Posts Tagged ‘Gus Griffin’

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

Le’Veon, Dez, and Mr. Eric Reid

Saturday, November 17th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

(Photo by Justin K. Aller/Getty Images)

(Photo by Justin K. Aller/Getty Images)

The sagas of Steelers running back Le’Veon Bell, former Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant, and Panthers safety Eric Reid are all different and yet the same in a very important way: they all represent NFL players attempting to exert their considerable leverage against the company line narrative that most go along with like sheep.

Even as a Steelers fan, I initially supported Bell’s holdout on the basis of one indisputable fact: why should the best running back in the league settle for the average salary of the top 5 paid running backs in the league? That is what a second franchise tag would have paid Bell, or 120% of his 2017 salary…whichever would be highest.

But as current Steelers feature back James Connor continues to be close to, if not as productive, as Bell would have been, and the Steelers “righted the ship” from an early-season stumble, it just seemed to me that Bell’s holdout was more about winning a pissing contest and personal ego, and thus pointless. Then I recently learned something I did not know that might explain Bell’s tactic. Even though Bell has not reported and is being docked pay, he will get credit for having been franchised-tagged a second year. Why is that important? Because tagging him a 3rd year would oblige the Steeler’s to pay him the average of the top 5 highest paid quarterbacks in the league, or 140% of his 2017 salary (which would have been about $14 million)…whichever is highest.

What does Bell get out of all this? A healthy year and he is certain to either be traded or allowed to hit the free agent market, where he can negotiate that any team add his 2017 lost salary into his signing bonus. Todd Gurley got just under $22 million as a signing bonus. Is it out of the realm of possibility that a team would give Bell the same $22 million plus the $14 million in lost salary as a signing bonus, IF he surrenders some back-end and annual salary? We will see.

Dez Bryant is another story.

DBThe receiver was let go by a Cowboys team with hardly an elite receiving corps. My guess is that he could have come back had he been willing to redo his contract, or in other words, take a pay cut. He was not, and so essentially bet on himself in the free agent market. He was reportedly offered a 4-year deal from the Ravens at $7 million per, just before the draft.

I will stop right here to point out an example for media literacy. There is perhaps nothing in sports journalism that is more misleading than the headlines of NFL contract values. Very few players actually see that back-end of a contract, which is often where much of the money is back-loaded to allow the team salary cap flexibility.

With that said, Dez Bryant once again bet on himself and turned the deal down, instead preferring a 1-year deal, after which he could hit the market, hopefully on the momentum of a comeback year and cash in long term.

Bryant expected another call from a team after the draft. Other than the Browns, the phone never rang. He had been sitting at home waiting ever since, until the red-hot Saints called to add to their receiving depth down the stretch. Tragically, Bryant tore an Achilles tendon in his second practice with the team and is now not only done for the year, but has yet another red flag attached to him when and if he returns to try the free agent market.

His is a cautionary tale of how important it is to accurately assess one’s value. The fact is from a pure football standpoint, Bryant was never a speed burner and his capacity to get separation had decreased over the years. Add to that a reputation, true or not, for being disruptive, and Dez simply never had the advantage that he thought he had.

The third saga is by far for me the most intriguing, and that is of Mr. Eric Reid. I call him “Mr.” because the value of his narrative is far larger than football, and instructive in our everyday lives, particularly for those of us who believe in speaking truth to power.

ER

Reid, you may recall knelt alongside Colin Kaepernick, when both were with the 49ers. Both were clearly blackballed from the league as a result. Since the Panthers signed Reid earlier this year, he has been drug-tested 5 times in 6 weeks. He has been ejected from a game and had what was clearly a game-winning turnover overturned. Why? Because he continues to kneel and the league would just as soon wish that Reid go away, along with his collusion suit that he filed against it, along with Kaepernick. As much of an offense it was, Reid breaking away from a group of NFL players who “negotiated” an $89 million payoff to the group of money supposedly aimed at addressing the issues that have led to the protest in the first place. Upon closer exam, a significant portion of those funds is going to local police departments.

Why would you pay the people who are doing the killing?

The most instructive piece of the Reid saga is why he called Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins a NEO-ER2COLONIALIST. Unlike some who use terminology that they may have heard others use but really do not understand the concept themselves, Reid understood exactly what he was saying and explained as much when question by reporters.

According to Reid, the group had decided before meeting with league officials that giving up the right to kneel during the anthem was not a negotiable point. It seemed to be the league’s primary objective. After the meetings took place, Jenkins calls Reid and asks, “How much would it take for you to stop kneeling?”

In simple terms, a Neo-Colonialist is someone from the oppressed group that does the bidding of the oppressor, while promoting the notion of post Colonialism. It aptly describes a pitiful number of African, Central, and South American governments upon post-formal Colonialism. It goes on all around us today from most members of the Congressional Black Caucus, to the activist industrial complex, to the Black police chief hired in response to yet another unjust killing of a Black man or woman. Their fundamental role is to keep the “natives” in line. If we calculate 30 pieces of silver in today’s money, sadly, it would not even take that amount for some to turn.

When a well-paid professional athlete that could just as easily take the money and keep his mouth shut continues to speak truth to power as well as call out those who have willingly collaborated with the enemy, he is entitled to be addressed as MISTER!

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

The Trouble with Rewarding “The Biggest Loser”

Thursday, October 11th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

Image courtesy of TeamRankings.com

Image courtesy of TeamRankings.com

A friend of mine plays several weekly football pools…straight picks…no point spreads, with the Monday Night total being the tiebreaker. He showed me the payoff breakdown of the largest, which has a pot of over $5000 per week.  First place takes home over $3K. Second about $1K, third about $500, fourth is about $400, and fifth about $300. Considering it’s only $10 per week, per sheet to play, and one can play as many sheets as one likes, it is a good deal. Merely placing once would get a weekly 1-sheet player his/her money back, plus extra.

All good, until I noticed a sixth payout slot: $100, regardless of pot size, would go to……………..get ready for this……….THE BIGGEST LOSER!

That is right. The person who wins the least gets $100.

When I first saw this, my thinking was it keeps the struggling players engaged, which after all, keeps the money pot high. More money for the winners and everybody is happy right?

Wrong!

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

Why reward the Biggest Loser when those who consistently miss only two games get nothing?

Understand that this particular pool has nearly 700 entries. It is not uncommon to go into the Monday Night game with only one loss and be out of the money because five with one loss picked the same team as he did, which means he cannot catch the five leaders. To consistently get through an NFL Sunday with only two losses takes some skill, and yet you walk away with nothing. However, the Biggest Loser gets $100? What this means is that in theory, one could tank the pool, lose on purpose, and win $1700. I know that this would never happen because losing the most has a degree of chance just as winning the most does. However, even if you were the Biggest Loser twice; the $200 would pay for your season and then a $30 return.

So, I asked my friend about this and his response was that they do not let anyone win “The Biggest Loser” prize more than once to prevent just what I feared.

Now here is how a “scheming demon” would get around this: He would simply pretend to have recruited new players, which would all in fact be him, so that he could continually tank games and pocket the $100 per week. Again, even though he would not be the Biggest Loser every week, he still games the system because we have set it up to essentially reward losing.
Now some will expand this concern of mine to the larger society and the debate over entitlements and a larger social safety net, and even calls to move toward a collective first society and away from predatory Capitalism.

It is not that deep.

Those of us who are adamant about moving away from Capitalism are simply saying the basic needs the collective 99% should take priority over the selfish desires of 1 percent and their never-ending attempt to horde the world’s resources for themselves.

The key term is needs.

Winning a football pool is not a need. Nor is the Biggest Loser’s plight the result of a rigged system, both historically and til this day.

He simply either does not pay attention or does not know what he is doing. It is ok. It does not make him a bad person, but it also does not warrant him a reward for his “pick em” incompetence.

