CommonPrejudice

Sports Narratives

A break from the regularly scheduled programming....

I've been following the Phoenix Suns fairly closely the last several years and I can tell you that the results so far this post season have left me, shall we say, distraught.

Last night I was reading through a Suns thread here and came across a familiar narrative. While certainly sports narratives do not deal with life and death issues (or distract from them) as political narratives do the process is exactly the same. Repeat some BS enough times it becomes conventional wisdom, leaving it to us lonely bloggers to set the record straight. Anyways, here is a comment I was going to leave at the thread but decided I would put here for the record.

I'm just using the following as an example of what I hear repeated all the time on comment threads, and in newspaper columns, and on sports blogs and from the blowhards on Around the Horn about the Suns so-called inability to advance in the playoffs. It is a very familiar refrain.

"Suns are a nice team that win 50 plus a year and take a dump in the first and second round year after year after year. No need to watch the regular season because this is where we end up."

It's bad enough putting up with this crap from ESPN but man do I have to see it here on a Suns thread as well? While I don't give the Suns much of a shot this year god damn let's at least get our facts straight. Obviously, to begin with this year isn't even over yet - don't tell me you won't be making time Sunday afternoon for game 4 if the Suns win game 3 by 20. But much more importantly to my point, if they are to lose the series this will be the first time they will have lost in the first round in the Nash era, or in other words the first time in the current streak of playoff appearances. The first time.

Let's just look at what actually has happened. This is year 4. Year one the team came out of nowhere to reach the conference finals, lose to injury one of their better players prior to the final and finally succumb to an experienced Spurs team. Not the first round and definitely a successful season. Year 2 minus Kurt Thomas and Amare somehow the team makes it all the way to the conference finals again only to lose in 6 - they were even leading in that game by 7 in the second half as I recall only to finally, ultimately wear out. So don't you think that team with Thomas and Amare doesn't roll all the way to the title denying Shaq the ring? Anyways, bottom line once more a trip to the conference finals and once again you must label this a successful season considering the injuries. So last year was the year. That was when it was supposed to happen. And that "loss" I will never believe was a fair and just outcome to the series. And now it seems the time has past.

That said, I didn't want the Shaq trade because this group deserved one more shot with at least that core group (though the team really should have kept Thomas). Never forget that the day the trade was made the Suns had the best record in the West ... and if the suspensions last year hadn't happened would even beating the Spurs be an issue? I say it wouldn't. Remember how good things looked in that brief time after the victory but before it became obvious the suspensions were going to happen.

Not getting another shot with the original group and apparently going down in the first round this season are bad enough. Don't take way their history too. Sometimes I almost think the endless repetition of this giant myth is what caused the Shaq trade to happen.

I'm really tired of these mindless narratives that get spouted by so-called sports experts who really haven't the foggiest idea what they are talking about. oh yeah..and go suns.

Something Good From Sports

As a sportsfan, once in awhile I realize it necessary to hear about a story that doesn't involve the slaying of innocent animals, the fixing of games by the mafia and a shameless official or the tainted accomplishments of steroid-using cheater. All the better if accompanied by a great photo. So here you go.

...It's going to happen in a couple of weeks. And here's what it is: On September 14, in Beijing, Steve Nash, Carmelo Anthony, Greg Oden, Bonzi Wells, Derek Fisher, Baron Davis, Chuck Hayes, and Leandro Barbosa (all BDA clients, except Davis and Fisher) will play in a charity game against Yao Ming and the Chinese National team.

It will be televised on China's CCTV, and the stadium is expected to be sold out. The hope is to raise in the neighborhood of a million dollars to be distributed to the charities of choice: Chi Heng, a privately funded non-profit that works with children with AIDS; the Special Olympics (with World Summer Games next month in Shanghai); and the China Youth Development Foundation.

See they are not all bad.

NFL Week 3

The world is becoming a pretty goddamn depressing place. Sundays in the fall are my escape. My team, the Redskins, appear to really suck this season, much to my chagrin. But I will watch them this weekend over some burritos and a couple of dark ales - while there's still time. And now my picks.

Car. -3 at TB
I never liked Phil. I like Chris less.
Clev +6.5 vs Balt.
The bandwagon stops here.
Cinn. -2 at Pitts.
Cincy should prevail, but in Pittsburgh I'm not comfortable about it. Also I like teams that begin with the letter "C."
Det. -6.5 vs GB
Kitna vs Favre. Isn't it obvious?
Tenn. +10.5 at Miami
Miami wins 20-10.Culpepper is booed anyway. (Harrington will be starting with a month).Tenn. covers.  Easy game this.
Jack. +7 at Indy
The CommonPrejudice Game of the Week

NYJ. +5.5 at Buff.
I like the Jets to cover, the Bills to win.
Chi. -3 at Minn.
The CommonPrejudice Lock of the Week

(Wow, that's a big lock)

Wash. -4 at Tenn.
Oh Lordy, someone hep me. I be hypnotized.
SF +6 vs Phil.
The CommonPrejudice Upset of the Week

Seat -3.5 vs NYG
I'm not sure about the Seahawks but I don't believe in the Giants at all. And it's nice to see Arrington off to a lousy start there.
Arz. -4.5. vs StL.
At home it should be the Cardinals.
Den. +6.5 at NE
Lots of points. Too many I think.
NO +3 vs Atl.
There will be too much emotion for Atlanta to overcome. I predict that this Bush will actually show up on time.

And a bonus comment.
During the games this weekend we inevitably will see the Milwaukee Light Beer commercials where the guy gets crushed by a can for not being 'manly' enough over 650 000 times. Isn't it just a bit ironic that it is a commercial for a light beer?

Last Week 8/16 versus the spread.
Overall 20/32 (62.5%)

A Sunday Morning Chuckle (and some NFL picks)

On CNN's Reliable Sources Howard Kurtz asks a stupid question about the media's coverage of Meredith Vieira and her new gig on the Today show. (Anyone surprised by this?)

She was a good journalist, a good journalist on 60 minutes. Why is she getting the celebrity treatment?

That's rich. Mmmm,  because, Howie, American journalism is all about celebrity. Moreover,  you're talking about a morning show host, not exactly the beacon of serious journalism. And you're a media critic (or at least play one on TV)?

...and speaking of Sunday mornings, and lighter things; I very much enjoy wagering on the NFL (on Proline and Pointspread through a friend in Canada). And I've always liked calling the games since I was a child and used to pick the games against my dad. Last week, versus the spread I was an astounding 12 for 16. However I have no proof of this. So, just for fun, I'm going to post my selections here on Saturday or Sunday, occasionally with a few comments. (Of course this means I'll probably get about 5 right this week). Here goes:

Balt -11 vs Oak.
Bet the house. And enjoy the Art Shell face.
Cinn -10.5 vs Clev.
Cincy should roll here.
Buff +6.5 at Miami
I'm afraid I just don't see Daunte as daunting (ouch).
Indy +13.5 vs Houst.
So Houston chose WIlliams over Bush to stop the likes of Manning. I'm guessing the ridicule of that pick only heightens after Manning shreds the Texans this week.
Detroit +8.5 at Chicago
8 1/2 is too many for the Bears. I look for the classic NFC Norris decided by a field goal game.
Phil - 3.5 vs Giants
This too could be a field goal game, but I think Eagles will shut down this Manning.
Car. -2 at Minn.
Carolina is too good to be 0-2. They will be motivated.
TB +5.5 at Atl
I look for TB to rebound strong and actually win this one outright.
NO +2 at GB
Getting points is a bonus.
Arz +7 at Sea.
It seems to me that this year everyone is saying that they won't be fooled again by the Cards and won't pick them as their sleeper. To me that means they are a legitimate sleeper. I think they'll at least cover here.
Jets +6 vs NE
Six points at home. I think we'll see here whether the Pats are really comparable to past teams. I believe not.
Den -11 vs KC.
Only because Green is out.
Tenn +12 at SD
Twelve is too many for a unproven Rivers.
SF +3 vs StL.
Upset of the week. They win the game.
Dall. -6 vs Wash.
It pains me greatly to call this. If there is Football God, then the Skins win and T.O. is K.Oed by Taylor. I can't say how much I would love to see that.
Jax. +1 vs Pitts.
The Monday night home teams were 0-2 last week. I really like Jacksonville to break that streak.

Barkley=Bush

If there is a sports equivalent to Bush it is Charles Barkley. Seriously he is not a bright man.
(I heard some say he "tells it like it is." Well if that is like it is, then I guess I just don't get reality)

Howard Cosell used to bemoan how athletes without any qualifications were becoming sports broadcasters. He couldn't have been more prescient. While there are a few former professional athletes who can actually put into words their knowledge of the game, most are a complete embarrassment. And Barkley is beyond the pale. What possible qualifications does he have to be broadcaster? (Having baseless ignorant opinions doesn't count).

There are so few who actually add to the game. I would happy if they just didn't take so much away. Remember years ago when NBC broadcast an NFL game without announcers? It was quite the failure, but I tell ya, I am damn close to watching games with the mute on. Definitely the half time show on TNT anyway as long as that clown is there.

Oh, and Suns win. Right on.

Update: to demonstrate.
Barkley before game one of Suns/Mavericks: "The Mavericks used to play ... like the Mavericks used to play."

Update2: What a first game of the Suns/Mavericks series! As Steve Martin once said, "Wow" (The BorderTown News). "Two Thumbs Up" (Siskel and Ebert).

Sweet

Couldn't happen to a nicer (pompous, arrogant) SOB.

Best line: "We've got bigger fish to fry now."- Suns guard Raja Bell.

Who's your MVP?

Watching a Steve Nash interview after the Suns/Lakers game:

The question: "So what did you think of Kobe's 51 points tonight?"
Nash (laughs): "He does that every night, doesn't he? .... As long as we win the game."

Final Suns 107 Lakers 96
So what does MVP mean to you?

Final Four Saturday

I love a cinderella story as much as the next guy so it is with great regret I post the following.

Perhaps the most well-known alum (didn't graduate, I guess they are pretty strict on cheating at Mason) is .... Karl Rove. To make matters worse Walter Williams, a Rush Limbaugh guest-host, teaches there.

If you need some other alum so you can keep the faith, the third runner-up in the 2005 Miss America pageant went to Mason as did the actor who played the Blue Power Ranger.

(and no, this is not an April Fool's post ... Ojala!)

On Salary Caps

While I usually don't post much about sports, a column at the ESPN Page 2 site by the Page 2 lead editor David Schoenfield compelled me to respond.

Essentially he argues that competitive balance in baseball, for the most part, is no worse than the NFL or the NBA despite the latter two having salary caps and baseball not having one. While this may be in fact the case, I believe he clearly is missing point, and in the process seems to be defending the absence of a salary cap.

Well, being a bitter ex-Expos fan who no longer watches MLB (loved the WBC though), that was more than I could take. So I fired off the following letter.

Mr Schoenfield;
You can trot out all the meaningless stats you'd like (of course who wins the championship means very little when considering the relationship bewtween money and winning) There is only one question; is there a positive correlation between payroll and winning. That is it. Competitive balance can be effected by a host of factors. (Obviously this isn't to say that competitive balance isn't effected by payroll, just it isn't the only factor).

In essence, you are right to complain about the very specific understanding of the term competitive balance, but in doing so, you are irrationally (perhaps unconsciously, perhaps not) defending a system without a salary cap. Because when you consider the NFL and the NBA, leagues with a salary cap and thus very little difference in what is spent by teams, there is obviously no correlation between winning and how much money you spend.  Compared to a league without a salary cap they all spend, more or less, the same.

So the Cardinals suck because they don't play well, don't draft well, don't coach well ... take your pick.... But football things!

And the Devil Rays, while not impossible for them to win (See George Mason), don't compete - as you admit - on the same playing field for reasons that have very little to do with baseball.

This is why I quit watching baseball - this and the fact I was a huge Expos fan. (Actually that's not true, I enjoyed the WBC). Because there is far too much of a connection between what you spend and how much you win .... ie non baseball things!

What we need to do is consider some professional numbers that directly relate to what is really the only issue here; does money effect your chances of winning. Just taking the year 2004 (from a study posted at Slashdoc):

"A coefficient of determination of 0.31 shows the amount of total variance in wins explained by the payroll variance. As expected, the regression equation has a positive slope, meaning that every additional $1,000,000 spent results in approximate 0.26 wins."

See how simple. The more you spend the more likely you will win. Because we understand that correlation is not the same as causation, which unfortunately your weak article seemed to confuse.

To put this into perspective; considering the most extreme examples you could expect that if the New York were to post a 100-63 record then Tampa Bay would be somewhere around 63-100 simply due to money alone (based on 2005 payrolls) Looking at a little less dramatic example you could expect that if a team like the Dodgers or Phillies were to go 90-73 a team like the Rockies or Blue Jays would finish somewhere around 76-87 simply because of their payroll. (Of course this doesn't always occur. We are human. It just occurs on average).

And some conclusions from an exhaustive study in 2004 (PDF):

A single equation regression model found the effect of payroll disparity on wins disparity in the post free agency period to be positive and significant. The increasing disparity in payrolls since the mid 1990s, particularly in the American League, suggests that the luxury tax has been ineffectual and that greater performance disparity can be expected in the near future....

The estimated parameter of IDP is positive and significant at the 99% confidence.level. This indicates that greater payroll disparity across teams in Major League Baseball leads to greater win disparity or greater competitive imbalance in Major League Baseball...

This means that at the current average level of payroll disparity in the American League, every 1% increase in payroll disparity will result in a .66% increase in win disparity...

Why is this so important? Because baseball, football, basketball are sports, not - despite what those soulless cynics say - businesses. You find me one fan who celebrates when their team is profitbable.

well we didn't make the play-offs but our owner made money!!  BOO-YAH!!!

Perhaps you agree with me already. Unfortunately that is not clear in your article. Moreover you almost appear to be defending a system with a salary cap. If this is the case, I couldn't disagree more. If it isn't the case, then you should make that clear in a follow up article.

                                                             Sincerely

                                                             Brian Hunter

The Baseball Gods Speak

Very nice indeed.

Team Canada shocked the world Wednesday, and now Team USA's chances in the World Baseball Classic are hanging in the balance heading into Thursday's action. They knew they didn't match up talent-wise with the Americans, but the Canadians didn't seem to care, defeating Team USA, 8-6, at Chase Field in what stands as the biggest upset of the inaugural Classic.

Clearly this was a result of the baseball gods demonstrating their wrath over the demise of the Expos.