Whoa now! How is it that someone who dunked “all over” another human being can actually be the one who is “posterized”?
Well, let’s go over what happened in last night’s (26 May) Nuggets-Lakers Western Conference Finals Game Five.
During the second half of that game, Chris “Birdman” Andersen was dunked on not once but twice. First time occurred in the third period when on a three-on-one fast break, Shannon Brown brought the hammer to a back-peddling Chris Andersen. The second dunk occurred in the fourth quarter when Lamar Odom took what was essentially a drop-pass from Kobe Bryant and then threw it down over Andersen.
Both were indeed dunks “over” Andersen. But sports talker Jim Rome made it sound like they were dunks that took Andersen’s manhood. However, after watching video of the dunks, including multiple angles of the Odom dunk, I disagree. Both dunks, especially Brown’s, were run-of-the-mill type dunks.
Brown gets past Andersen to stuff it home (sorry for the low quality).
So, let’s start with Brown’s. Off of a deflection, Pau Gasol gets the ball and begins to push up court with Brown on his right (not sure who was running on his left). Andersen is the only one back so an excellent opportunity for the Lakers. A couple of steps from the three-point line, Gasol makes a pass to Brown, who catches it in stride just past the “elbow” and then gets around Andersen for the dunk.
Key part of the play is “gets around Andersen.” It is not like Brown went over Andersen for the dunk. He was simply too quick and exploded past the Birdman. He is literally dunking “ahead” of Andersen who ends up attempting to block him from the side/behind. It was poor timing by Andersen, but a great use of quickness by Brown.
Now, this does not take away from Brown’s dunk and the impact it had on the Lakers as a whole, as well as the Staples Center crowd. It energized that crowd in a tight game (and at a point where Los Angeles was down by five) and got things going for them. But it was NOT a posterizing dunk. A good dunk. But a typical fast break dunk. Not even the third or fourth best dunk of that game!
Odom pushing Andersen...I mean, dunking over Andersen.
The Odom dunk was a bit more vicious. Up two and with possession, Kobe drives to the lane and drops it off to an eagerly waiting Odom. Odom takes the ball, takes a step, brings it down on Andersen’s head.
Now, it was definitely an emphatic dunk over one of the top shot blockers in the Association. And there is nothing that someone dunking loves more than dunking on someone who blocks shots. But I have a problem with this example of a “posterizing” dunk.
Like I stated above, it is definitely a vicious dunk. And, much like the Brown dunk, it was an energizing dunk that got the Staples Center rocking even more and Odom’s teammates amped up. But there are a couple of problems I have with this dunk being a great posterizer.
First off, Andersen had little time to even react. It is like the trombone player getting run over in the 1982 Cal-Stanford football game; that cat had no idea he was able to get trampled. The same thing with Andersen. He initially set up to block Kobe. With the nice drop-pass, Andersen was left out of position. And like the trombone player, it was time to get bowled over!
Odom wasted little time dunking on Andersen. And, if you watch the video, you can see Andersen begin to go for the block, but he is way too late.
Gee, I could dunk over someone if I could prop myself over them!
The other problem I have is somewhat personal. If you watch the dunk, Odom clearly uses his free arm to push and, basically pin Andersen down. Now, I understand that Andersen was in the zone underneath the basketball and therefore fair game for this sort of dunk (and the subsequent foul). That is not the part I am disputing. My problem is that if you have to push someone and basically hurdle yourself over them to dunk the ball, then how can it be a posterizing dunk? Anywhere else on the court and this move (forearm into the back) would be an offensive foul. The positioning of the players and where the play took place negated the foul, but it does not diminish the fact that Odom needed to push down someone in order to rise up!
The reason it is “somewhat personal” is because as someone who takes pride in blocking shots in pickup basketball games, I have had numerous opposing players use that free arm to push off in order to get a shot off unblocked. I am not the quickest guy on the floor, but I have ridiculously long arms and have a good leaping ability. So, blocking shots is my strong point. Whenever I throw someone’s shot, the next time down I can guarantee that I am getting the forearm into the chest. Sometimes I can still manage to reach over and knock the shot away, and other times the other guy would call a foul on me! But occasionally the player would be able to make the shot. And then what happens? He starts jawing — “you can’t block me!” Well, of course not when you are pushing off!!!
With Andersen, I saw the same thing. Yes, it was a good dunk. But the combination of the late reaction with the use of Andersen literally as a dunk prop, in my mind, demoted the dunk from a posterizer to just a good power dunk. Perhaps if Andersen was straight-up and prepared to block, and Odom still hammered if over the Birdman (without having to push him down), then it would have been a posterizer…even if there was a small push off (which I admit is common and usually not called as a foul).