Let everyone win by putting the work in and paying attention. Otherwise, this pool is destined for the participation trophy category.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Where have all the Aces gone?

Thursday, October 4th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

Ver

As the Major League Baseball postseason begins and one tries to assess which teams have the best chance of winning the World Series, the first thing to consider is starting pitching. Historically, even in today’s hyper-power-hitting era, the teams that pitch the best in the postseason usually win, anchored by their top of the rotation “Ace”!

It is not a question of depth. The Astros and Indians became the fourth and fifth teams in baseball history to have three different pitchers log 200 strikeouts. In the Astros case, their fourth starter, who did not strike out 200, is Dallas Keuchel, a recent CY Young award winner. In the Indians case, they actually had four pitchers strikeout at least 200 batters. That has never happened in baseball history. Power arms are in long supply. However, who do you really trust?

Consider the “Aces” or opening starters of each of the teams:

Jhoulys Chacin of the Brewers is a solid middle of the rotation pitcher who won a career high 15 games this year. He just is not an Ace.

 Kyle Freeland of the Rockies won 17 games and had a 2.88 earned run average (ERA). Anyone with that kind of ERA pitching half his games at Coors field, where he actually had a lower ERA than on the road, has to be straight “dealing”! He validated their hopes last night with six and two-thirds shutout innings on the road in the Wild Card game, which the Rockies would eventually win in extra innings.

Mike Foltynewicz of the Braves won 13 games and had a 2.85 ERA, with over 200 strikeouts. He is only 26, so the Braves are hopeful.

Liam Hendrix of the A’s is not even a starting pitcher. How they managed to win 97 games with no pitcher able to win more than 12 games is beyond me.

Luis Severino of the Yankees won 19 games and has some of the best swing and miss stuff in baseball. However, his post All-Star break ERA was 5.57.

Chris Sale of the Red Sox also has the kind of stuff that Severino has but has a history of wearing down.

Both Sale and Severino have small postseason samples (2 starts each). The eventual champion Astros lit both up in last year in the playoffs.

Even more unsettling are the bad experiences of the more established top starters. Consider the career ERAs vs their postseason:

Clayton Kershaw of the Dodgers (2.39/4.35) is by far the most perplexing example of Aces that underperform in the postseason.

David Price of the Red Sox (3.25/5.03) in 17 postseason appearances. The record is clear: He simply cannot be trusted.

Cory Kluber of the Indians numbers are not as bad but his failure to close out the Cubs in the 2016 World Series stays on my mind and was compounded by his postseason ERA from last year, which was over 12.

Compare the results to the Aces of days past who actually raised their performance when it mattered the most:

Mickey Lolich of the Tigers (3.44/1.57) was the last man to win 3 starts in the World Series, accomplishing the feat in 1968, beating the great Bob Gibson in game 7, on the road.

Orel Hershiser of the Dodgers and Indians (3.48/2.59) won the 1988 NLCS and World Series MVPs.

Curt Schilling with the Phillies, Red Sox, and Diamondbacks (3.46/2.23) won the 1993 NLCS MVP and was 2001 co-World Series MVP

Dave Stewart with the Dodgers, A’s, and Blue Jays (3.95/2.77) won a World Series MVP in 1989 and 2 ALCS MVPs.

Scot McGregor with the Orioles (3.95/1.63) is the only pitcher in history to throw complete game shutouts in both LCS and World Series clincher games, both on the road.

Orlando “El Duke” Hernandez with the Yankees (4.13/2.55) won an ALCS MVP and had a .750 postseason winning percentage.

And none of the above is in the Hall of Fame. The following three are:

Bob Gibson with the Cardinals (2.91/1.89) won a record 7 straight World Series games, holds the single postseason game record 17 strikeouts, and won 2 World Series MVPs.

Sandy Koufax with the Dodgers (2.76/0.95). The 0.95 ERA is not a misprint and he also won two-time World Series MVP.

John Smoltz with the Braves (3.33/2.67) won an NLCS MVP and has a .789 postseason winning percentage.

So, who is the best big game/postseason pitcher in the game today? That distinction would go to Mr. Madison Bumgarner of my San Francisco Giants (3.03/2.11). His resume includes two complete game shutouts on the road in the sudden death Wild Card game, as well as an NLCS and World Series MVP.

However, my Giants are at home with me. In the playoffs, there are only two: Justin Verlander of the Astros and John Lester of the Cubs (3.50/2.55). Like Randy Johnson, Verlander was anything but reliable early in his postseason career. However, today, other than “Mad Bum”, he is on the short list of the pitchers you least worry about in the postseason. Lester has been “the man” in both Boston and now Chicago, and he validated himself again Tuesday night, even though the Cubs lost. He also has a co-NLCS MVP award.

So, on that basis; I say the Astros return to the Series and best the Dodgers again, but this time in six.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

The Kryptonite to the Belichick G.O.A.T. Claim

Thursday, September 20th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

BB

As Bill Belichick’s Patriots prepare to meet his former assistant, Matt Patricia’s Lions, it is hard to overlook the nagging blemish on Belichick’s claim as the greatest NFL coach of all time; the abysmal record of his professional coaching disciples.

BBCT

The collective NFL coaching records of Romeo Crennel (28-55), Eric Mangini (33-47), Josh Daniels (11-17), Bill O’Brien (31-34), Nick Saban (15-17), and now Patricia (0-2) is 118-172 for a winning percentage of .406.

One can be written off as an aberration. Two a concern. Three is a pattern.

So, what do we make of six, and not a one of them have a winning record?

BBCT2Some might ask how I can blame Belichick for the failures of his disciples. Valid question, to which I say, the same way we give him credit for winning five Super Bowls when he never made a tackle or caught a pass? Much of the discussion about coaching effectiveness is subjective, associative, and situational. The other factor is that several of Belichick’s competitors for the G.O.A.T. have compelling cases precisely because of their coaching tree.

Take the late great Bill Walsh. Not only was his offensive innovation the most impactful of the last 40 years, but his coaching tree has won seven Super Bowls, none of which were by the winningest coach in his tree, which is Andy Reid…whom I believe should go into the Hall of Fame some day.

Don’t we all consider that a part of Walsh’s legacy? Then it is fair game for Belichick.

New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, left, celebrates with head coach Bill Belichick after defeating the Miami Dolphins 41-13 in an NFL football game Sunday, Dec. 14, 2014, in Foxborough, Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, left, celebrates with head coach Bill Belichick (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

In fairness to Belichick assistants, none of them had Tom Brady as their quarterback. The fact is that Belichick is sub .500 without Brady as his starting QB. The common response to this is, “but he won 11 games with Matt Cassel in 2008”.

That is absolutely true…and highly misleading.

The 2007 Patriots went 18-1. They clearly had a great deal of additional talent to Brady on the 2008 team, including a “pretty good” wide receiver named Randy Moss. He had a track record for making average QBs look better than they really were.

Furthermore, other candidates for the NFL coaching G.O.A.T. have managed to fare much better than Belichick without elite QB play. His mentor, Bill Parcells, won his second Super Bowl despite losing a former Super Bowl MVP quarterback in Phil Simms to an injury. Don Shula managed to get to a Super Bowl with a two-headed QB combination of David Woodley (he was out of LSU…need I say more about him as an NFL QB) and Don Strock. Joe Gibbs won three Super Bowls with three different starting QBs, none of whom were Hall of Famers.

I am not suggesting that Bill Belichick is not a great coach. He absolutely is…perhaps the best ever. He has a case with the five SB wins, and coaching in arguably the toughest era to date. I also do not take it for granted that having a great QB makes winning automatic. In fact, there have been five Hall of Fame Coach/QB combos that never won a super bowl. It is nowhere near as easy as Belichick has made it look.

I am only saying that those of you who want to crown his ass, pump the breaks just a little bit. It is hardly an open and shut case.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Understanding Serena’s Supporters…and the Flaw in Their Defense of Her

Sunday, September 16th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

SW

This is not going to be an apologist piece for Serena Williams in the wake of her epic meltdown during last Saturday’s US Open final loss to Naomi Osaka. She does not need that or anything else from me. Nor will I be pontificating about sportsmanship, a concept that I have long felt is grossly overrated on the professional level.

For me, I am usually more interested in coming to a better collective understanding than being right. To that end, we should be clear about the position of Serena’s supporters. For them (us as I am one of them), she is not just a great tennis player. We vicariously live through her as she represents triumph in a white and male dominated world, that has NEVER fully embraced her. It is an easy case to make:

 For years she stopped playing at Indian Wells due to racists jeers and treatment from the fans;

 Despite dominating Maria Sharapova on the court and winning more than 4 times as many major tournaments, she has helplessly watched Wall Street send more endorsements to Sharapova;

 A rare foot fault was called on her against Kim Clijsters at a US Open, which essentially ended the match;

 She has apparently been overly tested for performance enhancing drugs, which reinforces the blatantly racist narrative comparing her to an animal;

 She has had her outfits restricted by a French Open official (I suppose her learning and being fluent in the language does not gain her admittance to the club); and finally…

 Both Andy Roddick, a former US Open champion, and James Blake, once ranked number 4 in the world, concur that they have said much worst to officials and has never been sanctioned as Williams was last Saturday

The case that Serena has been treated unfairly by the tennis world is beyond dispute and every additional example simply reinforces the resolve of her supporters to defend her. I get it!

The flaw in their defense is the fact that none of the things cited here, even though all true, were the primary root cause of her frustration Saturday. The primary cause of her frustration was the beatdown she was taking at the hands of 20-year-old Naomi Osaka. Whether Osaka summoned a Japanese Samurai Warrior or the great Haitian Revolutionary General Toussaint L’Oveture, it was clear who the better player was that day. She knew it, anyone that actually watched the match knew it, and even Serena knew it. To deny this reality, and cite Serena’s history and current unjust treatment as the reason that she lost is to be disingenuous.

Serena has a champion’s edge. It is no different from what Michael Jordan had. He once punched teammate Steve Kerr when the second stringers beat Jordan and the first stringers in a practice scrimmage. It is no different from what Tom Brady has, who when sacked, acts as if defensive players, by rule, are not allowed to touch him. What do all three and many other elite champions have in common? They are accustomed to imposing their will on opponents to get their way, and when they cannot, graciousness will rarely be what we see. Giving a quarter is not in their DNA and if you want their throne, you must come and take it from them.

For the entire decade of the 1960s, Wilt Chamberlain was the dominant big man in the NBA. Do not give me Bill Russell. He was simply on a better team. Then in the early 1970s, along came Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Wilt’s place on the top was over. He did not graciously cede to Kareem and till the day he died, never recognized Jabbar for the talent he became.

When John McEnroe finally learned how to beat the great Swede Bjorn Borg in major Tournaments, Borg retired at 26 years old. He will never admit to this, but I have always believed that Borg knew his days beating McEnroe were over.

Champions are not good losers. If they were, there is a good chance that they would not be the champions that they are. Oh, some are good at faking it, such as Peyton Manning.

Don’t drink the kool-aid.

Change anything in the makeup of Michael Jordan and I do not believe he is a five-time MVP, nor a six-time NBA Finals MVP and champion. Nor would Tom Brady have five Super Bowl rings and all his other accolades. If Serena Williams were any different from what and who she is today, I doubt she has 23 majors.

The late Hall of Fame baseball manager Leo Durocher was right when he wrote the book, “Nice Guys Finish Last”. The only caveat would be, “Nice Guys and Ladies finish last”. Serena is not always nice when the going gets tough, and given the results, I would not have her any other way.

