Who wore it best: Madison Bumgarner or Duane Kuiper?
The NFL Combine is Pro Sports At Its Absurdist Extreme
Whenever Matt Taibbi writes for Grantland, it is a treat. The guy has made a living writing on some of the biggest and most important stories of our time – he is smart, funny, and has a way of drawing out the absurdity of every situation. This time, that task was pretty easy, as we were blessed with Taibbi’s take on the NFL Draft Combine. He absolutely laid waste to this ridiculous spectacle that has somehow become a TV ratings boon for the NFL Network. Every year, millions turn on their TV during the middle of the day (or watch the re-airing that night) and watch college aged kids run, jump, and lift weights. It is absolutely absurd. As Taibbi writes: “As live television, the combine is a marathon effort at extracting something out of not too much of anything. It’s 45 hours of watching guys the casual fan has never heard of run wind sprints. You have to be brain-damaged to love it, but millions, including myself, do.” -TOB
Source: “America’s Second-Greatest Reality Show: A Visit to the NFL Draft Combine in Indianapolis”, Matt Taibbi, Grantland (02/24/2015)
PAL: I’m trying to understand why so many people watch the combine and the draft. The best I can come up with is this: There are phases of fandom over the course of any sport’s season, but these phases are condensed because football is a short season. Whereas in baseball a team can start off 6-15 and you’re still invested as a fan, you more than likely know the outcome of your football team’s year if they start 0-3. There needs to be time for hope, potential, and futures with franchise quarterbacks. The combine and the draft create that time, venue, and show to feed the ignorant bliss central to fandom. Of course, all of this is ludicrous, which is why Matt Taibbi – a writer way above this story – is the perfect guy to pen this piece.
Jocks vs. Nerds, Exhibit No. 782
Here’s a fresh perspective on the analytics “debate” in sports. On February 10, Charles Barkley (now a part of the media), laid into a NBA General Manager, calling him an “idiot who believes in analytics…it (analytics) is just some crap some people who are really smart made up to try to get in the game because they had no talent.” I hope we can agree applying more specific analysis when it comes to quantifying athletic performance isn’t idiotic. In this article, Bryan Curtis offers up this take on what the debate might actually be about: “This clash doesn’t pit a blogger versus a newspaperman in a debate over the value of PER. It pits media versus athletes in a battle over who gets to tell the story of basketball.” That makes a lot of sense, especially since we have more and more former athletes transitioning into the media. Additionally, this story makes me wonder, as fans, what experience we want with our teams. Do we find comfort in the metaphysical, the data, or some combination of the two? -PAL
Source: “Moneyball II: Charles Barkley, the Sports Media, and the Second Statistical War”, Bryan Curtis, Grantland (02/26/2015)
TOB: Good article, but I don’t agree with the premise that this is “Moneyball II”. The war between athletes and media has been going on for as long as the press has covered sports. Even athletes vs. analytics is nothing new. When I first read Chuck’s comments, it reminded me of Joe Morgan’s stubborn and outspoken opposition to baseball analytics, despite the fact that Joe Morgan, a Hall of Famer, is actually seen as underrated by the analytics community. They love him. Joe didn’t care. Chuck isn’t quite so resolute. During a panel discussion at All-Star weekend, Barkley was presented with a Grantland article that showed how advanced stats love him. From the article: “Barkley got a big smile on his face. Analytics were suddenly OK, even helpful, when they confirmed something Barkley already knew: He was great.” The latest flare-up is just Chuck being Chuck, and this “new” battle between media and athletes has been going on since before “Moneyball I” even began.
The NCAA Can’t Get Out Of Its Own Way
The NCAA imposed recruiting restrictions on LSU this week. Last summer, LSU signed a player to a Financial Aid Agreement (FAA), with the intent to enroll him in January (in the parlance, this is known as a “Greyshirt”, and allows a player to delay the start of his eligibility clock). But come January, the player decided to attend Alabama instead. Here’s where it gets screwy: the rules allow a school unlimited contact with a player once an FAA is signed. But the player is not bound to the school, and if the player changes his mind and decides to attend another school, the school is punished – ostensibly for too much contact with the player. This is absolutely illogical and insane and thus the perfect example of an NCAA rule. -TOB
Source: “Hefty LSU Recruiting Sanctions May Be Related to Alabama Signee”, John Taylor, College Football Talk (02/26/2015)
PAL: Remember when you were a kid playing at the park with the rest of the kids from the neighborhood and you made up some game to pass the time and ultimately said made up game would fall apart because there’s always that one kid who starts making up rules in the middle of the game? The NCAA is like that kid who always messes up an otherwise fun game.
Hey, Uh, Vivek: Players Are Not Guinea Pigs
Since taking over the Kings, Vivek Ranadive has floated some insane basketball strategies. One that has gone largely unnoticed, though, is that the team’s NBDL affiliate, the Reno Bighorns, hired David Arseneault, Jr. to implement the Grinnell System (to middling success – the Bighorns are just 14-21 on the season). Grinnell has intermittently made headlines, most notably in 2012 when Jack Taylor scored 138 points in a single game. It appears that management is evaluating this as a possible strategy for the NBA squad, despite the fact that it would not work in the NBA.
Grinnell’s system is simple: (1) only shoot threes and layups, and shoot them immediately; (2) full-court press on defense and try for steals at every opportunity; (3) if your man beats you, let him score and get back to the offensive end; and (4) everyone but the shooter tries to get offensive rebounds. To keep players fresh, they make full five-man substitutions every 2 minutes, like in hockey. As a result, the Bighorns are averaging 140 points and 50 three-point attempts per game.
But the most interesting aspect of this story is how the Bighorn players, hoping to impress someone and make an NBA team, are being treated like guinea pigs. In the article, the players openly wonder if teams will take their abilities seriously – especially on the defensive end. This charade only serves to hurt the players the Kings employ, and to damage their own credibility. Thanks to 1-2-3 Sports! reader Brett Morris for this story. -TOB
Source: “140 Points – But are the Reno Bighorns a Basketball Experiment Too Far?”, Les Carpenter, The Guardian (02/20/2015)
NBA Inside Stuff (Sans Ahmad Rashad)
What’s it like to guard Tim Duncan and get beat even when you know exactly what he’s going to do? What differentiates Anthony Davis’ shot-blocking from other bigs in the NBA? Why does Pau Gasol draw more fouls than DeMarcus Cousins? NBA vet Tyson Chandler breaks down a list of players who “do certain things better than anyone else in the world.” Chandler is great on these assessments, providing specific insights that dig deeper than a player’s natural abilities. Chess matches take place all over the court throughout the game. 1-1 battles within a team game. Sounds like a baseball article. In fact, Chandlers’ assessment reminds me a bit of a July post we had on what makes Cardinals pitcher Adam Wainwright so tough to hit. – PAL
Source: “Elite Bigs 101”, Tyson Chandler, The Players’ Tribune (02/18/2015)
Video of the Week
Like what you’ve read? Let us know by following this blog (on the right side, up near the top), or: