Archive for the ‘NBA’ Category

Why Don’t Free Agents Choose Washington?

Wednesday, March 6th, 2019

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

Image courtesy of RMNB

Image courtesy of RMNB

When Washington Nationals All-Star and former NL MVP Bryce Harper departed last week via free agency for Philadelphia, it further validated a baffling phenomenon in sports for me; How come top-tier free agents neither stay in nor find Washington, DC to be an attractive destination?

 

Ok, for $330 million dollars, many of us who love DC would gladly leave for Mars. BH

 

But the evidence of this reality long preceded Harper. Kevin Durant would not even give his hometown team, the Wizards, an interview. The last big-name free agent to sign with a Washington team was Albert Haynesworth.

 

That did not work out quite so well.

 

Normally, I pose a question and answer according to the world of Gus…supported by as much history and current day facts as I can find. Not this time. I have no idea why free agent marquee athletes don’t consider Washington as a viable option.

 

There are the usual suspects as explanations go such as the “lukewarm” enthusiasm of the Washington fan base about its teams.

 

I must come to the defense of DC fans on this one. Other than the magical title run of the Caps last year, what have the collective of Washington Sports teams produced on a consistent basis that would excite any fanbase over the past 25 years? Besides, does anyone think that San Diego fans are any more hyped about the Padres? Yet, Manny Machado signed there for the same $300 million that the Nats offered Harper, and I am sure would have given Machado.

 

Then there is organizational mediocrity to outright dysfunction.

 

To that I say that the high functioning organizations are rarely big players in the free agent market because, by definition, they need the least help. How often over the past 20 years have the Spurs or Patriots been big players? Baseball is a different animal because it does not have a salary cap, and the luxury tax is hardly a disincentive for the likes of the Red Sox, Dodgers, and Yankees. Simply put, in most cases the team that the upper echelon free agent bypassed Washington for, is likely to be as dysfunctional as the DC team. Why is their dysfunction more attractive than ours?

 

So what the hell is wrong with DC? We have a bustling metropolis with diversity to spare. We are relatively progressive in a political sense. If the city is not one’s preference, there are the beautiful Maryland suburbs or the rural Virginia suburbs.

 

For young Black athletes, which make up the majority of the NFL and NBA free agents, I am even more mystified. Why on Earth wouldn’t a young Black man with a pocket full of cash and at the height of his physical prime not be attracted to Washington DC?

This brings me to a possible solution for the football and basketball teams: Howard University!

HU

 

Both teams need to partner with the venerable HBCU. No, not to hire young women in the classless, exploitative way some colleges do to lure recruits. They would simply arrange visits to campus during the fall and spring semesters. One stroll across “the yard”, and the free agent success rate will immediately improve.

 

I know! I AM A HOWARD MAN!

 

Otherwise, I am open for other ideas about why Washington cannot attract high-caliber free agents. I am all ears.

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Zion Williamson and Where Collective Thinking Ends

Saturday, March 2nd, 2019

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

ZWI

When the likely number 1 draft pick for the NBA, Duke’s Zion Williamson, hurt a knee against arch rival North Carolina about a week ago, we got the foreseeable debate: Should he stay or should he sit for the remainder of the season?

The cases for both perspectives are pretty clear. He should sit for the year because to keep playing would be to risk his stock and millions of dollars in NBA earnings and endorsements. He should feel no more guilt about abandoning his commitment to the program than coaches feel when they leave for more money at another college or the NBA.

ZWHe should stay and play out the season, if healthy, because athletics are about more than money, but teamwork and a commitment to something larger than any one individual. His teammates are counting on him for Duke, as is often the case, to win a national title. That is not something Zion will have the opportunity to do ever again, should this be his only year in college.

I get both arguments and would not invest a lot of energy in debating against either side.

What does interest me are the mindsets of those who say he should not only stay, but feel an obligation to stay.

This is clearly collective thinking or a “put the group over yourself” plea.

In general, I am not opposed to that concept at all. In fact, I believe American society would be greatly improved if it were adopted on a more widespread level, both systemically and culturally. The conflict, of course, is that the American ethos is one of “rugged individualism” and that such rights trump the collective interests.

And that leads to some questions I have for those who are emphatic that he should stay:

Question 1: Do you equally believe that you should give up some of your weapons, or at the very least, tolerate more comprehensive background checks in the effort to mitigate the epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence?

Question 2: Would you be ok with a slight raise of your taxes to insure that we have universal health care?

Question 3: How about that same raise in taxes to insure proper funding for the schools in the same impoverished neighborhoods which produce more than a few of the college basketball talent that entertain us?

Surely you will agree that public safety, health care, and better education are far more important than whether Zion Williamson plays again this year at Duke, or if they win a 6th national title.  Endorsing any one or all would at least reflect a consistency in the “put the group over yourself” mindset.

But we all know that very few will.

The fact is that it is easy to advocate putting the collective over the individual when you are not the individual that would have to make the sacrifice. The disconnect is compounded when a significant number of those who insist Zion should continue to play believe the Black athletes’ primary role in society is to be their entertainment. Simply put, all too many sports fans believe that athletes should put the team over their own interests. But when it comes to the well-being of humanity on a far more important level than sports, the collective thinking ends.

It is for these reasons that I lean toward hoping that Zion does not return. I get a certain satisfaction in observing the disappointment of hypocrites.

Besides, it’s already too much that the Patriots and Red Sox have won titles over the past year. We don’t need Duke to follow suit. So, I say, SHUT IT DOWN ZION, SHUT IT DOWN!

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

So Much for Alabama or Duke Beating Pro Teams

Sunday, January 27th, 2019

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

AD

While I was away, two things happened that hopefully finally put to rest a narrative that never had any credence to begin with: the utterly ridiculous notion that a great college football or basketball team could beat the worst pro teams.

Clemson took the big bad Alabama Crimson Tide to the woodshed.

An unranked Syracuse team went on the road into Cameron Indoor to beat Duke.

This is not to take anything away from Alabama or Duke. The high-level performance of both programs is the gold standard for greatness….at the college level. Leave what is already great alone and stop trying to make it something that it fundamentally is not.

I confess that this is a fun bar room discussion. However, you will have to have been in the bar too long if you actually believe a team of college athletes, even the most talented, at 18-22 years of age, are going to beat a team of GROWN ASS MEN, who play the game for a living.

2001 Miami Hurricanes

2001 Miami Hurricanes

Nevertheless, for entertainment purposes only, let us go with the bar room vibe for a minute. The 2001 Miami Hurricanes is the greatest college football team of my lifetime. Consider their depth at running back alone: Clinton Portis, Willis McGahee, and Frank Gore. Other future NFL stars included Johnathan Vilma, DJ Williams (his father and uncle were teammates of mine), Ed Reed, Vince Wilfork, Bryant McKinnie, Jeremy Shockey, and Kellen Winslow Jr. So, with that talent, how can I be so sure that it would not have stood a chance against the Carolina Panthers or Detroit Lions, who won a combined three games between them that year? Two words: Ken Dorsey. He was their QB and very good at the COLLEGE LEVEL. However, he was a total dud at the pro level. In other words, he could not beat anyone once he did become a pro. Why on Earth would you believe that he could beat pro teams while he was still in college?

On even the greatest and most talent-rich college team, maybe a 3rd of the starters become NFL players of any note. Simply put, most college starters, even at the highest level, simply are not good enough to play professionally. But you believe that they would beat the pros?

GTFOOHWTBS!

LA

Let us consider basketball. The gold standard historically is without question the Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul Jabbar) era UCLA Bruins. He was there from 1966-69 and I am positive that we will never see another team dominate college basketball as it did. The worst team in the NBA during the 1968-69 season was the Phoenix Suns, winning only 16 games. Yet that team had seven players average double-figures, led by a future Hall of Famer named Gail Goodrich. UCLA would not have stood a chance. Jabbar was going to be Jabbar. Pros could not have stopped him as a freshman. However, they would not beat pro teams.

The only exception to this rule…and it would only be for one game, would be baseball. A college baseball team with a young stud like Roger Clemons from Texas or Sandy Koufax out of Cincinnati, on the rare days he had his control at that stage of his development, could shut down a professional batting lineup. However, no college team will have more than one.

I guess what baffles me most of all is why do we even care? Why this obsession with forcing apples to compete with oranges? Can’t we just appreciate the greatness of Serena Williams and the Lady UConn Huskies basketball team without asking could they beat men?

Greatness is too rare to be subjected to steroid-laced hypotheticals for our unquenchable amusement.  Alabama is the the greatest college football dynasty ever. Duke has been the most high performing college basketball program for 30 years. That is good enough for me.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Why Doc Rivers is Wrong about Black Athletes and Fathers

Friday, December 7th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

Image courtesy of Complex

Image courtesy of Complex

If there were a vote for NBA coach of the year today, the Los Angeles Clippers’ Doc Rivers would get my vote. The team’s 16-8, which places it third in the Western Conference. It would be an understatement to say that this was not expected in the first full year of the post Blake Griffin/Chris Paul era.

If there once were whispers that Rivers rode the coat tails of three future Hall of Famers in Boston to an NBA title, they should have subsided by now.

The man can flat out coach!

He is not anywhere near quite as accomplished a social commentator.

Rivers was interviewed in the latest edition of the ESPN magazine The Undefeated and it is worth the read. The following quote is what is drawing the most attention:

“We have a lot of black players without fathers. In addition, to me that is a story that needs to be talked about, because it is difficult for the black coach sometimes. The black male figures in many of these people’s lives have burned them. So, being coached by us, some people think it’s easier, when actually it’s harder.”

Rivers goes on to cite the importance of relationships in the formula for being a successful coach.

He is right about the importance of relationships. One can never really know what kind of relationship you have with another until there is conflict or one tells the other no!

He is wrong to cite absentee fathers as the source of difficulty in building those relationships with Black athletes.

It is necessary for all who care to understand why he is wrong to recognize that NBA players are among the 1% of professional athletes. Like the one percent in any other area of life, they do not necessarily react well when they do not get things their way. Why? Because they have had a lifetime up to that point of getting what they want, within the athletic realm. Rivers mistakenly cites absentee fathers as the source of the difficulty, when in fact, this challenge is just as prevalent among multiple other 1% demographics.

The majority of highly rated high school football quarterback prospects are white and from households with fathers. Nevertheless, when they get to college and learn that they will not start, they are the most likely to transfer. They are not accustomed to being told no!

Even beyond sports, the 1% do not like being told what to do. Try telling the top 1% of the richest to pay their fair share of taxes and see how they react. Needless to say…but I will say it anyway; demographic is almost exclusively white men and they clearly have a reasonably healthy relationship with their fathers, because that is often from where their inheritance came. Observe the reaction of the 1% of the most beautiful women in the world when they do not get their way. Consider the rantings of a Supreme Court nominee when anyone dare question his fitness for the court. Cross a “made man” in the mafia and you may just end up at the bottom of a river.

People who have been accommodated all of their lives do not see it as privilege but as entitlement, and that is what Rivers is confusing for absentee fathers.

Three things are most troubling about Rivers’ comments; the first being that he contradicts himself in the same interview when he says the following:

“You can’t group anyone. They all have their own way about them, and it’s our job to try to figure out each guy.”

Isn’t that exactly what he has done to Black players?

Yet another troubling aspect is that he co-signed (I do not believe consciously) on a contributing narrative to the number of Black men being killed by police. This is to say the more one fuels the notion of Black men being hard to control, neglectful, no-good, violent, etc., the more viable the defense of police is to the public, (from which juries come from in the rare occurrence of a trial) when they claim to have been “in fear for their lives”.

Rivers is not the only culprit. Both corporate and social media promote this stereotypical narrative. The messenger through social media are often justifiably frustrated single mothers left to raise sons on their own. Some would rather broad brush Black men than look in the mirror to figure out why they picked a partner neither interested, suited, or economically ready for fatherhood. None of this absolves those who are indeed absent from the lives of their sons or daughters. There are explanations most notably of which would be deindustrialization of urban areas and the loss of jobs that came with that phase as well as the War on Drugs. But there are no excuses. It is to say that there has been no lack of light shined on this particular demographic for its shortcomings in this area.

The third factor is about media literacy when discussing the “absentee” Black father. By that, I mean exactly what metric is being used. When one does the “beyond the headlines” work of seeking out original sources for a story or research methodology, you would be shocked to learn how some of the data is comprised. For example, I have read some data that determine absenteeism as having never been married to the mother. Others declare no court ordered child support as absenteeism. Under those two, I was not involved in my son’s life…even though I raised him by myself (certainly not without struggle) from the time he was 7 years old. Simply put, the narrative of the absentee Black father is among the most embellished in American society.

In my nearly 25 years as an educator, coach, and mentor in the greater Washington DC area, I have worked with a huge sample of young Black men. Some, indeed, did have inconsistent to non-existent relationships with their fathers. Nevertheless, my experience has been just the opposite of what Rivers describes; they long to trust…as long you do not give them reason to mistrust. In other words, just like any other group of human beings.

Rivers made a very superficial, half-peeled onion assessment that is about as valid as me suggesting his being married to a White woman means he can’t relate to Black people. When former, long-time NBA coach George Karl suggested the same thing in his book a few years ago, he was roundly criticized. Rivers deserves no less.

Sports is a mega platform for a myriad of ideas to be espoused and discussed. Thus, while its occupants are entitled to their opinion, it is important to make sure that such are well thought out and have verifiable support. When they do not, writers or any other observers have an obligation to push back against the flawed narrative, regardless to how often it has existed and is repeated. In the case of Black men in America, taking on such a responsibility can literally be a life and death decision.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

 

Chemistry in Sports is Overrated!

Saturday, December 1st, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

OA

Wizards All Star John Wall curses his coach. That’s why the team is having an underachieving season.

All Star Jimmy Butler made himself such a problem, which forced the Timberwolves to trade him. That toxic culture explains the Timberwolves underachieving season.

Both narratives reinforce a common myth in sports that says a team must have harmonious chemistry to win.

It just is not true.

DG

Draymond Green has gone off on his coach and cursed Kevin Durant, but it has not stopped the Warriors from winning three of the past four NBA titles. The conflict between Shaq and Kobe is well known, and yet my Lakers managed to be the last and one of only two NBA franchises to pull off a three-peat  (2000, 2001, and 2002).

The evidentiary examples are not limited to basketball.

In the 1970s, Major League Baseball had a team of characters called the Oakland Athletics (A’s). They were in constant war with their cheap but visionary owner, Charlie Finley, and with one another. One of the players described getting into a fight with a teammate in the shower over a bar of soap. Still yet, the A’s won the American League Western Division five straight years, 1971-1975, and the World Series 3-straight, 1972-1974. The only other baseball team to win three straight is the mighty Yankees. It was not the obvious lack of harmonious chemistry that eventually stopped the A’s. It was the advent of free agency.

RJThe New York Yankees of the latter part of that decade were similar. Its clubhouse was nicknamed “The Bronx Zoo”. They also had a meddling and toxic creating owner in George Steinbrenner. Catcher and team captain, the late great Thurman Munson, did not like the team’s best player and never hid that fact from others. Speaking of the team’s best player; he was also a member of the previously mentioned Oakland A’s team: Mr. Reggie Jackson.

Jackson referred to himself as the “Straw that Stirred the Drink”. He rubbed people the wrong way. He was both self-promoting and self-hating, from an ethnic identity standpoint. He was also quite possibly the greatest clutch hitting slugger in postseason baseball history. He is the only position player to win two World Series MVP awards, one with the A’s and the other with the Yankees, while leading them to consecutive World Series wins in 1977-1978.

Production, when it matters most, trumps chemistry.

There is a saying in football: “If you have two quarterbacks, you do not have one.” The riff between 49ers legends Joe Montana and Steve Young was obvious and even more contentious than Tom Brady and Jimmy Garoppolo, formerly with the Patriots.  Montana was more advanced and the incumbent with two Super Bowl MVP awards, but the injuries began to pile up. When Young got his chance, he made the decision for the late coach Bill Walsh very difficult, especially in the back end of 1988, when the team lost consecutive games to subpar Raiders and Cardinals teams, to fall to 6-5, and was in danger of missing the playoffs.

TEMPE, AZ - NOVEMBER 6:  Quarterbacks Steve Young #8 and Joe Montana #16 of the San Francisco 49ers discuss strategy with head coach Bill Walsh during the game against the Phoenix Cardinals at Sun Devil Stadium on Novemer 6, 1988 in Tempe, Arizona.  The Cardinals won 24-23.  (Photo by George Rose/Getty Images)

(Photo by George Rose/Getty Images)

For the rest of the season, they would only lose a meaningless season-ending game on their way to winning the Super Bowl. They would repeat in 1989 with what many of us feel was their best team and on the short list of greatest of all time.

None of this is to say that chemistry is not important at all. It is. This is not to say that a player cannot cross the line and warrant accountability. He can, and it seems to me that Wall, Green, and Butler all did. It is to say that teams should think long and hard about getting rid of exceptional talent under the banner of team-cancer or chemistry-killer. Talent has its privileges, be it in professional sports or not. Does anyone believe that Hollywood would have the seemingly endless tolerance for Robert Downey Jr. were it not for his being a proven commodity, from both a talent and box office draw standpoint? Former Cowboys Coach Jimmy Johnson puts it this way: “If a special teams player or back up lineman falls asleep in a meeting, I would cut him. If Troy, Michael, or Emmitt fall asleep, I would go over a wake them up.”

Some may now be thinking, if I curse my boss I would be out of a job. As well you should be…unless thousands of people are willing to pay to watch you do your job. In that case, you may very well get the same leeway as exceptional professional athletes get. The fact is in the NBA, if you do not have one of the best 7-8 players in the league, or two of the top 12-15, you have little to no chance of winning a title. In my lifetime, only two teams broke through without this: the 1979 Seattle Supersonics and the 2004 Detroit Pistons, both of which had Hall of Fame coaches to guide them.

The most interesting part of the tendency to cite a lack of chemistry or toxic culture when a team under performs is the why. I have a few theories that I believe are at play here:

 

  • Unrealistic expectations: both fans and even media routinely wrongly assess how good a team truly is. There are two sources of this one being the “fishbowl syndrome”, which basically gives people the impression that they understand more about something than they really do, because they see the end-product. The second source is a tricky human tendency to substitute our hopes for analysis. Human beings have emotional, ideological, and egotistical ties to their hopes, and as a result, often stretch their realistic possibilities;

 

  • Jealousy: A huge segment of male sports fans (myself included) and media wanted to be professional athletes. Do not underestimate this lingering resentment. The quarterback stole his girlfriend in high school and he never got over the pain of being traded in for a flashier model. Professional sports offer such tormented souls a platform to therapeutically vent about that unresolved teen-age rejection from years ago. I am only slightly kidding; and

 

  • Race: This of the “Shut up and dribble” mindset. More than a few of the fanbase feel that the Black athlete’s primary role in life is to entertain them. When they are not entertained, he is deserving of scorn. One of the best examples of this was the demise of the Eddie Murray/Cal Ripken era Orioles. Murray got all of the blame for the team that started 0-21 in 1988 and was traded the next year, while Cal was left without stain. Simply put, more than a few White fans have a problem….be it consciously or subconsciously, with Black athletes enjoying the privileges they enjoy.

So yes, chemistry is important but nowhere near as much as talent, which is the default narrative often adopted when trying to explain unfulfilled expectations. The degree to which it is cited is more about our longing for simple explanations, even if intellectually lazy and impossible to verify. In 2013, the Houston Astros lost 111 games. That team is on the short list of one of the worst in baseball history. Five players from the 2013 team remained on the team in 2017, when they won 101 games, and the first World Series in franchise history. Of those five was an eventual MVP in Jose Altuve and a Cy Young winner in Dallas Keuchel. What changed? It wasn’t chemistry. All five have spoken about how close the 2013 team was despite the losing. What changed was the improvement of the those who remained and the addition of Alex Bregman, George Springer, Charlie Morton, and of course, Justin Verlander.

This is why I contend that chemistry in sports is overrated.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Sports’ 4 Most Overhyped Rivalries

Friday, November 23rd, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

Image courtesy of The Purple Quill

Image courtesy of The Purple Quill

As college football goes, this is rivalry week. Alabama vs. Auburn is among many that rarely disappoint.

However, some of these matchups that folks have been convinced are rivalries are overhyped frauds. I am going to list the biggest four, but to get where I am coming from, you have to know what makes up a rivalry. There are six primary elements: history; familiarity; regional proximity; greatness of the players; fan passion; and competitive balance.  Now a good rivalry need not necessarily have all of these elements. For example, the Steelers and Raiders, 49ers and Cowboys have history, but familiarity has dropped because they do not necessarily play every year, as opposed to Dallas and Washington. Regional proximity makes them compelling, but USC and Notre Dame, as well as the Celtics and Lakers have proven that regional proximity is not a necessity. In fact, it can be overplayed, as was the case in Northern Cal when I was growing up. Cal-Berkeley vs. Stanford was considered “the big game”. I could never understand what was so big about a game between two teams with a combined record of 4-14.

The one of these six elements that is necessary for a full-fledge, hype-deserving rivalry is competitive balance.

That is the factor missing from the four biggest frauds on the rivalry Mt. Rushmore.

FRAUD RIVALRY 1) Tiger Woods vs. Phil Mickelson:

Photo Credit: Kyle Terada-USA TODAY Sports

Photo Credit: Kyle Terada-USA TODAY Sports

I know they have the $9 million match play on Friday and the $200K side bet that “Phil Appeal” would birdie the first hole. Far be it for me to deny an interest in an ill action, so I may tune in for that alone. However, to call it a rivalry is an insult to rivalries. It has been reasonably close when they have been paired, with Woods holding an 18-15-2 edge. That is the end of the statistical balance. Though they have both played in nearly all four majors since 1997, they have finished first and second in only one major (the 2002 U.S. Open, won by Woods, by three strokes over Michelson). Their careers for wins has Tiger with 14 majors to Phil’s 5, and 80 tour wins to Phil’s 43.

What rivalry?

When Tiger and Phil are paired together atop the leader board on a Sunday of a major, then give me a call.

 

FRAUD RIVALRY 2) Serena vs. Maria:

Photo courtesy of The Telegraph

Photo courtesy of The Telegraph

It should have been great. When 17-year-old Maria Sharapova took two of her first three matches from the undisputed number 1 Serena Williams in 2004, it included an absolute beat down of the Queen at the Wimbledon finals. There was every reason to believe that it would be a great rivalry for years to come. Since that year, Serena has beaten Maria like a drum, to the tune of 18 matches in a row, 15 of them in straight sets. The only reason Maria broke the streak is that Serena retired due to injury in this year’s French Open. Serena has twice as many tour wins (72-36) and over four times as many majors (23-5).  Rivalry? GTFOOHWTBS.

 

 

 

FRAUD RIVALRY 3) Patriots and the Steelers:

Photo courtesy of Inside the Pylon

Photo courtesy of Inside the Pylon

It pains me to point this out, and I may be risking sedition charges at the hands of the council of Steeler Nation. But the record is what the record is. During the Belichick/Brady era, my Steelers are 3-10 against the Patriots, including 0-3 in playoffs. Their only win in New England was when Brady was hurt. Five of the losses have been in Pittsburgh. Stevie Wonder could see that this is not much of a rivalry.

 

 

 

 

FRAUD RIVALRY 4) LeBron vs MJ:

Photo courtesy of Type One

Photo courtesy of Type One

I suppose if we include social media and/or a bar to be qualifiers, this would be a real rivalry. We cannot. Cyberspace is no more of a venue for a rivalry than porn is for one’s Walter Mitty sexual exploits; NEITHER IS REAL! How on Earth could there be a rivalry when the two never competed against one another? Their careers have literally never even overlapped. Jordan’s last year was the year before LeBron’s debut.  They do not even play the same position.

 

 

 

 

It is easy to understand how these four have come to be presented as something their records clearly show that they are not; ratings! All are marquee within their sports and even beyond, and all move the marketing meter. I get it. But let’s not get carried away, least we take away from real rivalries such as Duke and North Carolina, or my Giants and the Dodgers, etc. The good news is that an overhyped rivalry can get an upgrade. Until 1985, the Lakers and Celtics was overhyped. Then the mighty Purple and Gold put that work in on the lil green bas##@$&. Until 2004 the Yankees and Red Sox was overhyped, until the Red Sox gave the pin stripes the business and have been doing so ever since. Until last year, the Penguins and Capitals was overhyped. You know it is not a real rivalry when only one side of fans is obsessed with it, while the other side just takes winning for granted. That is how Penguins fans felt when they met the Caps in the playoffs……….until last year.  Now it is a good rivalry. Nothing gets the attention of an arrogant fan base more than when your team unexpectedly beats them. So none of the above is eternally locked into fraud rivalry purgatory. However, one must change the narrative and the only way to do that is to start winning.

So, here’s to hoping that the Michigan Wolverines read this and finally beats the Ohio State Buckeyes this weekend. Otherwise, that rivalry may be soon on this list.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Why Sports and Loyalty Don’t Mix

Monday, July 30th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

DD

What do Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, and Patrick Ewing all have in common? They were first ballot Hall of Famers who were kicked to the curb by their signature teams once they felt that they could do better without them. What I have never quite understood is why fans are so much more critical of the player who rejects loyalty while giving teams a pass for the same behavior?

While I do not contend either DeMar DeRozan or Kawhi Leonard are on the level of the players previously mentioned, I was reminded of such players this past week when the two were traded for one another. Especially noteworthy was DeRozen’s shock and dumbfounded reaction.

DeRozan seemed to feel that since he has indeed been among the 3-4 best shooting guards in the NBA over the past 10 years, it would account for something. He thought that because he had embraced the Toronto community and life, like no other Raptor before him, to include the significant additional tax burden, that he was above his current fate. DeRozan evidently thought that because management did not imply in any way that he was indeed expendable, which he wasn’t. He thought because he never considered leaving via free agency a few years ago that his demonstrated loyalty to the team would be reciprocated.

There is a phrase that best summarizes the only response to DeRozan’s disappointment:

“Wake up and smell the coffee.”

DeRozan made one fatal flaw that is not uncommon for loyalists; he thought that the loyalty he extended would have been reciprocated.  He was wrong.

I am not making light of how he feels nor the impact of an involuntary move on an NBA player and his family…even a multimillionaire. It is no small or simple thing to have to uproot one’s family and literally move them to another country. The children must change schools, etc. I even agree with DeRozan that at the very least the “humane” thing for the Raptors to do would have been to alert him that they would consider moving him.

But professional sports is often not humane. It is the descendent of the gladiator world of ancient Rome, and when you cannot entertain the fans or provide the labor your team wants, you will be discarded as easily as a piece of meat for the hungry lions.

This callousness is by no means limited to sports. Look at the raid on public employee pension plans. Or the austerity approach to public debt while simultaneously giving tax breaks to the rich (of which admittedly DeRozan is a part of). Or dare I say, the reneging on contractually agreed upon raises for community college professors. Time and time again, those who ultimately control the capital have demonstrated that their use for those of us who are labor only extends to the degree that they can profit from our labor. There is nothing loyal or humane about this.

Now more than a few fans will dismiss DeRozan’s lament on the exclusive basis of “he makes a lot of money”. To those I refer you the late-great baseball all-star and free agency trailblazer Curt Flood. In 1969, AFTER his contract with the Cardinals had expired, they traded him to the Philadelphia Phillies. Up until this point, baseball and all other sports could do this under something referred to as the “Reserve Clause”, which essentially determined that a player’s rights, even if no longer under contract belong to a team until that team decided to either cut the player or trade him. The only problem was that Flood refused the trade under the notion that he was not a piece of chattel or property. When he alluded to chattel, that outraged many in that he seemed to be comparing himself to a slave. When asked by the iconic Howard Cosell about the appropriateness of the analogy given that he was paid a salary of over $100,000 at that time, Flood responded “a well-paid slave is a slave nonetheless”.

What happened to DeRozan is but more proof that there is neither loyalty in sports nor the larger American society. Furthermore, it is a prime example why I NEVER dispute a player’s attempt to get every dime he can from owners in the short run. In the long run, we must decide what kind of society we want, both inside and outside sports. Do we want one with no sense of reciprocal obligations to humanity? Or one that validates “dog eat dog” parasitic behavior under the notion of “it’s just business”?

Clearly DeRozan was under the wrong impression which of these two societies he currently resides.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

10 Reasons Why LeBron and the Lakers Make Sense

Tuesday, July 10th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

PE

Now that the “wow” and dust has settled, let’s look at last week’s biggest sports story: my Lakers’ signing of LeBron James.

There are legitimate basketball-based reasons for the Lakers to have not signed “The King”, such as, why hamstring your roster and salary cap with any one player when he won’t be enough to win the title?; or 2) Why increase the temptation to give up young, promising talent for another piece, such as Kawhi Leonard, when even if at his best, still likely will not be enough to beat the “Beast by the Bay?”; or 3) Previous Laker teams that acquired superstars were better than this group and thus the acquisition got them closer to a title.

Those, among others, are perfectly rational reasons.

But I have been a card-carrying member of Laker Nation since 1972 and rational thinking has no place in this column.

So, I give you the 10 reasons why LeBron and the Lakers make sense:

REASON 10: “The Apostle.” Pau Gasol

Does anyone believe my Lakers make it to 3 straight Finals from 2008-10 and win two titles without the acquisition of Gasol from Memphis? While he is not in the class of the next three I’ll name, he may be the most underappreciated Laker of any of the title teams.

REASON 9: Wilt Chamberlain

Getting Chamberlain before the 1969 season kept an aging team (Both West and Baylor were 10 years into the league) as a powerhouse without a rebuilding period. My Lakers made the Finals in 69, 70, 72, and 73, winning it all in 1972 with what was then a single-season record of 69-13, that also included a 33-game winning streak over the 71 and 72 seasons.

REASON 8: “Shaq”

He was acquired via free agency from the Magic. Once Kobe matured, Shaq led my Lakers to the NBA’s last 3-peat, 2000-02. He was Finals MVP all three times.

REASON 7: Kareem the Supreme

Already a proven winner, leading the Bucks to the 1971 title and reaching the Finals again in 1974, the case can be made that Jabbar’s acquisition was the most beneficial of any superstar in integrated sports history.  He was the leading scorer on 3 of the 5 title teams of the 80s.

REASON 6: Putting down the Daddyball factor

I, for one, never understood why so many overreacted to LaVar Ball’s fine-line walk between buffoonery and marketing brilliance. Regardless, LeBron’s presence alone will push this issue to where it always belonged, which is the back page of the tabloid section. The other benefit is that it takes any undue pressure off Lonzo and allows him to develop with less of the scrutiny of those who wanted him to fail, to clam up pop.

REASON 5: Attractive to free agents again

Other than Kyrie Irving, who has had a big problem playing with LeBron, this move makes the Lakers an attractive destination for free agents again….maybe even for a discount.

REASON 4: Reclaiming L.A.

You know your team has sunk to an all-time low when folks would rather see the Clippers. Those days are over!

REASON 3: The Warriors can’t keep everyone

Klay Thompson comes up for free agency soon.  Boogie Cousins returning to form is far from a sure thing, given the history of Achilles injuries (I for one believe our own Black Mamba might still be playing were it not for this injury so late in his career).

REASON 2: The Herm Edwards factor

“YOU PLAY…TO WIN….THE GAME!”  How can getting the best player in the league via free agency undermine that goal? No, it does not put us on par with that Beast By the Bay. Some of you state this as if you are announcing a cure for cancer. But it does make you a better team.

And the number 1 reason LeBron and the Lakers make sense is…………….

…….drumroll……

WE ARE THE LOS ANGELES LAKERS AND YOU ARE NOT!

This would be highly questionable for any other franchise.

We are not any other franchise.

We are the mighty Los Angeles Lakers, draped in the majestic purple and gold, which is to say WE ARE SPORTS ROYALTY, and that is why we are suited for a King.  Feel fortunate that we even condescend to speak to mere mortal fans such as those of the Kings or Wizards. No other organization in sports history has proven to be better equipped to accommodate a superstar than the Lakers.

So ,Laker haters prepare to resume your hate because weather you like it or not, we matter once again!

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

What Do Allen Iverson and Voters Have in Common?

Thursday, June 21st, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

AI

The primary voting season is here. While many will think of the local State’s Attorney’s race or in DC, Proposition 77 – aimed at increasing the income of restaurant workers, what I think of in addition to those things is the NBA Hall of Famer and DMV icon Allen Iverson.

Stay with me.

Generously listed at 6 feet, not only was Iverson one of the most exciting basketball players of any era, but he was one of the best high school athletes the country has EVER seen.  In addition to being an 11-time NBA All-Star, 2-time All-Star game MVP, and the 2001 NBA MVP, Iverson was an all-state quarterback in the talent-rich Hampton Roads area of Virginia. Three days after leading his high school to the state title in football, he made his basketball debut for the year….scoring 47 points! He was the Associated Press High School Player of the Year in both football and basketball.

Under the inch-for-inch, pound-for-pound criteria, Iverson would be very high on the list of best all-around athletes of my lifetime.

In addition to that, Iverson was iconic among the Hip Hop culture, in no small part to his refusal to modify who he was, warts and all, in exchange for commercial endorsements. Simply put in the eyes of his fans, Iverson kept it real.

I have played softball with a person for several years whom I call, “the Question”. Why? Because I never knew if he would be where he is supposed to be.  Allen Iverson’s nickname was “THE ANSWER”, because on game day, regardless of injuries and being literally the smallest person on the court, you knew Iverson came to play and play with no fear. Even against the likes of Shaq, who was literally more than twice his size, Iverson would go to the hole without hesitation.

The only time you could not count on “an Answer” was during practice. He was so uninterested in it that his coach in Philadelphia, the great Larry Brown, finally called him out about the matter to the media. Iverson responded at a press conference with one of the most memorable sports quotes ever…

“We’re sitting in here, and I’m supposed to be the franchise player, and we in here talking about practice. I mean, listen, we’re talking about practice, not a game, not a game, not a game, we talking about practice. Not a game. Not, not … Not the game that I go out there and die for and play every game like it’s my last. Not the game, but we’re talking about practice, man. I mean, how silly is that? … And we talking about practice. I know I supposed to be there. I know I’m supposed to lead by example… I know that… And I’m not.. I’m not shoving it aside, you know, like it don’t mean anything. I know it’s important, I do. I honestly do… But we’re talking about practice man. What are we talking about? Practice? We’re talking about practice.”

Jim SmithThis is why Iverson reminds me of all too many voters. The less repeated part of the quote was the fact that he knew that he was wrong and acknowledged such. However, my feeling is that rarely before had anyone actually demanded more from him. He viewed games the way many voters view elections. In addition, both have the same fatal flaw and that is the failure to realize that the work before and in between the games and elections is how best to get results from the games and elections.

Though I played multiple sports growing up, I did not fully appreciate the significance of practice until I began to coach. Likewise, though I have voted all my adult life, the more politically conscious I become, the more I realize that the critical work is ongoing before, in between, and after elections. It’s constant political education, holding both police and elected officials accountable, be they Barack Obama or the current president, and even non-electoral organizing work.

So I say to you voters as I would say to Iverson; we are not just talking about practice. We are not just talking about elections. We are talking about putting in that grind and the hard, thankless work when no one is watching. Had we been as engaged out of election season as we are during the election season, maybe we could have prevented the conditions that allowed for the election of the current President of the United States. Just as it was always about more than practice, it has always been about more than voting.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Who Has the Most to Lose in the NBA Finals?

Thursday, May 31st, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

Photo courtesy of USA Today

Photo courtesy of USA Today

It is hard to find storylines for an NBA finals matchup in its fourth consecutive edition. With that said, I think the discussion about whom has the most on the line or to lose is worthy.

Many will say LeBron James has the most on the line. This makes sense for those obsessed with the comparison to Michael Jordan. I am not among those. It is not that I do not believe it is a valid discussion, even if I am not quite ready to put him over Michael Jordan. My issue is that it is largely a disingenuous straw man debate used as a platform for those who just do not like LeBron. I say this because their bar for even considering him with Jordan is seven NBA titles…….or 4 more for teams LeBron is on….which they know will not happen. They then follow up with “if we should credit him for taking a bad team a long way, we should be able to criticize him for losing in the NBA finals 5 times”. That is like crediting a weight-lifter for bench-pressing 400 lbs., but then knocking him for not being able to lift 500 lbs.

The basic reason that LeBron does not have the most on the line or to lose is because it is really beyond reason to expect him to play significantly better than he already has. That will not matter one bit to a certain faction of fans out there. For them, even if LeBron James walked on water, they would complain that his feet got wet. Nothing he nor his team does will change their minds. Donald Trump will welcome immigrants before they cede him his proper due, even if that is short of Jordan. Simply put, if the Gospel of King James has not converted them by now, without adding asterisks or “if” caveats, it never will. We should let them go and cease trying to have reasonable discussions with them.

This brings us to the place of the Golden State Warriors among the all-time greatest teams. Because of this quest, the Warriors have the most to lose. Think about it this way: the Warriors have four all-stars. Does anyone believe that Klay Thompson and Draymond Green are going to take less money to stay? Draymond’s skill set would require two to three players to replace. Thompson has a case for being their best big-game postseason guard. It is not that they have not already accomplished great things. Winning two titles in 3 years is indeed great and yes, but for a suspension, there is a good chance they would be looking at a 4th straight this year.

If “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts, we would all have a merry day.

We do not assign all-time great team designations based on endless selective “if” hypotheticals. If Paul does not get hurt, are the Warriors even in this final? You are what your record says you are and that can be completely assigned to teams as opposed to one player.

The fact is the Warriors’ window for joining the likes of the Celtics of the 60s, Lakers of the 80s and Shaq/Kobe era, Pistons of Isiah, and of course, the Bulls with Jordan, is likely closing. What do all those teams have in common? They all repeated as champions. Though I expect the Warriors to accomplish that feat within a week or two, it should not be taken for granted. Those of us that remember the 1983 76ers, who had just acquired the great Moses Malone to join Julius Erving, and then loss only 1 playoff game on the way to sweeping my Lakers for the title, expected that to be the first of several.

It was the last of one.

The same was the case for the 1985 Bears and the 1986 Mets. I would include the 1985 Hoyas of Georgetown, but at least it took a perfect game from Villanova (they shot about 75% for the game and still could only win by 2) to deny them their place. Far less have derailed many teams aspiring to all-time greatness status.

Therefore, that is what is on the line for the Warriors….all time greatness. LeBron will be viewed as LeBron will be viewed.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports