All Things Spring Part II
(This is the continuation of Friday's back-and-forth between me, the Guru, and the Sport Maharishi).
Maharishi: There you go with the Ewing Theory again. I'll admit though Michigan State is a perfect candidate for it. Losing Kalin Lucas is a huge blow, but Korie Lucious has filled in nicely. And if you're going to be a Ewing Theory candidate, who better to coach you than Tom Izzo right?
I think I'll let you take baseball since you know a great deal more than I do. For now let's discuss some NBA. If you had one year to build a team, and you had the first pick, who do you take? I think you are like me in that you pick Kobe (who by the way just signed a 3 year deal, I know you're excited about that), so there is no use hashing that out.
But what if you were given more than a year and a chance to actually build a franchise, then who do you pick? I think the consensus is to take LeBron, the guy can do it all. Me? I'd take the Durantula. He's a much better shooter than LeBrick is or ever will be. At 6'10 I'm confident he can develop into a dangerous passer with his ability to see over defenses. It seems like his teammates enjoy playing with him as much as LeBron's do in Cleveland. And on top of it his post-game isn't too shabby either. That isn't to say LeBron can't improve his shooting or post game, but I think in the long run Durant might be a better option. (The sound you just heard was Kevin Pritchard dousing himself in gasoline and striking a match). Thoughts?
Come Tuesday I'll be fully invested in the NBA and I couldn't be happier. Your turn.
Guru: I'm not sure what you mean by "if you had one year to build a team." Every player is available and you get to build your team now? I tell you what, I'm a Laker die-hard through and through, and I've been with Kobe forever. I took his side in the Shaq-Kobe breakup, I maintain that Shaq is a bigger jerk and more disruptive force than the public realizes, and I suffered through the 2005-2007 seasons when the Lakers were a dumpster fire, largely because of Kobe.
All that said, I have to trust my eyes and put my bias away. My pick for a team now and a team 5 years from now is LeBron. He is unparalleled physically and athletically, and he's learning bit by bit how to make his teammates better, how to kill an opponent on the ropes, and just flat how to win. This very well could be his year to win finally. Kobe's extension is wonderful for all parties in my opinion, but the fact that remains he's now 31 years old. I can unscientifically prove that Kobe has the legs of a 34 or 35 year old right now. Kobe has currently played almost 44,000 career minutes at 31 years old. By comparison, Michael Jordan, with a similar playoff resume in terms of games played, played around 48,000 career minutes. At the current rate, Kobe will pass Jordan in minutes played after next season. All things considered, I'm taking LeBron. No one makes an NBA basketball court look likes a Little Tikes court like LBJ.
Kevin Durant is a close second. I saw this guy play from 5 rows back against the Clippers last month, and he is as good as advertised. I was blown away by his calm, even, plodding demeanor and how he deals with his teammates. He scores points in bunches, but still manages to put up the quietest 29.7 points this side of MJ. When Durant sat to start the 4th quarter of that game against the Clippers, the Thunder actually extended their lead, nearly putting it out of reach while Durant sat. Scotty Brooks wasn't afraid to let his team play with Durant on the bench, and the team didn't let up without their star. I think this is a product of how Durant treats and empowers his teammates while he is on the floor with them. Again, this is heretical, and I've already taken some flak for it, but I think the Durantula is the 2nd best player in the league. And Kobe isn't first. Durant and LeBron will fight each other for the next 10 League MVP trophies without a lot of other competition.
I want to talk about MLB's discussion about realignment of the divisions. Some pinpoint the AL East's bilateral dominance, both competitively and financially, as poisonous to parity and league health. No one else in the AL East has a chance from Opening Day to succeed because the Yankees and Red Sox are so far ahead. Realignment may be needed because a salary cap and increased revenue sharing will never happen, for reasons outlined in this Ken Rosenthal piece. I don't know much about this plan yet or lots of details. What do you know about this? What's your take on it? Thoughts on the start of the 2010 season?
Maharishi: I envy you getting a chance to see the Durantula up close. I've seen Kobe, I haven't seen LeBron or KD. Maybe if LeBron joins the Clippers I'll get my chance next year.
I'm glad you brought this baseball issue up. I read a piece a few months ago detailing how a realignment would work. Basically you'd be placed in a division reflective of your spending and winning percentage. The Sox and Yanks would be in the same division, but a team like the Orioles would be moved in with the Indians. The Rays, though they have a small budget, would still be in the same division as the Sox and Yanks because they have had some recent success. You get the idea. Then essentially there would be re-leaguing every 3-4 years to maintain competitive balance. While the Sox and Yanks and Rays battled it out, teams like the Orioles and Royals would have a better chance to make the playoffs because they'd be in separate divisions. At least that's what I gathered.
Personally I hate this idea. When I was in high school I loved the Yankees-Sox playoff battles, despite having no affiliation or attachment to either team. They had the best players, and the games were wildly entertaining. Who can forget Joe Buck's memorable call "We'll see ya later tonight" after Ortiz hit a walk-off in game 4? When the Cubs and Marlins battled out a thrilling 7 game NLCS in 2003, I was riveted. I think the average baseball fan, like myself, enjoys seeing the power teams so to speak making the playoffs. Sure we enjoy a feel-good story like the Marlins or Rays making a run every few years, but give me a Sox-Yanks ALCS and the Dodgers or Cubs making a run in the NL and I'm happy. I don't want to see the Pirates in it because they played in a crappy division and won with a 78-whatever record. The good people of Pittsburgh may disagree, but thats just me. (They may root for the Pirates even more now given Big Ben's inability to not violate women). And since the MLB and every other sports league in the country operates solely on what their bottom line looks like, I don't see re-aligning happening. Sure maybe the regular season would be competitive, but I'd rather have a great postseason with the best teams any day. That's just me though, your average, unaffiliated fan. You, on the other hand, have a team to root for- the Angels. And you guys spend a lot of money too. How would you feel about re-alignment? And what if they placed you with teams like the Yankees and Sox, or even the Dodgers? It wouldn't be the same as plowing through the 4 team AL West every year.
I'll give you a chance to rebuttal, but I have something for you on the topic of sports and their bottom lines. Can you believe the NCAA wants to expand to 96 teams? Could their be a worse possible idea. I feel there are so many negatives to this that it could be a series of e-mails on it's own. If they are really concerned about making money, in all seriousness, drop the women's tournament coverage. I apologize to all female readers out there, but ESPN is losing money on that thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA is paying ESPN to broadcast it. You realize the UCONN women's team has won 75 straight games? 75!! That's incredible. And nobody knows or cares. ESPN wants the rights to the men's tourney. They should drop the women's tourney, offer the NCAA a nice package (seriously NCAA, $6 Billion over 11 years isn't enough money???) and let us enjoy the best thing about college sports- a 65 team field that allows the regular season to matter, allows conference tournaments to matter, and crowns a true national champion. All of that would change if we let 96 in. I know you agree with me on this, I just want to see what arguments you bring to the table because expansion is absurd. Ok, I need to calm down.
Guru: I'm not sure how I feel about floating realignment. The problem is the huge gap between the haves and have-nots. I'm not sure that any realignment proposal truly closes the competitive gap--on the field and financially--and it seems like everyone has their own idea of how to do it. As an example of this, the plan I read about was different from the one you just relayed. In the one I read, some teams would be switching leagues, like the Mets, Nats, Pirates, Reds, Dodgers, Giants, Red Sox, Rays, Royals, White Sox, and Rangers. That's almost half the teams moving to the other league. What this proposal does, sensical or not, is get it right geographically. Teams that are from the same region are grouped in the same divisions, for the most part.
As I moused over the proposed divisions on this map (insert Rosenthal link), I noticed something: half the league's teams currently stink. All this plan does to me is this: group teams geographically, break up the Red Sox and Yankees, and move all the crappy teams around. So there's that. As an Angel fan, I don't want the Dodgers and Giants to replace the Rangers. That makes the division a lot more competitive, and why would I want more of a challenge for the Angels to make the playoffs? With only 2 possible spots to earn in the playoffs, the chances are already low from the start of the season that they'll make it. We've stumbled onto a more easily solvable problem: the format of the playoffs.
There are 30 teams in Major League Baseball, and 8 get to play in the postseason. That's roughly 30% of the teams. What if we added another wild card to each league to make 5 postseason teams in each league? The two wild card winners play each other in a best-of-three weekend set to advance into the the Division Series. We make the Division Series a best-of-seven instead of five, and start the season 4 days earlier in April. It goes against tradition, but who cares? Tradition only makes you outdated, and that's what the current system is. Now my idea isn't perfect, but what system is? Does the Maharishi have any ideas about realignment or the playoffs?
You hit on the NCAA's study of expanding the men's tournament field. I like this from an upset standpoint. Logically, the more teams that make the tournament, the longer you let them hang around, the better the chances for big upsets. Imagine an 18-seed upsetting a 7-seed in the first round. How epic would that be? This aspect, and the fact that the NCAA could make a few more yacht-loads of money and withhold it from its constituents, are about the only positives. If you're trying to foster upsets, this is the way to go. The NCAA, though, hates upsets. It doesn't care if the tourney is predictable; they want Duke, UCLA, UCONN, North Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, and Georgetown in the Final Four every year because those are the teams that drive TV ratings and ticket sales. All this does is let more undeserving power conference teams in. It would ensure that each of the major conferences would get their next 3-5 teams in.
An example of why this is a bad idea: the 2010 PAC-10. The conference had a horrible year, only securing two bids to the Dance. With a field of 96, you would have had the pleasure of seeing 22-11 Arizona State, 16-15 Arizona, and a 16-14 USC (with no self sanctions). What a crapfest. Why do we think this is a good idea again? So the NCAA can make even more money on its signature event? You mentioned in the MLB realignment discussion that what every major league-wide decision comes down to is the bottom line: Will a change/amendment bring in more revenue for the league. This is really all that Bud Selig, Gary Bettman, David Stern, and Roger Goodell care about when their heads hit the pillow every night. In the end, we can be confident that whatever decision the NCAA makes will be "well-researched and studied" and will help them maximize revenue and mitigate cost.
I completely disagree about the women's tournament. What isn't good about one team winning 75 games in a row and being as close to unbeatable as any team in any sport for the last 50 years? What isn't good about everyone knowing who will win that championship from Day One? What's not good about girls getting their big shot on TV, then dribbling the ball off their knee out of bounds in front of 2000 in a 20% capacity arena? How else are these girls going to get the exposure they need to improve or solidify their WNBA Draft status? Oh wait, doesn't ESPN have a contract with the WNBA to televise their games too? Hmmmmmm.
I hope it was clear that the previous paragraph was chock full of sarcastic rhetorical questions. It was clear? OK, just making sure.
Maharishi: I like you're idea of a new playoff format. I was never comfortable that only 4 teams from each league made the playoffs. It just seemed like a tragically low number.
I disagree with your notion that more rounds=more upsets. I think the little guys stand a chance because of the way the tournament is set up now. If you add byes and more games, I think you are hurting the smaller schools' chances of advancing. There's no way Northern Iowa beats Kansas if they are playing their 3rd game in 5 days. The bigger schools generally have bigger, stronger, and faster athletes. Lengthening the tournament favors those teams and I think would be bad in the long run. Sure first round upsets would occur, but I think the days of a Cornell going to the Sweet 16 would be pretty much over. That's just my opinion though.
Overall you're right, it's a horrible idea. I hope the NCAA isn't blinded by their own greed.
I know you must be happy your Dukies came through today. I know I said West Virginia had the better athletes and defensive prowess, but Duke made them look average on nearly every front. Losing Da'Sean Butler didn't help, but the game was out of reach at that point anyway. At least I got the Butler pick right.
It's been fun arguing with you. Maybe we'll have to hash this out again when the summer months roll around and we can discuss what it'll be like to have LeBron on the Knicks and why the Angels are struggling to win the West. Until then, enjoy having your column back Guru, I've enjoyed my time here.
Maharishi: There you go with the Ewing Theory again. I'll admit though Michigan State is a perfect candidate for it. Losing Kalin Lucas is a huge blow, but Korie Lucious has filled in nicely. And if you're going to be a Ewing Theory candidate, who better to coach you than Tom Izzo right?
I think I'll let you take baseball since you know a great deal more than I do. For now let's discuss some NBA. If you had one year to build a team, and you had the first pick, who do you take? I think you are like me in that you pick Kobe (who by the way just signed a 3 year deal, I know you're excited about that), so there is no use hashing that out.
Who do you take right now, Kobe or LeBron?
Come Tuesday I'll be fully invested in the NBA and I couldn't be happier. Your turn.
Guru: I'm not sure what you mean by "if you had one year to build a team." Every player is available and you get to build your team now? I tell you what, I'm a Laker die-hard through and through, and I've been with Kobe forever. I took his side in the Shaq-Kobe breakup, I maintain that Shaq is a bigger jerk and more disruptive force than the public realizes, and I suffered through the 2005-2007 seasons when the Lakers were a dumpster fire, largely because of Kobe.
All that said, I have to trust my eyes and put my bias away. My pick for a team now and a team 5 years from now is LeBron. He is unparalleled physically and athletically, and he's learning bit by bit how to make his teammates better, how to kill an opponent on the ropes, and just flat how to win. This very well could be his year to win finally. Kobe's extension is wonderful for all parties in my opinion, but the fact that remains he's now 31 years old. I can unscientifically prove that Kobe has the legs of a 34 or 35 year old right now. Kobe has currently played almost 44,000 career minutes at 31 years old. By comparison, Michael Jordan, with a similar playoff resume in terms of games played, played around 48,000 career minutes. At the current rate, Kobe will pass Jordan in minutes played after next season. All things considered, I'm taking LeBron. No one makes an NBA basketball court look likes a Little Tikes court like LBJ.
Kevin Durant is a close second. I saw this guy play from 5 rows back against the Clippers last month, and he is as good as advertised. I was blown away by his calm, even, plodding demeanor and how he deals with his teammates. He scores points in bunches, but still manages to put up the quietest 29.7 points this side of MJ. When Durant sat to start the 4th quarter of that game against the Clippers, the Thunder actually extended their lead, nearly putting it out of reach while Durant sat. Scotty Brooks wasn't afraid to let his team play with Durant on the bench, and the team didn't let up without their star. I think this is a product of how Durant treats and empowers his teammates while he is on the floor with them. Again, this is heretical, and I've already taken some flak for it, but I think the Durantula is the 2nd best player in the league. And Kobe isn't first. Durant and LeBron will fight each other for the next 10 League MVP trophies without a lot of other competition.
I want to talk about MLB's discussion about realignment of the divisions. Some pinpoint the AL East's bilateral dominance, both competitively and financially, as poisonous to parity and league health. No one else in the AL East has a chance from Opening Day to succeed because the Yankees and Red Sox are so far ahead. Realignment may be needed because a salary cap and increased revenue sharing will never happen, for reasons outlined in this Ken Rosenthal piece. I don't know much about this plan yet or lots of details. What do you know about this? What's your take on it? Thoughts on the start of the 2010 season?
Maharishi: I envy you getting a chance to see the Durantula up close. I've seen Kobe, I haven't seen LeBron or KD. Maybe if LeBron joins the Clippers I'll get my chance next year.
I'm glad you brought this baseball issue up. I read a piece a few months ago detailing how a realignment would work. Basically you'd be placed in a division reflective of your spending and winning percentage. The Sox and Yanks would be in the same division, but a team like the Orioles would be moved in with the Indians. The Rays, though they have a small budget, would still be in the same division as the Sox and Yanks because they have had some recent success. You get the idea. Then essentially there would be re-leaguing every 3-4 years to maintain competitive balance. While the Sox and Yanks and Rays battled it out, teams like the Orioles and Royals would have a better chance to make the playoffs because they'd be in separate divisions. At least that's what I gathered.
Personally I hate this idea. When I was in high school I loved the Yankees-Sox playoff battles, despite having no affiliation or attachment to either team. They had the best players, and the games were wildly entertaining. Who can forget Joe Buck's memorable call "We'll see ya later tonight" after Ortiz hit a walk-off in game 4? When the Cubs and Marlins battled out a thrilling 7 game NLCS in 2003, I was riveted. I think the average baseball fan, like myself, enjoys seeing the power teams so to speak making the playoffs. Sure we enjoy a feel-good story like the Marlins or Rays making a run every few years, but give me a Sox-Yanks ALCS and the Dodgers or Cubs making a run in the NL and I'm happy. I don't want to see the Pirates in it because they played in a crappy division and won with a 78-whatever record. The good people of Pittsburgh may disagree, but thats just me. (They may root for the Pirates even more now given Big Ben's inability to not violate women). And since the MLB and every other sports league in the country operates solely on what their bottom line looks like, I don't see re-aligning happening. Sure maybe the regular season would be competitive, but I'd rather have a great postseason with the best teams any day. That's just me though, your average, unaffiliated fan. You, on the other hand, have a team to root for- the Angels. And you guys spend a lot of money too. How would you feel about re-alignment? And what if they placed you with teams like the Yankees and Sox, or even the Dodgers? It wouldn't be the same as plowing through the 4 team AL West every year.
I'll give you a chance to rebuttal, but I have something for you on the topic of sports and their bottom lines. Can you believe the NCAA wants to expand to 96 teams? Could their be a worse possible idea. I feel there are so many negatives to this that it could be a series of e-mails on it's own. If they are really concerned about making money, in all seriousness, drop the women's tournament coverage. I apologize to all female readers out there, but ESPN is losing money on that thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA is paying ESPN to broadcast it. You realize the UCONN women's team has won 75 straight games? 75!! That's incredible. And nobody knows or cares. ESPN wants the rights to the men's tourney. They should drop the women's tourney, offer the NCAA a nice package (seriously NCAA, $6 Billion over 11 years isn't enough money???) and let us enjoy the best thing about college sports- a 65 team field that allows the regular season to matter, allows conference tournaments to matter, and crowns a true national champion. All of that would change if we let 96 in. I know you agree with me on this, I just want to see what arguments you bring to the table because expansion is absurd. Ok, I need to calm down.
Guru: I'm not sure how I feel about floating realignment. The problem is the huge gap between the haves and have-nots. I'm not sure that any realignment proposal truly closes the competitive gap--on the field and financially--and it seems like everyone has their own idea of how to do it. As an example of this, the plan I read about was different from the one you just relayed. In the one I read, some teams would be switching leagues, like the Mets, Nats, Pirates, Reds, Dodgers, Giants, Red Sox, Rays, Royals, White Sox, and Rangers. That's almost half the teams moving to the other league. What this proposal does, sensical or not, is get it right geographically. Teams that are from the same region are grouped in the same divisions, for the most part.
As I moused over the proposed divisions on this map (insert Rosenthal link), I noticed something: half the league's teams currently stink. All this plan does to me is this: group teams geographically, break up the Red Sox and Yankees, and move all the crappy teams around. So there's that. As an Angel fan, I don't want the Dodgers and Giants to replace the Rangers. That makes the division a lot more competitive, and why would I want more of a challenge for the Angels to make the playoffs? With only 2 possible spots to earn in the playoffs, the chances are already low from the start of the season that they'll make it. We've stumbled onto a more easily solvable problem: the format of the playoffs.
There are 30 teams in Major League Baseball, and 8 get to play in the postseason. That's roughly 30% of the teams. What if we added another wild card to each league to make 5 postseason teams in each league? The two wild card winners play each other in a best-of-three weekend set to advance into the the Division Series. We make the Division Series a best-of-seven instead of five, and start the season 4 days earlier in April. It goes against tradition, but who cares? Tradition only makes you outdated, and that's what the current system is. Now my idea isn't perfect, but what system is? Does the Maharishi have any ideas about realignment or the playoffs?
You hit on the NCAA's study of expanding the men's tournament field. I like this from an upset standpoint. Logically, the more teams that make the tournament, the longer you let them hang around, the better the chances for big upsets. Imagine an 18-seed upsetting a 7-seed in the first round. How epic would that be? This aspect, and the fact that the NCAA could make a few more yacht-loads of money and withhold it from its constituents, are about the only positives. If you're trying to foster upsets, this is the way to go. The NCAA, though, hates upsets. It doesn't care if the tourney is predictable; they want Duke, UCLA, UCONN, North Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, and Georgetown in the Final Four every year because those are the teams that drive TV ratings and ticket sales. All this does is let more undeserving power conference teams in. It would ensure that each of the major conferences would get their next 3-5 teams in.
An example of why this is a bad idea: the 2010 PAC-10. The conference had a horrible year, only securing two bids to the Dance. With a field of 96, you would have had the pleasure of seeing 22-11 Arizona State, 16-15 Arizona, and a 16-14 USC (with no self sanctions). What a crapfest. Why do we think this is a good idea again? So the NCAA can make even more money on its signature event? You mentioned in the MLB realignment discussion that what every major league-wide decision comes down to is the bottom line: Will a change/amendment bring in more revenue for the league. This is really all that Bud Selig, Gary Bettman, David Stern, and Roger Goodell care about when their heads hit the pillow every night. In the end, we can be confident that whatever decision the NCAA makes will be "well-researched and studied" and will help them maximize revenue and mitigate cost.
I completely disagree about the women's tournament. What isn't good about one team winning 75 games in a row and being as close to unbeatable as any team in any sport for the last 50 years? What isn't good about everyone knowing who will win that championship from Day One? What's not good about girls getting their big shot on TV, then dribbling the ball off their knee out of bounds in front of 2000 in a 20% capacity arena? How else are these girls going to get the exposure they need to improve or solidify their WNBA Draft status? Oh wait, doesn't ESPN have a contract with the WNBA to televise their games too? Hmmmmmm.
I hope it was clear that the previous paragraph was chock full of sarcastic rhetorical questions. It was clear? OK, just making sure.
Maharishi: I like you're idea of a new playoff format. I was never comfortable that only 4 teams from each league made the playoffs. It just seemed like a tragically low number.
I disagree with your notion that more rounds=more upsets. I think the little guys stand a chance because of the way the tournament is set up now. If you add byes and more games, I think you are hurting the smaller schools' chances of advancing. There's no way Northern Iowa beats Kansas if they are playing their 3rd game in 5 days. The bigger schools generally have bigger, stronger, and faster athletes. Lengthening the tournament favors those teams and I think would be bad in the long run. Sure first round upsets would occur, but I think the days of a Cornell going to the Sweet 16 would be pretty much over. That's just my opinion though.
Overall you're right, it's a horrible idea. I hope the NCAA isn't blinded by their own greed.
I know you must be happy your Dukies came through today. I know I said West Virginia had the better athletes and defensive prowess, but Duke made them look average on nearly every front. Losing Da'Sean Butler didn't help, but the game was out of reach at that point anyway. At least I got the Butler pick right.
It's been fun arguing with you. Maybe we'll have to hash this out again when the summer months roll around and we can discuss what it'll be like to have LeBron on the Knicks and why the Angels are struggling to win the West. Until then, enjoy having your column back Guru, I've enjoyed my time here.
