Think of the NBA and NCAA basketball. Think of the connections between the two. Eventually, you should come to the one-and-done rule. It basically says that a player must be out of high school for at least one year before entering the NBA draft (or the NBA in general in some form). This usually means the player ends up going to college for a year (or more), and then turning pro. Many current players have gone this route, and it has made almost a mockery of the NCAA basketball process.
In fact, if you do some research into the matter, there seems to be more opinions opposed to the one-and-done rule than in favor. Adam Silver seems to be not only in favor or the rule, he wants to actually raise the NBA age minimum. I recognize how older players coming in would possibly lead to more mature players, but you are working against a player's earning potential.
Let's parallel this to some of the other major sports. In baseball, a player can be drafted straight out of high school. Some international talent actually can sign at 16 or 17 years old. In golf, players can turn pro as teenagers. The same goes for tennis. Football is really the case where multiple years are required before going pro. However, I see a major difference between basketball and football: the physicality needed. For basketball, there is certainly a physical demand. It's a contact sport. However, a lot of what goes into it is pure athleticism. Look at Andrew Wiggins up above. Is he going to outmuscle LeBron James? No, no one is really. But can he possibly outmaneuver James? Probably not, but at least there's some semblance of a chance. Put him against any other player in the NBA, and Wiggins would have had a real shot at it because of his athleticism. He did not need a year in college for that. In fact, it only made him a year older and by extension, a year closer to losing that athleticism.
By putting players one step closer to the end of their professional careers before they can enter the draft, you are seriously hurting earning potential. In addition, what about kids that have major injuries in that year of college ball? Joel Embiid, for example, got hurt near the end of his freshman year at Kansas. Would he have gotten hurt in the NBA? Maybe, but maybe not. If a player seriously gets hurt in that year of forced college ball, they're just plain screwed.
And don't try saying it's for the sake of an education. Going to school for just one year makes a mockery of that idea. Heck, not even everyone goes to college for the one year. Emmanuel Mudiay ended up playing in China for a year, albeit due to eligibility concerns.
Many pundits and respected authority figures have come out against the one-and-done rule, and you can count me among them. Before the rule, we got such talent as Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, and LeBron James straight out of high school. They were ready, just as I believe Wiggins was ready when he graduated high school. Just as I believe Ben Simmons has been ready. Let the kids play, because the one-and-done rule is one-and-dumb.
Tip of the hat to my buddy James for suggesting this blog topic. Check out his blog at naiveblogattempt.blogspot.com. Also, please let a comment below with any questions/comments you have about this post. Think it was awful? Let me know! I welcome all opinions, so long as they don't blatantly attack people.
Just a few days ago, Luke Walton, interim coach of the still-perfect Golden State Warriors, was named an NBA Coach of the Month. It makes sense, right? I mean, the Warriors have maintained a perfect record; they're blowing everyone else away right now. However, Walton has an 0-0 official coaching record. So what gives?
Walton was not supposed to be the coach of the Warriors this season. Steve Kerr, who coached the Warriors to the NBA Title last season, was meant to step into his second season at the helm. However, complications from a spinal surgery have knocked him out of action in the meantime. So, the Warriors turned to Walton, and the team has continued to flourish. Walton coaches the team on the court, and Kerr gets credit for the wins. Wait, what?
That's how the NBA is currently constructed. As mentioned in the article from the first link, written by Benjamin Hoffman of the New York Times, interim coaches that are not permanently replacing someone do not get credit for team wins. It doesn't tend to matter all that much, as it is a rare situation. Basically, a coach needs to be having serious health issues typically, and in his place an interim coach continues to win. As Hoffman again pointed out, it has happened with the Colts in the NFL (who have the same rules as the NBA) and previously with the all-time coaching wins leader, Don Nelson. The irony is not lost on me that both Nelson and the Walton/Kerr situation happened a bit with the Warriors.
Does this all seem right though? To me, it doesn't, but that's mainly because I see it as someone not getting credit for doing his job. Walton has downplayed the situation, but Kerr has come out and voiced much displeasure with it.
Others have mentioned that the cause for not allowing interims to get credit for wins is because of limited control of the team. That may be so, but are they doing enough to help their teams win?
Another point brought up by Hoffman was that changing the rules to give interim coaches credit for wins would chance the rule books. Don Nelson would no longer be the all-time coaching win leader if that were the case. To that I respond: is the NBA so afraid of changing the rule book that it would work against a case where someone is not being treated fairly just to keep it with the status quo? Commissioner Adam Silver has done a great job so far being progressive with the league. It's time to let the wins go where they belong, and right now the Warriors wins belong on Walton's record.
Josh McCown recently went down with a season-ending injury. Do you know what that means? We are so close to Johnny Football Time again! However, there is a player in the way: Austin Davis. Due to Johnny Manziel's partying ways and subsequent lying, he has been demoted to the end of the quarterback depth chart for the Cleveland Browns. Manziel has generally performed at best decent, and at worst horribly for the Browns. Of course, it can't all be blamed on him; this is the Browns we are talking about. However, due to all of his issues, many have come out and discussed where Manziel could end up next season, assuming the Browns finally do part ways with him. However, because that may not necessarily be the case, I wanted to get an idea for Manziel's possible destination without assuming he leaves town. Thus, I'll run down my top 5 directions for Johnny Football next season.
1. Dallas Cowboys
Why not? Actually, there are a few things here. First, owner/GM Jerry Jones tried to draft Manziel last year, and was overruled at the last second. Also, with Tony Romo dealing with major injuries this season, the Cowboys have had to go with Brandon Weeden (another failed Browns 1st-rounder) and Matt Cassel (who couldn't stick it out with the Bills). Suffice to say, it hasn't gone well-neither Weeden nor Cassel has won any games with the Cowboys. How could Jones get this deal to work though? Maybe just offer Jimmy Haslam a stake in an actually successful team? Or offer the Browns Greg Hardy. Seriously, just imaging a trade where Manziel is traded for Hardy. Trades like that are what Twitter was made for.
I should note that many people have suggested this, and Jones actually commented on it all recently. So, this part is a bit less original.
2. Washington football team
Yes, I refuse to use its current name. However, why would Washington go with this when Kirk Cousins has been performing so well? Well, for one, it's Kirk Cousins we're talking about. On the road versus at home, he's basically a different person. Up until this season, he was very underwhelming as well. Also, what else would Manziel need to fight against to start for Washington? Oh, just another under-performing, mobile former Heisman winner.
3. Philadelphia Eagles
I'm an Eagles fan, and frankly this is only here because I'm seem to like the anguish that comes from thinking about this possibility. The Eagles could trade Mark Sanchez for him. The Browns get a competent signal-caller (sort of), and the Eagles get excitement..? Actually, something tells me Chip Kelly is currently planning on trading all of the Eagles' main skills players for Manziel right this second. *Read, sarcasm*
4. Canadian Football League
If it's good enough for Tajh Boyd, it's good enough for Manziel. It wouldn't even be unprecedented; former Heisman winner Troy Smith played a few years in the CFL as well. So go forth, Manziel! We send you to Canada as punishment for them giving us Justin Bieber.
5. Cleveland Browns
The only way this happens is if coach Mike Pettine gets canned. That'll probably happen anyway. So, really, Manziel will more likely than not be back with the Browns next season. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually feel a little bad for Johnny Football. And...now the feeling's gone. Back to partying!
Do you have any questions/comments about this or any other blogs? Do you want to tell me I'm an idiot? Did you not understand the tongue-in-cheek tone to this blog, or not understand the sarcasm? Leave a comment below!
Major League Baseball is a bit different from other major sports in America because of a few different factors. First, there are far more players throughout an MLB organization than in the NFL or NBA. NFL comes relatively close, but baseball players still outnumber. Second, MLB does not have a hard salary cap. There is a luxury tax threshold, as the Dodgers are currently dealing with, but it doesn't always curb spending for the largest of markets. MLB also has limitations on how much can be spent on foreign players, particularly with regards to Central and South America. These limitations work in sort of a slot system, and charges work against the tax and additional taxes can be levied by going over the international allotment, as the Dodgers are yet again ignoring. Negotiations with Japanese and Korean players, however, do not factor into the international allotment because those players are not really considered "prospects." In fact, many tend to be in their late 20s, and sometimes 30s.
There is a flip side. MLB has an agreement with the Korean Baseball Organization, as well as Nippon Professional Baseball (Japanese Baseball). With both leagues, MLB teams can not just poach players at will like they sort of can in other countries. Of course, that is simplifying some of the struggles Cuban players in particular have to go through defecting in order to play in MLB, but teams can still at least pick a player and sign him. Rather, in KBO and NPB, teams must post their player for MLB teams to bid on. It's slightly different rules for each; in KBO, there is a blind bid system where the winning team gets 30 days to negotiate with the player, and the bid goes to the surrendering team if an agreement is reached. That's actually how it used to be in NPB too, but now it is a system where the NPB team must set a requirement up to $20,000,000, and any team willing to cough up that amount gains the ability to negotiate with the player and pay the posting fee if an agreement is reached. This was instituted to move away from such situations as Daisuke Matsuzaka agreement that saw $51,110,000 go to the Seibu Lions, and $52,000,000 over 6 years go to Matsuzaka himself.
Is this all fair to the player though? While players in Cuba can defect (relatively speaking) and by extension reach a sort of free agency, players in the KBO and NPB can't actually become international free agents until a certain number of years in their respective leagues (9 for NPB). This limits their overall market value dramatically. A player the likes of Matsuzaka would have likely earned at least double what he was able to keep himself if he had just been born in America. Veteran agent Alan Nero gave some insight into why the system is the way it is for KBO, and honestly he does make some good points. The posting system allows surrendering teams to gain money to help offset other costs. However, should that offsetting come at the costs of their players? In fact, in the recent case of Byung Ho Park of the now Minnesota Twins, the posting fee submitted was more than the entirety of the 4-year contract Park signed in MLB. Something about that seems wrong.
I appreciate MLB's attempts to get a more even platform with the NPB. However, until it moves to either the same system with the KBO, or develops something new entirely, players will continue to miss out on potential earnings while their former teams reap the benefits. Big name players will keep coming from the KBO. Can MLB look out for them?
Please let me know if you had any questions or comments about my post. Comment below!
Yesterday, December 3rd, the Miami Marlins formally introduced Barry Bonds as its new hitting coach. Yes, that would be the Barry Bonds that was convicted of obstruction of justice, that has dealt with rumors of steroid use for years, and who is the all-time MLB home run king.
With the aforementioned descriptors, it seems a decent portion of MLB fans are opposed to Bonds' hiring. How could someone that "cheated" be allowed to work with young players? Would everyone in the clubhouse all of a sudden start juicing?
I find it hard to believe that could be the case, and not just because such a high level of efficiency to get all the players juicing would be utterly beyond Miami's hapless management.
However, I'll admit at first even I was skeptical. I have largely been a Bonds detractor in my relatively short life; I just don't like cheating. Sure, there isn't a whole lot of hard evidence that Bonds knowingly took steroids in his playing career, and I do stick to the "eye-ball test." However, the test tells me Bonds doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame along with McGwire, Ramirez, and some others. But that's not really what I'm here to argue. In fact, for this post, I'll argue in favor of Bonds for the hitting coach position.
Why would I argue in favor of a player I've routinely rooted against, both in play and legally? Bonds is not the first potentially former steroid user to move into a coaching role, and he could help.
Back in 2010, Mark McGwire became hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals. He also admitted to using steroids that year. In fact, this is part of what separates McGwire and Bonds; McGwire has owned up to his past. I should note that there is a possibility Bonds did not take steroids, and of course individuals are innocent until proven guilty (except for in the court of public opinion, as I discussed in a past blog). But what makes these two similar, aside from the steroid connection? They were incredible hitters, especially with the mental side of hitting.
You can have all the power in the world, but if you can't see the ball and know how to react, it won't do you any good. Pedro Alvarez is learning that the hard way right now. Even aside from the power, McGwire and Bonds were exceptional at the mental side of hitting. Let's ignore doubles and home runs here for a second, as they speak to a lot of the power side. McGwire had a career OBP of .394 and a walk/strikeout rate of 0.83. Those are great numbers, and you don't attain those without fundamental abilities to put the ball in play. Sure, intentional walks factor in there, and hitting the ball hard helps with OBP, but the numbers speak beyond power. As for Bonds? I'll speak just to the .444 OBP, because his ratio had a whole lot of intentional walks built in. That's an insane number, one of the tops all time, and speaks to his understanding of what pitchers would try to get him out.
Bonds has been working with hitters for the last few years as an instructor at San Fransisco Giants spring training, and the results have been pretty solid. Players talked positively about him, as did coaching staffs. If an admitted steroid user like McGwire can get a chance to teach young players the mental side of baseball, why shouldn't Bonds? Because of his potential to teach younger players and really help them improve, Barry Bonds belongs in MLB.
Do you have any questions or comments regarding this post? Want to disagree or agree with me? Want to call me an idiot? Go ahead and leave a comment below, and I'll be happy to chat with you. Thanks for reading, and have a great day.
Today, the Dallas Cowboys announced that they will be going with Matt Cassel at starting quarterback for next week's game (Matt Cassel to start). This announcement brought up a few emotions for me. First, as a Philadelphia Eagles fan, it made me a bit sad because the Cowboys have a better shot at winning with Cassel than they did with Brandon Weeden. The announcement also got me nostalgic for the time when Cassel looked like he could be a top quarterback in the NFL (back when Tom Brady went down for the year and Cassel took them to the playoffs). In light of the constantly changing dynamics in the NFL, where a player can be great one year and awful the next, I just wanted to take a look at what I consider the top 10 quarterbacks in the NFL. However, because right now is extremely fickle, I will instead look at the top 10 quarterbacks for 5 years from now. Of course, this does not include any incoming rookies, so it likely will not be super accurate. Just enjoy it for what it is. Also, while I recognize 5 does not go especially deep, we're talking relative "elite" status here. Also, I'm sure my top 5 will anger enough people it and of itself. Approximate ages at the start of the 2020 season will be in (). I'll go from position 5 to position 1.
Yes, I believe the current Jacksonville Jaguars signal-caller could be the 5th best quarterback in the league in 5 years. What could possibly lead me to believe this? Well, he was drafted 3rd overall last year. That sort of thing tends to be a pretty good indicator of talent. Also, he is finally starting to show some of his immense potential with the Jaguars this season (63.7 QBR). And, the Jaguars really have nowhere to go but up. Bortles prototypical size, along with a true will to compete, leads me to believe he can be something special. Also, on the will to compete comment, Bortles has been dealing with a pretty iffy offensive line in Jacksonville, along with fairly pedestrian talent around him since he was drafted. Taking those shots time and time really shows guts.
Another member of the 2014 NFL Draft, Bridgewater was snagged at the very end of the 1st round, 32nd overall. The Vikings actually traded into this pick, and it is looking like a great decision so far. The Vikings made a semi-push for the playoffs just last season, and have a solid shot this year, albeit in the NFC North with the Green Bay Packers. Bridgewater brings a little more mobility to the QB position, and overall he just makes the smart plays. If he keeps up his development, and the Vikings continue to surround him with weapons, Bridgewater could ascend faster than originally intended.
Alright, if my rankings hadn't been frustrating you so far, they probably are now. However, why can't Dalton be the 3rd best quarterback in the NFL 5 years from now? This year he is looking far better than in the past, and even just in the past he has taken the Cincinnati Bengals to the playoffs his first 4 years in the league. For all the knocks on Dalton for losing playoff games, people may be lining up for the bandwagon if he can finally get the Bengals over the hump this year. 5 years from now, he'll be at an age for the prime of his career, and definitely should still be in the elite conversation.
The talent level...it's honestly not fair. There is not really much to say for Rodgers. He's a 2-time league MVP, and he could get his 3rd this season. I highly doubt he won't still be among the elites in 5 years, especially seeing as his NFL starting career was a bit delayed to begin with by some guy named Brett Favre.
Andrew Luck is the prodigal son, the chosen one, the one to take over for the great Peyton Manning. This year has been a bit rough for him (he's currently last in the NFL for QBR among qualifiers) but that really should not undo all of the things he has shown already. Give him time; he's going to be historically great.
Honorable mentions: Russell Wilson, Derek Carr, Cam Newton, Marcus Mariota, Nick Foles
Do you have any comments regarding this list? Anybody I missed? Do you believe all of these players are going to plummet away from elite status? Let me know what you think in the comments section below! As always, constructive comments/critiques are welcomed.
Also, if you have an idea for what I should blog about next, let me know!
On
October 10, 2015, Los Angeles Dodgers 2B Chase Utley preformed what can at the
very least be called a very questionable slide on New York Mets SS Ruben
Tejada.Take a look for yourself below.
Since
the slide, many pundits and fans have come out and discussed it, with the
general consensus being that Utley did in fact preform a dirty slide.Many called for his suspension, and at this
point he is appealing a 2-game suspension handed down by MLB.The suspension aside, this slide got me
thinking.I recall hearing about such
players as Ty Cobb and Pete Rose, true legends in the sport, doing some questionable
things on the field.
Yeah, Rose didn’t
really have any qualms about running directly into people if the situation
called for it.Anyhow, I just wanted to
take a little bit of time and look back on some of the more questionable plays
of baseball, with some examples coming straight from MLB.This may be a bit limited, because YouTube
does not have baseball going back too terribly far, but I will do my best on
examples.
1.Breaking Up the Double Play
In the above
video, Utley was trying to break up a double play.However, there is a multitude of other
examples of players going through some extraordinary efforts to prevent their
teammates from being doubled up.Now,
back when I played youth baseball, I asked my coach at the time why people
didn’t just run straight up toward 2nd base on grounders.After all, wouldn’t obstructing the view of
the player turning the double play be ideal?My coach, who apparently was a 2nd baseman in the Twins Minor
League system at some point, informed me that when players tried doing that
sort of thing against him, he would just fire the ball as hard as he could
right into their chest.I haven’t seen
that actually happen (and much less wanted to feel it happen), but in MLB there
have been some instances of players just straight-up running to 2nd
in double play situations.Here’s the
result of one such time:
Yeah, I’d have to
say that was pretty dirty.Running
straight into a player, if they are in fact in the baseline, is legal.A forearm shiver, though?That’s dirty.
If you are
interested in seeing more slides breaking up double plays, a simple YouTube
search should bring up plenty.
2.Cleating
Cleating is the act of raising one’s cleats
to dig into an opponent on a slide.It
is done at 2nd base on occasion to break up double plays, but it can
also be done at any of the other bases, particularly home plate.Ty Cobb, one of the greatest baseball players
of all time, was known for cleating in his day (Ty Cobb Short Documentary ).Of course, he definitely was not the only one
to cleat in games, and sometimes it is actually intentional.Cleating still is a rather easy way to injure
an opponent (Mercer Hurt By Cleating).
3.Throwing At Players
I’m sure you’ve
seen this before.Honestly, sometimes I
have no problem with this one.There are
some unwritten rules of baseball, and that fact gets called into question every
once in awhile.Regardless, if a team
bunts with an 8-run lead, I don’t really have much issue with plunking one of
their players on the butt (so long as you are careful about where on the butt).Sometimes it isn’t a plunking per-say, as
pitchers and position players have from time to time thrown at opposing
baserunners.It’s fairly rare, but
here’s one example: .
So
how do we get rid of these potentially dirty plays?Honestly, you can’t really.Just play the game the right way, and hope
others do the same.
How
do you feel about these examples?Do you
have a favorite example of a dirty play in MLB?Do you feel like any of the above weren’t dirty? Talk about it in the comments section below!
As
always, constructive comments/critiques are welcomed.
It has come to my
attention recently that the NFL is looking to expand games into other countries
(besides the London games over the years).Mexico City is seen as an
especially attractive destination for a game series, and a few owners/coaches
have already sounded off on that particular option (Art Rooney II's comments,
Ron Rivera's comments).Mind you, these particular comments are from
an owner, and a coach that actually has Mexican heritage.So there’s a bit of a vested interest
there.
This vested interest from
team higher-ups does not necessarily mean players will be on board, nor that they should be.The NFL
has taken a lot of flack, especially in recent history, over player
safety.International games and extra
travel do complicate the claim of concern for the players.However, let’s just let that sit for now
because honestly a blog detailing the NFL’s record with player safety….yeah,
that’d take awhile.I don’t have a day
to write that.Anyhow, if the NFL wants
to go to Mexico City, Germany, etc., I can give them some more ideas that would
be great for growing the brand that has seemingly already taken over
America!Here are my top 5 suggestions
for where the NFL should go next, with just a little bit of reasoning behind
each one.
Ok,
so the NFL already has games going on in London each year.There have been 12 regular season games in London
since 2007, and there will be 2 more this year (Bills-Jaguars and
Lions-Chiefs).So, why would I say
London?Well, the Patriots have actually
played in a couple of the games over the years, but those were against the Rams
and Buccaneers.What we really need is
two teams with extremely patriotic names to go at it in London.New England Patriots vs. Philadelphia
Eagles?Or New England Patriots vs.
Dallas Cowboys?I mean, really, would
the crowd really get what was going on in those examples?The mere fact that the Patriots have played
in London with nothing weird about it is amazing to me.Let’s up the ante a bit.
I
recognize that saying China does not really narrow this down much, seeing as
the country is massive.However, playing
a game or a few in China would increase NFL exposure over there, especially
when the NFL still sort of needs to compete with the NBA and MLB.I honestly couldn’t find any players in the
NFL that are directly of Chinese descent, so finding 2 teams for this game
would likely be a bit random.Still, the
exposure level would be high.
Technically,
this is part of the United States.However, Alaska is pretty limited in its ability to get football, in
part because of population/isolation concerns.If an NFL team did end up in Alaska though, the populace would likely
swarm to it.There is not a ton of other
professional sport competition.Also, as
far as weather goes, would it really be worse than an East Coast Winter?Well, yes, it would, but that’s just part of
the fun.The league would need to be all
over the situation from a legal/safety standpoint though.
I’m actually
pretty surprised we still don’t have an NFL team in Canada.It is the “National Football League” after
all.Anyhow, this would give the NFL a
chance to take Canada from hockey.Because really, if there was a really a challenge to Goodell’s supreme
authority as a commissioner, it was being compared to NHL Commissioner Gary
Bettman.Somehow, Goodell could make
himself more hated in Canada than Bettman, and that’s a true accomplishment.
Josh Smith is a forward for the Los Angeles Clippers of the National Basketball League. You probably knew that already. Josh Smith also has had a tendency to take really inefficient long midrange shots throughout his career. You might have known that too. However, throughout his career, Smith has been seen as a talent with incredible potential, but he just hasn't been able to put it all together.
Smith will be entering his 13th NBA season after originally being drafted 17th overall by Atlanta in 2004. He was drafted right out of high school, right before J.R. Smith was taken by the (at the time) New Orleans Hornets. Almost immediately after being drafted, Josh Smith was a starter, and even an NBA Slam Dunk Champion his second season, 2005. He also was the fastest player to 500 and 1,000 blocks (age-wise). In spite of these successes, Smith has never been an all-star.
In spite of never quite reaching superstar levels, Smith has still had a very successful career and earned a lot of money playing basketball. In reality though, what has been stopping him from reaching the superstar level?
The inclination to shoot deep midrange shots is well known. Smith is great at taking the ball to the rack, as evidenced by his slam dunk championship and generally high percentage inside the paint. However, beyond the iffy shot selection, two things work against Smith that aren't always looked at.
First, Smith is a downright poor free-throw shooter. He has a career ft% of 63.3%, which is only 6% above the notoriously bad free-throw-shooting Dwight Howard (Dwight Howard stats). Mind you, that is still a decent amount, but Howard also makes a 12.4% higher fg% than Smith. More bluntly, Smith is not all that much better than Dwight Howard at free throws, while having a low field goal percentage. If you are going to be a rough shooter (45.5% fg%, 28.5% 3fg% career), you need to at least make free throws. Smith's inability to make the freebies contributes to about a point less per game. That point per game may not sound like much, but every little bit adds up. It would be more than a point if he got to the line more, but again that circles back to taking deep midrange shots vs. driving inside. Driving inside would be a more efficient shot and lead to more free throw attempts, which would in turn require better free throw shooting. Smith's shot selection tends to be one big circle.
Next, Smith tends to disappear in the playoffs. He still scores, but it is a lot harder for him. Mind you, on one level that makes sense; the playoffs imply tougher opponents, and in turn tougher defenses. One would hope, however, that Smith would still be able to put together even borderline efficiency. Instead, for his career Smith actually has averaged more shot attempts per game in the playoffs than in the regular season (13.3 playoffs vs. 13.0 regular season) with less makes (5.7 playoffs vs. 5.9 regular season). His 3-point shot in particular gets even worse, going from a career regular season rate of 28.5% to 26.6% in the playoffs. Smith's block rate also goes down a bit, which is very important because he really does make a living on the defensive end with iffy shooting rates.
Now, I don't want it to seem like I'm saying Smith is a bad player. In fact, he is a very good defensive player, especially in his early career when his athleticism allowed him to average over 2 blocks per game. However, his potential rise to superstardom has been stunted by the well-known poor shot selection, as well as poor free-throw shooting and playoff shortcomings. The prime of his career may be over, but it is not too late for Smith to turn it around. He turns 30 in December, and has a great opportunity to get some minutes off the bench for the Clippers this season. If he can carry over his defensive abilities, take better shots, and continue the streaky 3-point shooting from last year's playoffs with the Rockets, Smith very well could crack the starting lineup. For a career that seemed to be only going upward, it may be his last chance to remain a rotation-caliber player. We'll see how it shakes out.
Do you believe Josh Smith will start for the Clippers this season? Where do you think his career is heading now? Please leave a comment down below answering either of these questions, or about something else entirely. Do you think I did a good or bad job with this blog? Let me know below! See you next time!
Athletes must be especially careful
how they conduct themselves in this day of technology.The court of public opinion can come crashing
down an athlete at any moment, and minor mistakes can end up being
career-threatening.Now, while cheating
generally is not a minor mistake, it does bring the same ramifications from the
public.The same can be said for just
engaging in immoral activity.What I
find most interesting, however, is how some athletes are able to generally
skirt public opinion (David Ortiz, Ben Roethlisberger, etc.) while others are
punished severely for their actions (Lance Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez,
etc.).What makes the cases so
different?
Several
factors come into play when analyzing how the public will respond to a public
relations disaster from an athlete.They
are: popularity of the athlete, image of the athlete, reaction(s) of the
athlete, and legal standing of the athlete.
Popularity
of the athlete is a tricky situation.In
this context, I’m meaning how popular is an athlete in the general population,
particularly in America—it is cherry-picking, but that’s where I’m at so I’m
going to go with it.A bit
counter-intuitively, I would suggest that popularity actually has a negative
impact on public opinion.The bigger
they are, the harder they fall.Think
about it.Approximately 13 players
(depending on if you count minor leaguers) were suspended by Major League
Baseball in the aftermath of the Biogenesis scandal.You likely knew of Alex Rodriguez and Ryan
Braun getting suspended.You maybe knew
of Nelson Cruz and Jhonny Peralta.But
the point remains: did the latter 2 receive anywhere near the same public
backlash as the former 2?Of course,
there were some extenuating circumstances—we’ll discuss A-Rod more later, and
Braun basically tried to scapegoat a UPS worker—but Cruz and Peralta were
nonetheless aided by not having the sort of attention on them as the
others.About a season later, both got
massive deals in free agency.Popularity
can bring the spotlight to players, and by extension bring the public on them
stronger by pointing out their mere existence.The court of public opinion cannot smash someone if it doesn’t know he/she
is there.
Next
comes the image of the athlete.More
bluntly, is the athlete viewed in a positive or negative light (or somewhere in
between).The poster child of this point
for me is Big Papi himself, David Ortiz.Now, Big Papi has always been big.I mean, this was he as a rookie:
He was not as big
as he is now, but still a fairly large human being.Years ago, Ortiz was mentioned in the
Mitchell Report, an anonymous survey performed by Major League Baseball in 2003
to check for steroid use.Ortiz has
adamantly denied ever knowingly taking steroids (Big Papi denies steroid use).However, some still view the legitimacy of his numbers, particularly his home run totals, as a little iffier. In fact, his supposed mention on the Report could harm his Hall of Fame chances. And yet, in spite of these hits to his image, Big Papi is still an incredibly popular player and personality. Why? He has not always been the cuddly player or teammate.
People seem to be drawn to Papi's raw emotion, his approach to the game that he so clearly loves. When they see Papi, they see that emotion. When they see A-Rod? It's a bit different there. Athlete image prior to the event(s) happening is huge.
Image after the event(s) is also huge. In fact, utterly catastrophic situations can occur, and an athlete can still walk away relatively unscathed, or at least significantly less than they would have otherwise. Take Michael Vick for example. He was convicted of dog-fighting and sentenced to up to 23 months in jail. Following his jail time, Vick was eventually able to return to the National Football League with the Philadelphia Eagles and he currently plays for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Of course, public opinion certainly was not kind to Vick (nor should it have been) but he did at least do the smart thing and strongly apologize for what he did. Vick also has done much charity work regarding dog shelters. Reacting after the event saved Vick from just being thrown away to the abyss; instead, he is still a professional quarterback and actually will be starting this coming Sunday.
Finally, legal standing comes into play. Kobe Bryant was accused of rape about a decade ago, but the charges were eventually dropped. Because of those dropped charges, Kobe has managed to at least partially sweep the situation under the metaphorical rug. Barry Bonds was convicted of perjury, and then the conviction was eventually overturned. Said overturning has positively impacted Bonds' public image. Of course, many people still wholeheartedly believe he did steroids and rigged the game, but any positive impact for him at this point is a huge win. Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was accused of sexual assault several years ago, and by settling out of court, managed to avoid a great deal of public backlash. Being convicted, and just being stuck with the conviction, has a strong negative impact on public opinion.
There are so many examples to go off of for this topic and only so much room, so some individuals were unfortunately left out. I highly recommend checking out Lance Armstrong, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa, and many others. Just look at their stories, the details regarding their situations, and how public opinion affected each of them.
Questions and comments are certainly welcomed. Did you disagree with something I said? Do you believe David Ortiz will make the Hall of Fame in spite of the Mitchell Report attached to him? Do you believe Barry Bonds' overturned conviction will lead to him making the Hall someday? Let me know in the comments below, and thank you very much for reading my post. See you next time!
Howdy! My name is Joshua Earl, and I'm a student at the University of
South Dakota. This blog is titled Psychology and Sports because
each post I will be focusing on an issue in a sport.
Now, this might be an examination of why a prominent player can't seem
to make free throws (Dwight Howard, I'm looking up at you). Or there
might be a blog about the psychology behind the "yips" (when a solid player suddenly can't perform up to par). Either way, hopefully this is a fun ride for you and for me! See
ya next time!
