by faulty selections. The fact that a player is actually "starting" the game is irrelevant to me. Kobe Bryant did not deserve to be named an All-Star this season. Thus, he should not have been on the ballot if we can't trust fans to actually make that distinction.
This event is not supposed to be a popularity contest. It is supposed to reward the players who are having the best season. Otherwise, Jeremy Lin should just be starting point guard for both teams. Let him switch sides at halftime.
Monday, January 27, 2014
NBA All Star teams collide - part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-27-14)
DAN:
The lineups for the NBA All Star teams got announced and there are a few obvious points of contention and one major question. Obviously Kobe Bryant starting for the West is a classic case of fan intervention. He's barely played this season, but his streak of All Star games will remain intact.
I want to know, who do you like in a straight up match of five on five? The East starters or those from the West?
Eastern Conference
| LeBron James, MIA | |
| Paul George, IND | |
| Carmelo Anthony, NYK | |
| Dwyane Wade, MIA | |
| Kyrie Irving, CLE |
Western Conference
| Kevin Durant, OKC | |
| Stephen Curry, GS | |
| Kobe Bryant, LAL | |
| Blake Griffin, LAC | |
| Kevin Love, MIN |
That brings us to our final players for each starting squad. Kyrie Irving and Carmelo Anthony to match up with Stephen Curry. I'll take Curry over either one of those men individually. Yes, yes the Paul George double team could hold us back, leaving either Melo or Irving alone on the perimeter. But it won't matter; we'll be raining so many three pointers your squad will crying to their mamas.
TODD:
I want to talk about Kobe Bean Bryant, but let me first address these "lineups" you referenced.
Everyone, including me, was all for the removal of the mandatory center position on the All-Star starting lineup. It was instead replaced by a declaration of simply "front court player." However, it is clear that this generalization was taken too far. The East does not even have a feasible team to trot out. Hopefully, for their sake, Dwyane Wade is not able to play and they can replace him with an actual front court player. Right now, the East is comprised on two guards, two small forwards and whatever you want to categorize LeBron James as.
Fortunately, the West isn't much better in terms of mismatches. Kevin Durant is a stretch four. Kevin Love and Blake Griffin are legitimate power forwards except neither one of them can protect the rim on defense. The best shot-blocker in the starting lineups is probably Durant. As of 1/26, not a single one of these 10 men was in the top 40 in the NBA in blocks. It's a bit ridiculous.
Because of this, it seems arbitrary to even field your question on which side would win a five on five matchup. Not only are all 10 of these guys not going to be healthy enough to play, but these 10 men hardly resemble two workable starting lineups.
If they were going to suit up, the game would really come down to one matchup though.
Kyrie Irving and Stephen Curry could match each other even if Curry is a better shooter; neither is a very good defensive player and both would probably score at will (in what will become a theme here).
Kobe and Wade, as you mentioned, could also hold each other down, or at least match each other offensively with their old men games of semi-post-ups and half fades.
Paul George could guard Durant as well as any human can. George is one of the most physically gifted wings in the NBA. Durant does look like the league MVP at the halfway mark of the season, but PG was the MVP at the quarter mark, so he's nothing to sniff at.
Carmelo would then slot onto Blake Griffin. Neither could really stop the other in the post, so it would just be a scoring barrage. But this is the All-Star game after all.
That leaves just two men to check each other: the Akron Hammer and poor, poor Kevin Love. Love is probably the best combination of rebounding and outside shooting we have in the league right now, but he cannot hope to contain LeBron in any facet of the game. The West would have to employ some sort of rotation zone and force the East to beat them from the outside. This is a plausible tactic as the East does not have anywhere near the shooters the West does. However, athletically and fundamentally, the East has a huge edge just because they are playing with the skill sets of five smalls.
If the West had been given an actual center who could block shots or someone more imposing than either Griffin or Love, I would like its chances. However, as it stands, the East has the edge simply because there is no spot on the court where the West can take advantage of them.
Friday, December 6, 2013
NBA Season of Déjà vu Season of Déjà vu - Part two
NBA Season of Déjà vu Season of Déjà vu - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (12-6-13)
[Part one - Season of Déjà vu]
TODD:
Picking a surprise team from the East is tricky. On the surface, someone like Toronto would qualify. They are below .500 and have been struggling. But because of the division standings, they are currently fourth in the conference...not much of a sleeper. I really liked what the Hawks and Pistons did in the offseason so they are teams to keep an eye on. Twenty games in is a quality sample size but not enough to mark a team as dead. Look for the Pistons and Hawks to both battle for one of those top four seeds to secure home court advantage in the first round.
Although the Boston Celtics have pretty much the same record as these teams, I don't see the playoff sleeper potential here. If anything, they've been playing over their heads. It made too much sense for them to tank this season. Scratching out a seven or eight seed now doesn't help them long term. There isn't enough talent on the roster to surprise anyone in the playoffs.
DAN:
Yeah, I was grasping for a glamour pick with the Celtics as sleeper. Let's just face it, the Eastern Conference is not very good. Every team is average and lacks a reason for a casual fan to watch them. I'll move on to the West.
In the Western Conference all of the top eight teams are over .500; what a contrast to the East! I'm pulling hard for Portland to hang on and lead the pack. And there is serious upset potential come playoff time. The Lakers and Grizzlies are lurking over the final playoff spots, as is Phoenix, and I say at least one of them snags a spot from Dallas or Denver. So will anything change from last season? Yes, yes it will.
Last year the Spurs and Thunder held on well into the post season, mainly because several other young teams didn't have enough experience yet to match up with them for the long haul. I believe Golden State gets over that hump this season. They are no longer a surprise and will move one step further this year. I'm not ready to put them in the NBA Finals, but I'm damn close. I also love Houston's potential late in the season to knock off the former big boys. The East may be business as usual, but out West things will get interesting and expectations dashed. I WANT to pick the Clippers to take a step forward, but unfortunately they are stuck in the same spot.
TODD:
The Spurs and Thunder are still the favorites, but Portland has clearly established themselves as a team to be reckoned with. A record of 16-3 is no joke. If anyone is going to be that third team challenging for the Western Conference Finals, it's the Blazers. Golden State still seems flawed to me. They could obviously make a playoff run if their shooters get hot. It is pretty easy to imagine. However, I feel more confident in a post scorer like LaMarcus Aldridge and a point guard who gets to the hoop like Damian Lillard on Portland, than I do catching fire from behind the arc with the Warriors.
Houston and the Clips are interesting because they both seem like they are one player away from competing, and that one move could come if they trade with each other. Omer Asik does not fit on Houston. Everyone knew that the second they signed Dwight Howard. He is going to be moved. If Los Angeles can scrap together something Houston wants, or perhaps involve a third team, Asik is just the type of player the Clippers need to solidify their front line.
Let's revisit the standings around Christmas, when the soul of the NBA season kicks off. Hopefully one of these contenders has made a move by then. Give me some trades.
Monday, December 2, 2013
NBA Season of Déjà vu Season of Déjà vu - Part one
NBA Season of Déjà vu Season of Déjà vu - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (12-2-13)DAN:
The 2013-2014 NBA season is still very, very young and yet it's beginning to feel way too similar to last year. Injuries have once again derailed several teams and more than a few star players. I'm not interested in harping on the injuries, but what happens to Derrick Rose and the Bulls? Can the Nets turn the corner and get both Brooke Lopez and Deron Williams back at full strength to turn their season around?
I'm sad about Derrick Rose. I wanted a true contender for the Miami Heat come playoff time. Yes, yes there are the Indiana Pacers and Paul George is becoming a superstar. But he isn't one yet. Both the Bulls and Nets were serious competition, but I don't know if they can hang on for the long haul this season.
Things are looking up in the Western Conference, so give me your breakdown of the NBA season. Everyone knows its official start is on Christmas Day, so will the playoffs be as predictable as they were last year? Will every team we expect make it? Something has to change, doesn't it?
TODD:
You are correct in that it is much too soon to pay attention to the NBA standings. However, certain trends are obvious, whether because of injuries or the fact that your first-year head coach is spilling drinks on the sideline to get a free stoppage of play late in the game because he has no timeouts left.
The East is a wrap; call it right now. Miami and Indiana are both going to win over sixty games and no one else in the conference is going to approach fifty. It's a two-team race and Paul George is already a Star, with a capital S. He is making an All-NBA team this season. The Rose injury is the major cause of this supremacy race not being three-sided. Chicago has no ceiling with a healthy Derrick Rose. Now, their ceiling is fifty games and a trip to the second round of the playoffs. It's sad but true.
The rest of the East's supposed contenders have collapsed faster than stock in Kevin Garnett. Brooklyn and New York have been surprisingly terrible thus far, but lesser contenders like Milwaukee and Detroit have also failed to live up to expectations. Eight teams have to make the playoffs from this conference (some kind of silly rule mandates it). But that doesn't mean eight or seven (or even six!) teams will top a .500 record. If Miami does not face Indiana in the Eastern Conference Finals, something drastic went wrong for one of them.
As for the West, the exact opposite is transpiring, and I could not be more delighted about it. It looks like there will be no dominant team, but as many as twelve good teams. It is quite possible, by the end of the year, there will be as many as a dozen West teams with a better record than the eighth seed in the East.
San Antonio still looks amazing but so does Portland. It also seems like Houston, OKC and some others haven't even gotten going at full speed yet, even though they're still winning over 70% of their ballgames. A lot was expected out of New Orleans; they may be an interesting team to keep an eye on in the coming weeks, especially with the Anthony Davis injury. At 8-8 they are still very much in pursuit of a playoff spot, but they currently sit in a three way tie for 10th in the conference so they can't wait too long to turn things around.
So to finally answer your question, the playoffs will be exactly the same as always! The East is already decided. Heat v. Pacers, Eastern Conference Finals, mark it down; bet it; do whatever you gotta do. As for the West, it is as much of a craps shoot as it has been in recent years. I still see as many contenders to win the conference as we thought in August. You could even talk me into expanding that from the four we thought at the beginning of the season. Through a month of play, the West has actually become more competitive.
DAN:
That stunt cost Jason Kidd $50,000! One expensive use of a Downy paper towel. But I'm going on record that the Nets will be in the Eastern Conference Finals. Nets vs. Heat. I know the Pacers are on fire, but they need one more year of playoff experience before they can reach that 'next level.' Unfortunately we'll also have to hear about the Knicks all year, since you're spot on when saying no other team is formidable enough to matter in the East this season.
We disagree out West, but I'll toss a question quickly your way before tearing open that wound in Part two. Is there a surprise team in the East? Maybe the seventh or eighth seed who makes a surprise playoff run. It can't be the Nets, or even the Knicks. I'm pulling for the Celtics to take home that title this season.
Friday, November 15, 2013
NCAA College Basketball: Remaking the game - Part two
NCAA College Basketball: Remaking the game - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-15-13)
[Part one - League of Children]
TODD:
I don't think you quite understand the term "win-win." It is not a win for college basketball that this is happening. Sure, this one season they will have transcendent freshmen all over the nation. But what about next year? This draft class is a once-in-a-decade type deal, maybe even more rare than that. And is this one year in college actually helping the growth of these guys once they turn pro? I haven't seen the statistics but I wonder how much better the one-and-dones have been as compared to the guys who were coming straight from high school years ago. Obviously both groups have huge successes and huge failures but overall, both the NBA and NCAA make us think this is working. I'm not sold.
To your point that college basketball has become a proving ground for future pros, this is both correct and wrong. It is correct factual, in that it is actually happening. It is wrong morally though, in that it should not be happening.
Many have suggested an MLB-type declaration situation to solve this problem. A prospective pro coming out of high school can either enter his name in the draft right away or, if he decides to go to college, he must stay three years. I like this solution on the surface but it wouldn't have saved college basketball. Remember how eight of the top eleven draft picks are incoming college freshmen? Well, with that draft rule in place, all eight of those guys would have entered the 2013 NBA draft. So instead of having one year of them, the NCAA would have gotten none.
The only solution is to go all-out and throw our cards on the table. College basketball is an inferior product; everyone should agree on this, even the staunchest defenders. No one can argue the basketball being played on the court is better at the collegiate level than at the pros. That would be ludicrous. So why not adopt the 'high school or three years' draft rule with a caveat? Anyone entering the NBA draft out of high school plays their first year of basketball in the NBDL, the developmental league. Right now the asset that is the D-League is being wasted. A player dropped down to it is deemed a disaster or a failure. Remove the galling stigma attached to the NBDL by making it a young man's learning league. All the best 18 year olds in the world will be learning on the fly against guys just short of NBA talent. This would be better for them than a year of college. It would also be better for the NBA by avoiding the flood of high schoolers who aren't ready for the professional ranks just yet that occurred when the old draft rules were in place.
But what about college basketball you ask? Well, CBB gets dumbed down because there is no win-win option here. It loses the elite talent that would otherwise play one season. But what it gains is better: players coming who want to be there, want to learn and want to play for a school. It will grow consistency and the overall product on the floor will be better, even if the top level is slightly worse. College basketball is never going to be as exciting or athletic or as powerful as the NBA game; why try to force it?
DAN:
There is no way to force an NBA level product out of college basketball. There is not nearly enough talent to go around. If there were THAT many NBA level players, we'd have 100 teams in the NBA. So we can safely throw that hope, prayer, ignorant folly out the window. And you're right, improving the NBDL by having draft picks who skip college spend a year there will ultimately hurt the college game. It would also take a huge effort on the part of the NBA to make this work. Can you name me a single D-League player or team? Where are they, who is playing and when do they even play? I have no idea. Talk about a lot of money needed to sell an invisible product. I'm chucking that idea in the trash too. I'm also against forcing three years of college upon someone obviously ready to make millions of dollars. Trashing it!
I love your ingenuity, your willingness to change and find a new model that can potentially elevate both the NBA and college basketball. But I think you're avoiding the obvious. If a player wants to be in college, stay in college, and play for his school for two, three, four years, there is absolutely nothing stopping him. These elite freshman don't have to enter the draft after one year of college basketball. They are choosing to. They have a choice. And you know why all eight of them will most likely make the choice to leave, because all of us in the public and the media would consider them stupid to say in college. Take your money when its on the table. Don't risk injury. Blah, blah, blah. They would get lambasted for going back. Andrew Luck practically did, but because college football is held in such high regard and there is less money in the NFL draft now, it wasn't deemed such a bad decision.
I agree, having the freshman earn their stripes against NBA bench players is better for their careers than playing in college. But the glaringly obvious truth you've missed is that college basketball has changed. The whole reason you want to 'fix' things is because you can remember a time when it was great. When players played in college and rivalries were real and school spirit meant something. That era is dead. Money and a booming NBA killed it. Accept this fact and move on.... Are you good now? Tears all dry? Cool, now we can have a real debate.
NCAA basketball can be improved. The quality of play has been reasonably consistent over the last ten years. The best coaches have excellent teams and the superstar players stand out when they exist. They are the anomaly. We have at the very most, ten of them sprinkled over fifty or more schools every year. Remove them from this equation. I think the biggest thing holding back the college game is a lack of scoring. They've made strides to address this, but more should/can be done. The best parts of March Madness are when a game gets tight down the stretch, with under two minutes to play. Those games are often 60 to 55 or something ridiculous like that. You get your 70 and 80 point games, but do you see the problem? NBA games are 90 and 100 point affairs. Scoring 80 or less is a fire-able offense. I think some rule changes are in order! Good thing the NCAA already made some. I smell debate.
Let's first address the changes made heading into this college basketball season. You're the perfect man for this job. Did the NCAA do enough with the current changes? I realize we have yet to see the full results, but they only did tweaking as far as I'm concerned; was it enough? I want to increase scoring and remove the annoyance of two minutes at the end of a game taking nearly thirty minutes of my time. Cut that down to ten or fifteen and I'm good. And I'm not talking small changes like shortening the shot clock. That's a good start, but we need BIG game changers. What about adding a line at NBA three point range that would count for four points? Or removing time outs in the first half entirely, except for injury. Light a fire under college basketball.
TODD:
Your complete dismissal of my D-League idea is very pigheaded of you. My idea solves the one problem you touched on. No one knows anything about the NBDL or follows it in the least. This will change instantly if all the best NBA rookies play there. Every season, half a dozen or so D-League guys get called up to the majors. Now, people will follow the progress of their team's top rookie as well as hear about/watch some other potential rotation players that might be on the way as well. The only downside to this is logistically; the NBDL is not setup like minor league baseball. NBA teams do not all have D-League affiliations...yet.
Your defense of the current rule is also disappointing. You stood by it claiming these guys have a choice; they don't have to leave after one year. That statement is obviously true, but the top players do not have a choice when they want one: coming out of high school. At that point, their control in the matter is squished, as they are not allowed to enter the NBA draft even if they want to and are ready to. So why not actually give them the choice when they graduate from high school? Either enter the NBA or go to college with the intent on staying for a few years and learning. There's your choice.
But since you killed off old college basketball, I am glad you brought up the rule "changes." Changes is in quotes because the biggest alteration wasn't really a change to any rule, just an emphasis on enforcing an old rule correctly. No more hand checking or arm bars or two hands on an offensive player. No more slowing down offensive player movement and progress. No more wild running through the lane in basketball, the equivalent to running a gauntlet machine in football practice. This was obviously smart and necessary. It will increase scoring in two distinct ways: more free throws while guys get used to the whistles and better shots on offense since ball handlers can't get checked and held as much.
However, the NCAA did absolutely nothing to help that last two minutes business you mentioned. This is the real killer of all basketball games to be honest, pro included. And there is really no simple fix; anything would be drastic. You could get rid of some of the timeouts available, but that would change the entire coaching philosophy of final possession basketball. You could penalize intentional fouls more harshly, but this would almost completely remove the possibility of late-game comebacks. I think the only change that could even occur would just be a simple shortening of timeouts. Make them all 30 seconds, or even 20 seconds. Or allow a timeout to be used as an advance of the ball to mid-court, like in the NBA, but have there be no stoppage of time at all. These are just small nuanced switches that could be implemented. As sad as it sounds, I see no feasible move that could fix the problem without changing the sport.
I know people would be up in arms, but how would you feel about limiting (or eliminating) timeouts near the end of games? It would reduce a coach's usefulness almost to zero and force the players themselves to make calls and adjustments in the final seconds. It would make things more interesting I assume, but interesting can be both good and bad.
DAN:
I admire your D-League idea, but do we really follow players in baseball through the minors? Really? We keep track of the absolute top prospects when they are close to being called up, but we don't follow their performance, only the date in which they will make their major league debut. And how many minor league games are televised? If the idea is to showcase the rookies, we need to be able to watch them. And we need to care about the teams they play for. This is by no means impossible, just a larger mountain than I was prepared to climb.
On the flip side, I'm all for any rule change that can speed up the dreaded thirty minutes of thirty seconds of play at the end of games. If eliminating, or limiting, time outs accomplishes this, then hell yes! I honestly believe that for regular season college basketball to be interesting to the national public, something drastic must be done. March Madness has held its own, thanks to gambling, but its by no means safe. Change the damn sport. Without top level talent, year in and year out, its going to die anyways.
Monday, November 11, 2013
NCAA College Basketball: League of Children - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-11-13)
TODD:
The college basketball season tipped off just a few days ago. Early season games are being played between ranked teams and November records seem to mean more than ever before. In fact, tomorrow #1 Kentucky faces #2 Michigan State and #4 Duke plays #5 Kansas. Not bad for the first week of the season.
But that is not the story for the start of the year. The story is related to this:
1. Andrew Wiggins
2. Julius Randle
3. Dante Exum
4. Jabari Parker
5. Marcus Smart
6. Joel Embiid
7. Aaron Gordon
8. Andrew Harrison
9. James Young
10. Dario Saric
11. Wayne Selden
Those are the projected top eleven picks in the 2014 NBA Draft according to ESPN draft expert Chad Ford. Nevermind the fact that six of them play for either Kansas or Kentucky. That isn't the story either. (...Well, it kind of is.) Of those eleven men, the BEST eleven pro prospects mind you, only one had played a single second of college basketball prior to this week, and that is Marcus Smart (who is a returning sophomore). The other 10 of 11 prospects are either freshmen or from overseas.
Let's let that sink in for a second.
Need more time?
We good? Okay.
So eight of the best eleven prospects in the world (according to ESPN's Chad Ford) are freshmen who had never played any collegiate basketball before. Two come from overseas and one lone man, who plays his basketball at Oklahoma State, is the only elite prospect with any kind of college experience. This is fascinating; it is unbelievable; it is uncanny and, to be honest, rather embarrassing.
Now I realize many have talked about the famed 2014 draft as possibly the best ever. People were looking ahead and realized this potential a year ago. Truth is, this might be the best that some of these guys ever look. It's possible at least a couple flame out as freshmen and their NBA stock drops a bit, or they return to school (HAHA, yeah right!). But taking this early mock draft at face value, the bottom line is this: the landscape of college basketball is kind of a joke.
Take a look again at those games being played on Tuesday. Kentucky is #1 in the country. Arguably their five best players are all freshmen. Kansas is #5, led by a couple freshmen, and even the Duke Blue Devils have a freshman as their best player. (Hell is freezing over, sell all your stock, buy that fancy car you've always wanted.) So not only are nearly all the top NBA guys freshmen, but many of the top teams are littered with players who will be leaving after just one season. This happens every year, but not like THIS.
Putting the specific 2013-2014 freshmen class aside, doesn't something need to change here for the product that is college basketball? Fix it my brother. Fix the sport.
DAN:
I need more time! Thinking.... thinking.... okay I concede. What's happened to college basketball?
Let me get my annoyed ranting out of the way first, because this NCAA season is both stupid and amazing. Personally, I find college basketball to be down right exciting, especially during tournament time. The holiday tournaments are usually top notch and competition for the top 25 is fierce. Yet the best eleven players are freshmen, unknowns, children with ridiculous amounts of talent and little game tape. I'm calling them children, not because of age, but because of their basketball experience. You need time with a top notch coach (collegiate level or higher) and a competition level rivaling your own to gain the intangibles needed for the NBA. Sure, you can compete and score, but you're still a kid until you've put a couple seasons under your belt.
So we now enter this NCAA basketball season full well knowing that Kansas and Kentucky are odds on favorites to be in the Final Four, if not the title game. Why? Because they own six of the top eleven players and everybody knows you only need one transcendent guy to run the table. They are all freshmen. Seriously! How did college basketball get itself in this position? What has cornered the sport into this inescapable situation? The NBA did this. Its popularity growth, especially overseas, has made college basketball inconsequential. Everyone wants to watch the best players, but they want to see them in a Knicks or Suns uniform (teams picked randomly, most people would probably not pick either of those teams). They want to see the best play the best, in the NBA, not the best clobber other inferior players until they run home crying. This is not actually a problem. Let that sink in.
The best thing about NCAA basketball has always been March Madness. That hasn't changed and knowing your team's best player will only compete in the tournament one time makes every game that much more special. Ultimately the one and done, with freshmen dominating the college game year after year, is great for the sport of basketball overall. It hurts the college game slightly, while boosting the NBA in incredible ways. I'm actually excited to see these eleven players play, knowing they will represent the top eleven in the NBA draft next year.
The NBA is becoming more synonymous with college basketball and vice versa. The college game is the proving ground, more so than ever before, with only a single season to show your worth. College sports is about the team name and logo on the front of the jersey, not on the back. So fans of a university will be excited no matter what. What drives a sport is the casual fan, the guys who want to watch for the top tier talent. And college basketball is going to have a ton of that this season. I say win, win.
I'm going out a limb here and saying you disagree. Yell at me some more and I'll give you your 'fix.'
Friday, November 8, 2013
Sports Injuries: NFL Upside down & Changing expectations - Part two
Sports Injuries: NFL Upside down & Changing expectations - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-8-13)
[Part one - When stars fall]
DAN:
I was all ready to call this a coincidence, this rash of high profile NFL injuries in 2013. Then Aaron Rodgers went down on Monday Night Football. Sure, there are a ton of injuries every year in the NFL, but adding Rodgers' name to this season's list has pushed things off a cliff. Wow! Everything is working out for the underdog teams this season. I'm calling it now: Chiefs vs. Jets in the AFC Championship and Lions vs. Panthers in the NFC. Now THAT would be something.
Anyways, on the injury front itself, I think all of the injuries do mean something. But it has little to do with the game being played. There was a time when injuries were glorified, exciting and fun to watch. I'd say as recently as the late nineties when Madden football let you "knock a guy's head off", we as fans loved this stuff. A home plate collision in baseball was wonderful. It was the peak of in game excitement. In the NBA, two men crashing to the court brought cheers to the crowd. None of this is true any more. We don't want our stars, let alone any player, getting injured. No one should ever fall to the court, home plate collisions are feared, and anytime there's a big hit or a quarterback sack in the NFL, we are left holding our breath to see if the man can stand back up under his own free will. Sports fans have changed and now, left with nearly the same sport to watch, we don't enjoy things like we once did. Fantasy sports is just a small part of this change. Our society has moved dramatically away from violence and aggressive behavior being tolerated. We still enjoy it, when we know its fake. But sports are real life and no one wants to see anyone get hurt.
You mentioned putting numbers to the injuries. Can you please do this? If I start a Kickstarter fund to raise 2K bucks, is that enough to fund you over a month's worth of work? I SO want this information. ESPN has been keeping injury reports for some time now, so you can correlate that to team success based upon when stars fall. And then jump to the next season and see what transpired. This would revolutionize sports betting for the upcoming season. You'd know exactly which teams, that presumably sucked like the Red Sox did the year before, were bound to have a great year simply based on lack of injury. I actually see a board game in this information's future as well. You can draft a team of stars and then "injure" players on your opponent's team. Using real life wins and losses, you can reshape history!
Getting a bit further off topic, why are there no fun sports based board games? The closest we ever got were those silly trivia games that are impossible to play with a non sports fan. Fantasy sports is pick up a play. Can't we get a monopoly style game where everyone is an NFL General Manager or something. Come on Matel.
TODD:
I thought you laughed and mocked me for my Carolina Panthers NFC pick back in our 2013 predictions. Now who looks stupid?
You are right about the wussification of the American public though. 'JACKED UP' used to be a weekly segment on NFL studio shows, where commentators gleefully cheered at players receiving concussions. (Not literally but essentially.) There used to be a button in Madden video games called the 'hit stick' which was used to jack people up. I actually cannot confirm whether this still exists, as I have not bought an edition of Madden in a long while, but I feel like it probably does not. And now, every time anyone sees a big hit, you are exactly right, the first reaction is in concern for the decapitated and whether or not the play deserved to be penalized.
Very few, if any hits are ever celebrated nowadays. It seems awkward to do so. So I will patiently await my $2,000 grant to research the injury epidemic and make everyone aware of my findings in the near future. Until then, we will be forced to watch a Monday Night Football game between the legendary Packers and Bears where the starting quarterback battle is between Seneca Wallace and Josh McCown.
Also, this is 2013. What's a board game?
DAN:
I've come around on the Panthers. I always believed Cam Newton had it in him, but Carolina is playing defense and former contenders are dropping like flies. Also, its now 2013 and I'm all about Thursday Night and Sunday Night Football. What's this Monday Night Football you speak of? Kidding, kidding.
Board games are contraptions made of card board, processed trees, that consume hours of your life. They require you to have at least three to five friends or subservient family members and always lead to argument and unnecessary bragging. They are analogous to the play ground in middle school, yet everyone starts on even ground and the smart / lucky person wins. Strength is removed from the equation.
To wrap things up on the sports injury front, there is only one thing I know for certain. All of the major professional sports are getting safer and we are going to still feel, year after year, that there are a TON of injuries to our favorite players. This is the deal. The players make it when they continue to play a sport past their early twenties when their bodies no longer recover the same way. And we the fans make this deal when we decide to devote heart and soul, sweat and tears, to our team's success during the season.
Unless sports become a virtual endeavor with no actual, physical competition, there will be injuries and lots of them. From a fantasy sports perspective, this frickin sucks. Its bad enough to lose a fantasy football matchup by a fraction of a point (I've lost two weeks this year by 0.2 points). But when your star player is injured, or worse, they are playing through a minor injury that simply hampers his or her production, your team is pretty much screwed. They have spray on band aids now. I want spray on bone and ligament healing. Thank you science.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Sports Injuries: When stars fall - Part one
Sports Injuries: When stars fall - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-4-13)
TODD:
The Red Sox made an interesting improvement this season, going from last in their division to first and a World Series title. Remarkable? Not really. Last year's team shouldn't have been that bad; it really just came down to injuries. Injuries!
Jonah Keri did a great job of detailing this recently in a piece for Grantland. Here is his table that pushed the point home:
Player: Games Played WAR
| Jacoby Ellsbury (2012) | 74 | 1.4 |
| Jacoby Ellsbury (2013) | 134 | 5.8 |
| David Ortiz (2012) | 90 | 2.9 |
| David Ortiz (2013) | 137 | 3.8 |
| Dustin Pedroia (2012) | 141 | 4.4 |
| Dustin Pedroia (2013) | 160 | 5.4 |
| John Lackey (2012) | 0 | 0.0 |
| John Lackey (2013) | 29 | 3.2 |
The column on the left is Games Played and the column on the right is Wins Above Replacement (WAR). As you can see, from just four players, the Sox gained roughly 10 wins from one season to the next. This factors in none of the moves they made or improvements in other players, call-ups, whatever. A full 10 wins came from just these four guys staying healthy.
It is a rather remarkable discovery in my opinion. But what it really does is make the Red Sox story even less interesting. They were bad in 2012 because their best guys all got hurt. They were great in 2013 because their best guys all stayed healthy. As Yankee fans, we can relate.
This question goes way beyond baseball or the Red Sox. Are injuries ruining the fun of professional sports? It does not seem that concussions are lessening in the NFL; just last year, the NBA was demolished by major injuries to major stars. And we can see here what a small number of injuries in baseball can do to a contender. This has probably always been the case, but it seems much more stark these days.
DAN:
I'm deeply fascinated by the idea that a team could turn itself around so dramatically from one season to the next, simply by staying healthy. But in the grand fasion of debate, I disagree with your argument. The Red Sox may have gained ten wins this season, but they had a new manager, a new bullpen and most importantly, a killer new closer. It wasn't just the injuries. But ten wins is ten wins and as more QBs drop like flies each week in the NFL, this is a great topic to rip to shreds.
I'd be nice if life was as simple as you paint it. But I actually think there are far fewer sports injuries now than in the past. Medicine is better, training is better and players know how to care for themselves a lot better. What's caused us to be so damn aware of every little thing is three fold. First, if there are less injuries then we will know a lot more about the ones that do exist. Second, every little bump and bruise is taken way more seriously with the million dollar contracts these men hold. And third, fantasy sports makes us care a heck of a lot about the health of our star players. Now that I laid that out there, the real issue is how a single injury to your team's star can actually ruin a season.
No one really notices if your team's star stays healthy. Tom Brady is playing, dominating, and all is well in the world. But the one year he got knocked out, well damn did we take notice. The team still did well, but all the what ifs start creeping into play. This year in the NFL I can rattle off at least four or five teams that lost their QB and are worse for it. I can also name at least one, my beloved NY Jets, who are better off in the long run because they lost a QB. Sorry Mark, but better to move on now with a season of hope, then later with a season like Jacksonville is having. How are they actually that bad? I don't get it. Its like the players are afraid of crossing the end zone, much like a child who doesn't want to step on the cracks in the sidewalk.
So what are we really talking about here? Its not just injuries, but its knee and shoulder injuries. Nothing else seems to matter much. The NFL is so worried about protecting the head. Its definitely important, don't get me wrong. But this has to be evidence towards them actually caring about player safety, right? Because protecting the knees and shoulders goes much farther towards not having a star out for the season. In Sam Bradford's case, he just shouldn't have skipped out of bounds.... too soon?
TODD:
I agree with your three basic premises. We do know more about every injury because of coverage and the fantasy sports element for sure. And I think your second point was the most important. We hear about EVERYTHING; perhaps 60% of these same level injuries did not even make news 15 years ago. That is absolutely plausible and may even be a higher percentage.
The star injuries is what seems most alarming though. The 2012-2013 NBA season was a whirlwind of All-Stars going down for long stretches; Russell Westbrook, Derrick Rose, Kevin Love, Rajon Rondo, etc. And already in the NFL season, just halfway through mind you, here is an incomplete list of impactful guys out:
Julio Jones, Dennis Pitta, EJ Manuel, Jay Cutler, Lance Briggs, Leon Hall, Geno Atkins, Brian Hoyer, Champ Bailey, Randall Cobb, Clay Matthews, Brian Cushing, Reggie Wayne, Ahmad Bradshaw, Jerod Mayo, Vince Wilfork, Malcom Floyd, Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, Michael Crabtree, Sam Bradford, Carl Nicks.
Not only is that list just the most famous names, it doesn't even include guys who've missed over a month and are now back, like Jake Locker, or played some and have been periodically out, like Roddy White or Mike Vick. All those guys are already out or on IR officially. And this is week 9.
It can't just be a coincidence, can it? Or just simple mathematics of playing time? I realize the better players will usually play more minutes and thus have a higher likelihood of getting hurt, but to have such a rash of severe injuries to important players seems so fluky it must mean something. I just don't know what that 'something' is.