If you want a good posterizing dunk, look at Tracy McGrady sucking the gravity right out of the building went he went over the Human Dunk Prop Shawn Bradley. Even with the push, it was an awesome dunk because Bradley was prepared and still got posterized!
The only posterizing that really took place is what likely sparked Odom’s vicious revenge-seeking dunk. Towards the end of the first quarter, Kobe made a pass to Odom who had a clear path to the lane…with the exception of Chris Andersen. Odom had a great look at it and Andersen had time to react. Had Lamar Odom hammered it home with a dunk like his fourth quarter one, then it definitely would have been a posterizing dunk that would have stolen the Birdman’s manhood. As it was, Andersen rejected Odom and, in turn, posterized the Laker forward! It was Odom, not Andersen, who had his manhood taken and, in the end, sought to get it back. So, I’d consider the two even!
Go ahead and print it and put on the wall next to the McGrady over Bradley dunk!
28 May 2009 | Categories: NBA, Sports | Tags: basketball, block, Chris Andersen, Denver Nuggets, dunk, Lamar Odom, Los Angeles Lakers, Shannon Brown, Western Conference Finals | 1 Comment »
Much has been made over last weekend’s baseball games and “extracurricular activities.”
On Saturday (9 May), Milwaukee Brewer Ryan Braun took a Ryan Dempster pitch deep for a solo shot in the seventh, ending the Cubs pitcher’s day. As Braun rounded the bases, he stared down Dempster and emphatically clapped his hands.
Also on Saturday, White Sox closer Bobby Jenks threw behind Ian Kinsler. In a close game, Jenks’ purpose was to send a message to the Rangers to quit hitting Chicago players (Kevin Millwood had hit two White Sox players in the game).
YEAH! I struck out someone!
Then on Sunday (10 May), Orioles first baseman Aubrey Huff hit a three-run blast off of the emotional Joba Chamberlain. As Huff rounded the bases, he pumped his fists multiple times and reacted in a way that seemed to mock Chamberlain.
Later that day, Casey Blake took Giants closer Brian Wilson deep in the bottom of the 12th inning and tied the game again. After Blake returned to the Dodgers’ dugout, he made a gesture crossing his arms like an “X” that was apparently towards Wilson.
Four acts of “aggression” that could lead to retaliation. Four justified displays of emotion. And four overblown reactions to it all.
First off, I agree with the notion of not showing up your opponent. You should show some respect for your opponent and play like you have been there. That is the way to gain respect yourself.
It is a reason I appreciate a player like Matt Stairs, who will hit a pinch-hit home run, round the bases, and then return to the bench. He did his job and let his actions speak for themselves.
There are the so-called “unwritten rules” of baseball that if you show up your opponent, you can expect some retaliation. Nolan Ryan, Bob Gibson, and other “old school” pitchers would dot a player on the other team if he felt he was disrespected.
That stated, we do not want emotionless players. We also understand that it is easy to get caught up in the moment. So while we desire respect of the game, we also want emotion.
It is with this in mind that I believe the events over the past weekend are a culmination of these two ideas. While some people, especially those fans of the Yankees, Giants, Cubs, and Rangers, might be upset, I believe the reactions are a bit too much and disregard their own team’s (re)actions.
First, what happened on Saturday were both examples of those elusive “unwritten rules” coming into play.
Maybe Braun should have simply trotted the bases after his homer, but the homer itself was a reaction to the Dempster pitch that nearly caught Braun’s head (the pitch actually hit Braun’s bat, but he was rewarded with a HBP).
If someone tries to buzz you, your reaction is to get back in there and jack it out of the park. So the homer was a reaction within the rules of baseball, while his stare down was from emotions that, at least to Braun, were driven by the Dempster high-and-tight pitch.
There should be no explanation for Jenks’ pitch, but MLB is investigating the pitch. Jenks admitted that the pitch was intentional. As ESPN.com reported via the Chicago Tribune, Jenks “meant to” throw the pitch “to send a message”:
Basically I was saying, ‘I’m sick of seeing our guys get hit and hurt and almost get taken out of the game.’ I threw it with intention. … I was not going to hit him. I made my point with that pitch, and it came across the way I wanted it to.
“I’m not going to go dirty. I was going to keep it low and behind him.”
That, once again, is in the “rules” of baseball. If you hit one of our players, you can expect to have the same happen to your players.
Those cases are more clear-cut than what happened on Sunday. Let’s take the Chamberlain-Huff situation first.
Joba Chamberlain is known for the amount of energy and emotion that he brings to the mound. His fist pumps after striking out the side, especially at home, are well documented.
Aubrey Huff’s mimicking of Chamberlain’s strikeout celebration was a direct play. While Huff’s reaction could be held as disrespecting or showing up Chamberlain, keep in mind that Chamberlain’s reactions are no different.
Granted, Huff’s homer came in the first inning and should not extract great emotion, but his fist pumps could be held as remaining within the “rules” of baseball.
Look at it this way; Jenks’ reaction was because of something the Rangers did and not because Jenks likes throwing behind people. Similarly, Huff’s reaction was to something that Chamberlain does, and Huff admitted as much.
So, if you take a step back and examine it in that manner, it is just an example of following those unwritten rules coming into contact with emotion.
Plus, if Chamberlain had a problem with it, he could place one on Huff’s back. But Chamberlain actually played it cool, took his medicine, and moved on…at least until the teams meet again.
And then there is the Blake-Wilson incident. Neither has really commented on it, so it is difficult to gauge their opinions, although it was reported through his teammates that Wilson was upset.
Apparently Blake did not know what it meant to Wilson.
Apparently, Wilson has made it a habit to make an “X” with his arms at the end of games. It is apparently a tribute to both his faith as a Christian and to his deceased father. While I just learned of that (admittedly, I do not follow the Giants closely), it seems like common knowledge on the West Coast.
So it is safe to assume that Casey Blake knows why Wilson crosses his arms like that. Therefore, Blake’s mocking of Wilson’s tribute could be seen as classless and insensitive.
However, whenever you bring something public like that, you leave yourself open to criticism and/or mockery. While perhaps a stretch to compare baseball to wrestling, consider that Stone Cold Steve Austin played off of Jake “The Snake” Roberts’ faith to develop the insanely popular “Austin 3:16″ catchphrase.
I am not saying that Wilson is wrong to openly display his faith, but when a player makes a certain gesture—be it fist pumps or a cross—it can be expected that at some point someone will mock it. This is especially the case when emotions come into play, as it likely did when, down a run in extra innings, Blake homered with one out.
In a way, it is another example of “what goes around, comes around.” While Wilson might feel it is simply a tribute, opposing players might view it as you’ve been “X’ed” out.
Again, we have not heard from Blake; perhaps he did not know what it meant to Wilson.
No one wants to see a batter do the Riverdance on home plate after hitting a solo shot in the first inning (although it might be amusing). But emotion is a part of the game. There still has to be a certain amount of respect for the opponent, but we cannot expect emotionless robots in sports.
In each of these four cases, I believe that emotions played a role in the reactions that seem to remain within the “unwritten rules” of baseball. If you are going to pump your fist after a strikeout or make an “X” after converting a save, then you should expect it in return after a home run.
And if you hit a player or two, it should be expected there will be retaliation, either by the other team jacking a homer off of the offending pitcher or the opposing pitcher hitting one of your teammates.
This article originally appeared on The Bleacher Report on 12 May 2009.
15 May 2009 | Categories: MLB, Sports | Tags: Aubrey Huff, Baltimore Orioles, beanball, Bobby Jenks, Brian Wilson, Casey Blake, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, home run, Ian Kinsler, Joba Chamberlain, Los Angeles Dodgers, Milwaukee Brewers, New York Yankees, Ryan Braun, Ryan Dempster, San Francisco Giants, Texas Rangers | 1 Comment »
“With the first pick in the 2009 NFL Draft, the Detroit Lions select to remain insignificant!”
Good luck in breaking the vicious cycle!
Now, before the six people who read this become upset that I am calling Matthew Stafford a bust, follow the logic. It is not Stafford personally that I am calling out, nor is this a shot at the Detroit Lions. It is all about the amount of money that Stafford is going to receive simply for being selected number one. That is a major problem that the NFL must correct.
Let’s first be clear about one thing. Among the four major team sports in North America, professional football has perhaps the shortest “life expectancy” among its players. Former MVP Shaun Alexander is essentially “washed-up” now at age 31, still an unsigned free agent. But also remember that he was cut by Seattle when he was 30, and only picked up by the Redskins after their backup, not their starter, went down! While baseball, hockey and even basketball has players in their late-30s and early 40s, it is rare in football, especially at so-called “skill” positions. The major exception to this are kickers in their 40s, as well as an occasional quarterback.
So due to short utility, it is understandable that football players need a lot of money. And this is not a “oh, they make too much money” jealousy rant. Your labor and skill is a “commodity” and if that commodity has a high demand, as professional football has in the United States, then top dollar is paid to those with the best skill. So more power to them.
The problem is this simply fact — Matthew Stafford will make more money than Tom Brady! Stafford has yet to throw a pass even in an exhibition NFL game and he will earn more than a three-time Super Bowl winner and two-time MVP???
But that is not even the greatest concern here. What the outrageous rookie salaries translates to is a potential trap for teams with high first round draft picks. Teams that have high draft picks in the first round must put so much money into an unproven commodity that if that commodity goes belly up, then the team is once again back to square one. Let’s analyze!
Hey man, I worked out as a #1 pick!!
Over the past 20 years, twelve quarterbacks have been taken with the first overall pick (60 percent of the time); eight of those coming in the last ten years. Of those twelve, four have guided their team to the Super Bowl (Eli Manning, Peyton Manning, Drew Bledsoe and Hall of Famer Troy Aikman) and two others have had some success statistically — Jeff George and Carson Palmer. I do not include Michael Vick here because his quarterback numbers are unimpressive.
Three of the remaining five quarterbacks taken first overall since 1989 have been utter failures — Tim Couch, David Carr and Alex Smith. The jury is still out on JaMarcus Russell, although it is not looking good. And Matthew Stafford obviously has yet to play.
What this means is that there is roughly a 50 percent chance that a QB taken number one overall will actually pan out. To be fair, the last two QBs taken at that spot do not have enough to go on (or anything at all), so let’s remove the two most recent and the two “oldest”. Still, 50 percent. If you want to look at the last ten years, and still remove Russell and Stafford, then the success rate is less than 50 percent because you also take out Peyton Manning.
But obviously not all starting quarterbacks in the NFL are top picks. So let’s look at starting quarterbacks around the NFL in 2008.
Of the 32 opening day starters at quarterback, 14 were drafted in the first round, so a good number. But, seven of the opening day starters were drafted in the fourth round or later. Add to that number the five undrafted starters, and 14 of the opening day starters were either taken between the fourth and seventh rounds or not drafted at all.
And before you claim that some of those starters did not play the majority of their team’s games, that is a good point. But most of those who took over were also late round quarterbacks, with three being seventh-rounders. The only first rounder to take over — Kerry Collins — took over for another first rounder — Vince Young. So, if you look at those quarterbacks who took over, then the average moves towards the latter rounds.
But what of those averages? Well, among all drafted quarterbacks, the average round of the opening day starters is 2.48, or mid-2nd round. But that is unfair because (1) there are so many from the first round versus the other rounds, and (2) it is a comparison of one round versus six rounds.
But, let’s separate the first round from the rest of the rounds and look at the average selections. First off, looking at all drafted starting QBs, the average pick number is 62.4. Among first-rounders, the average pick number is 8.79, while the average for the remaining QBs 120.
Well, at least I was number one at something!
While it is difficult to place these numbers into an actual round because of changes in the number of teams since 1991, the average pick for all quarterbacks is somewhere in the late second or early third round. Among first rounders, it is closer to the middle of the first round, but still a high pick. And among all other QBs, it is somewhere in the late third or early fourth. Or in other words, second day!
In terms of success, two of the quarterbacks to led their team to win their division were undrafted (Warner and Delhomme), with a third being taken in the seventh round (Gus Frerotte). This past Super Bowl was the epitome of this debate, with Arizona led by an undrafted QB versus Pittsburgh with a first-rounder.
What does this all mean? Well, while yes quarterbacks taken in the first round can pan out and be starters, it is just as likely that a quarterback taken on the second day or even undrafted can be a starter. In other words, it is a crapshoot. You are more likely to see Shaquille O’Neal hit consecutive free throws or Nick Swisher striking someone out than you are to see a team with a first-rounder lining up under center.
Long story short, to guarantee so much money to an unproven commodity is a fallacy that will most likely perpetuate failure. Keep in mind that I have only delved into quarterbacks. That are many other first-rounders at other positions to turn out to be failure.
But how does all of this further the gulf between the elite programs in the NFL and the bottom-feeders? Well, let’s look at the teams drafting in the number one spot.
- Three times: Cincinnati (1994, 1995, 2003) and Indianapolis (1990, 1992, 1998)
- Two times: Cleveland (1999, 2000); Dallas (1989, 1991); Houston (2002, 2006)
- One time: New England (1993); New York Jets (1996); St. Louis (1997); Atlanta (2001); San Diego (2004); San Francisco (2005); Oakland (2007); Miami (2008); Detroit (2009)
Since 1989, the teams picking first tend to draft in the middle of the first round over the three drafts following that first overall pick. The average number of wins over the three seasons following their first overall pick is 7.2 wins! In other words, it is a losing record.
Granted, there are some shenanigans with the top pick as there have been some trades out of that pick by the worst team. And teams have been successful in the three seasons following a number one pick. The St. Louis Rams won the Super Bowl three seasons after selecting Orlando Pace with the first overall pick. The Dallas Cowboys won two Super Bowls within the three seasons of taking Russell Maryland number one overall.
However, both of those teams traded into the position to take the first pick. The pieces came together for the Cowboys because of their many draft picks, while the Rams relied on an undrafted quarterback! Only two teams have really turned it around from the basement — New York Jets, who would have had the first pick in 1996 and 1997 (that pick traded to the Rams) and the San Diego Chargers, who traded their 2001 top pick to Atlanta. But even with the Jets, their success has been a rollercoaster. San Diego has done a bit better.
Now, granted, long term the Indianapolis Colts became successful with Peyton Manning, as have the New England Patriots. Conversely, the St. Louis Rams have gone the other way. But the point here is short-term problems and becoming a “repeat offender” as the worst teams in football.
One final point on the draft, just picking number one does not necessarily mean a team is consistently bad. The Detroit Lions, for example, did not hold the number one pick until 2009; Oakland only landed it in 2007. However, many NFL fans will point to these teams as being some of the worst in football. So, let’s look at the worst teams from 2008 and their recent positions in the draft [past five seasons]. Now admittedly, some teams like the Seattle Seahawks and Jacksonville Jaguars appeared to have down seasons over the past two years. So, I have decided not to include those teams, nor am I including teams that finished last in their division but were 7-9 or 8-8.
- Detroit Lions: 7.4
- St. Louis Rams: 9.4
- Kansas City Chiefs: 13.2
- Cleveland Browns: 9
- Cincinnati Bengals: 14.8
- Oakland Raiders: 5.2
- San Francisco 49ers: 7
With the exception of Kansas City and Cincinnati, most of these teams’ average first round pick over the last five years is within the top 10! And both of those teams are carried by successes from more that two seasons ago. St. Louis’s 9.4 average first round pick is also carried by a 2004 playoff appearance, while Cleveland is “high” because of a successful 2007 season (although no playoffs).
In other words, teams considered to be at the bottom of the NFL hierarchy tend to continuously remain in the “big money” picks of the First Round. Or, these teams are consistently “lottery” teams, much like the Los Angeles Clippers of the NBA.
And this gets to the money, and how the money invested in these unproven players continues the vicious cycle. Let’s take the worst team in terms of average draft picks — the Oakland Raiders.
Al Davis thinks of a new way to ruin the Raiders!
Over the last three drafts, the Raiders have taken Darren McFadden (fourth overall), JaMarcus Russell (first overall), and Michael Huff (seventh). Those three account for over $24 million of the Raiders total payroll of over $152 million. That is 16 percent of their payroll to players that have not really proven themselves in the NFL. And Darius Heyward-Bey is just another unproven player that will be paid millions to keep the Raiders in the basement.
Now, it is understandable that teams invest a sizeable percentage of their payroll towards a couple of players. Super Bowl champs Pittsburgh devote 28 percent to two players (mostly to Roethlisberger), while runner-up Arizona devotes 20.5 percent to two players. Other top teams follow a similar pattern, such as New England (23 percent), Indianapolis (24.6 percent), and the New York Giants (21.4 percent).
The difference here is that New England and Indianapolis are devoting that payroll to players like Randy Moss and Peyton Manning; players who have proven their worth in the NFL. Oakland and Detroit have pushed money onto rookies who have only proven they are good college players. And when so when one of these unproven players with so much guaranteed money fail, it is difficult for the team to bring in talent because of the salary devoted to these failures!!!
What this long rant represents is that the current structure of the NFL Draft and rookie salaries are designed, unintentionally, to keep teams down. Certainly a team can hit the jackpot by landing a player like Peyton Manning, Troy Aikman, or Orlando Pace. But for every Manning, there is a Ki-Jana Carter. For every Roethlisberger, there is a Charles Rogers.
And when it is more likely that a 50-1 long shot will win the Kentucky Derby than a high first-round pick will work out, then something is definitely wrong.
5 May 2009 | Categories: NFL, Sports | Tags: Detroit Lions, football, Matthew Stafford, NFL Draft, Oakland Raiders, Peyton Manning, Tim Couch, Tom Brady | 1 Comment »