What is definitely not a coincidence is certain teams, like the Kansas City Chiefs, have remained rather healthy thus far, leading to their unexpected success. I believe if the numbers were plotted, the amount of surprise teams has more to do with injuries, or lack thereof, than people realize. If you want to have a jump on a surprise playoff pick for next baseball season, just scour through the data and see which team lost the most games from their top level talent. That would have pointed us towards a Boston comeback this season for sure.
Monday, October 21, 2013
MLB Fall Classic: Average event in a Golden package - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (10-21-13)
TODD:
Game One of the 2013 MLB World Series is Wednesday night. The Boston Red Sox will be facing the St. Louis Cardinals. Woo? Not quite a surprise match-up this season; no one really came out of nowhere. Even both LCS match-ups were between powerful franchises. Unless you count the Red Sox going from worst to first as surprising, this year's playoffs was pretty bland. And even Boston's uprising was semi-faulty. They shouldn't have been that bad last year. They had the same roster but with some of the Dodgers' players. And look how far LA got with Adrian Gonzalez being arguably their best hitter all year.
We all know MLB struggles for TV ratings. Is it better that they've gotten a World Series between two country-wide teams? Everyone says they love the underdog stories of the Rays and Athletics and Pirates but then the public doesn't show up to watch these teams when it counts. Baseball has, even without a salary cap, one of the most parity-filled sports in this country. The Red Sox going from worst to first in the regular season isn't even a story because it has happened multiple times before. Parity is not an issue here as far as fair and balanced play. But is parity an issue for league popularity?
The NBA gets ratings when the Lakers, Celtics, Heat, etc. are playing for a title. Luckily for them, this happens nearly every season. You know when the last time neither the Lakers, Celtics or LeBron were in the NBA Finals? It hasn't happened since 2006. And if you throw the Spurs in this group, 2006 doubles as the only NBA Finals since Jordan's Bulls that didn't have one of those teams.
Where are these teams for MLB? Instead of "boring" match-ups between the same teams every year, baseball gets new blood in the World Series nearly every season. And yet this ends up badly for their viewership.
What can be done to save the Fall Classic?
DAN:
I'm not quite sure how it happened, but baseball became a sport where it is harder and harder to watch any old team compete for a championship. The NFL has parity, loves parity, and as a fan I'll watch most of the playoff games and certainly the Super Bowl, no matter who is playing. The NBA needs its powerhouses, has them, and I'll watch the finals when the powerhouses are in it. They usually are. MLB is different. It has parity, a lot of it, but I do NOT enjoy watching random teams play for a title. It was not fun for anyone outside of San Francisco to see the Giants win it all last season. MLB also has powerhouses, teams that are good year after year. But I did NOT enjoy watching them compete in the League Championship Series' this season. Its hard to watch and enjoy the Red Sox, as a Yankee fan, but the NLCS between the Dodgers and Cardinals should have been awesome. On paper it reads like two great franchises battling for a shot at the World Series, but you're spot on with your MLB analysis. The Fall Classic is broken and the Red Sox vs. Cardinals is lacking cache that would surely be there in both the NFL and NBA.
I actually think parity has hurt the popularity of MLB. I love watching my Yankees and will watch them in every playoff game if possible. But outside of my home team, I don't need to watch the games. Checking the scores is just as much fun. The games are long, so why not tune in for an hour? Well there's no guarantee anything at all will happen during those three innings. Watch one quarter of an NFL game or an NBA game and you're practically guaranteed scoring. Baseball doesn't work that way, so its needs matchups to make it exciting. A great hitter vs. a great pitcher. But outside of the Dodgers lineup, there's only a few hitters that make me take notice. The Red Sox have one in David Ortiz. The Tigers have one in Miguel Cabrera, but they're now out. The Cardinals don't have anyone who quite reaches this level. Where does this leave us? With a Fall Classic that's sorely lacking.
I like the NBA Finals because one of the teams you mentioned, or more importantly one of the Super Stars of the league, has been playing for the title nearly every season in the last decade. I love the Super Bowl because its always exciting and football never lacks for story lines. But I'm at a loss for the World Series. They usually get fresh blood in the Fall Classic, which is ultimately great for regular season baseball but kills October excitement once your team is out of the running. This year is different, or at least it should be with two classic franchises holding strong in October.
The Red Sox move from worst to first should be a huge story. I actually think its pretty amazing. They stunk last season, basically ran out the same roster with a new manager this year and are now the best of the American League. Sure, sure, they weren't bad in 2011. But they STUNK last year in 2012. I actually picked them to follow things up with a bleak 2013, barely squeaking into the playoffs. So I don't get why this isn't a bigger story. Probably because its the Red Sox, they've been great for a decade more or less and ho hum.
Ultimately it comes down to Star Power. Baseball doesn't have enough. Its lacking, missing, non existent for me outside of David Ortiz who doesn't even play in the field. Teams need stars to draw fans outside their home market. MLB has a marketing problem. We need more KIA car commercials with baseball players. Come on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)