If her haters would like her to be all nice and cuddly, go get a dog. To her supporters, the out of line official was not the root of her frustration or defeat. It compounded her frustration and perhaps hastened her defeat. Acknowledging such does not make one a hater. It just means you are not willing to be a blind loyalist or cult follower in the making.

For all of the above reasons, in the end, the greatness of Serena Williams has not been modified one bit. We were simply reminded of the inevitable, which is that she will have to make room for the greatness of others…whether she wants to or not!

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

It’s Just About Selling Shoes, Folks

Thursday, September 6th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

CK

I am happy for Colin Kaepernick. He has clearly been blackballed from the NFL, even if there is no smoking gun paper trail to prove such in a court. So, if he can recoup some of the money he has lost for taking a principled stand, good for him. He has earned every dime.

I am also happy that his many detractors are mad. Of all the things that actually warrant a protest, they choose this? To them I say, go ahead and burn your already paid for property.

I am not happy about the narrative some are painting of Nike becoming some corporate ally of social justice. It makes about as much sense as believing that Exxon is going to be a partner in combating climate change.

How do I know? You are what your record says you are and Nike’s record is the polar opposite of a corporation interested in social and economic justice.

For years, it oversaw what amounted to sweat shops and facilitated, or at the very least, ignored child slave labor. Nike was the posterchild for international corporate exploitation of populations that had little other choice but to participate in their own oppression. So bad was Nike that at one point, reporters pressed Michael Jordan about the issues.

Reportedly, it has improved its wages and working conditions, but it is hard to tell by how much. About 80% of its production factories are in Cambodia, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Some of the workers are paid as little as $102 per month. Do the math on a 40-hour week (though many routinely work more), and it amounts to 63 cents an hour. Regardless of context or where it operates in the world, I am not patting a multi-billion-dollar corporation on the back for raising its wages for workers to 63 cents an hour, and I damn sure will not be hoodwinked into thinking it is in anyway an ally for social justice.

For those who contend that Nike has changed, as recently as July of this year, it raised the wages of about ten percent of its employees. There is a catch. Most view this as a sort of internal settlement for widespread workplace misconduct and discrimination against women.

It is not that Nike cannot afford to care. The corporation that is paying some of its workers in Asia 63 cents an hour reported 2017 revenues in the range of $34.4 billion dollars up 8%.

There are a few things that Nike could do to become an ally:

  • Pay all employees worldwide a living wage, not minimum wage, but a living wage, plus full benefits;
  • Allow its employees to organize and collectively bargain around wages, working conditions, etc.;
  • Build a factory in the top 10 urban areas of America, which are where the majority of police brutality takes place, and give residential credit in the application process for jobs;
  • Finance the renovation and (where needed) rebuilding of athletic facilities at the high schools in those same areas

If they did any of the above, it would put some substance behind the symbolism of endorsing Kaepernick. Of course, they will not do any of them because it is not what Nike is about.

When in a battle, it is important to understand how to make a distinction between a “ride or die” ally and an opportunist. Nike is an opportunist.

So let us keep everything in perspective. Nike could not care less about the cause that Kaepernick has championed. For Nike, it is just about selling shoes, folks.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

What to Make of Maryland’s Mea Culpa

Friday, August 17th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

UMD

In the wake of learning more about the circumstances that led up to the tragic death of Maryland
offensive lineman Jordan McNair from heat stroke related exhaustion, I was ready to write a column
that defined exactly what toxic culture is and why it should be called out and resisted at every turn.

After all, a 19-year old young man is dead.

Not hurt: one assumes the risk of injuries when playing football. The game cannot be made safe.

Not paralysis: one assumes the risk of that as well, though it is tragic when it happens.

But surely no player or parents can reasonably be expected to accept death as a likely or probable
outcome from playing football, and for this to happened would seem to lend credence that only a
toxic culture would be permissible enough to allow.

Basic factors of the neglect such as not cooling the body down at the first signs of heat stroke or
waiting an entire hour after a seizure before calling the paramedics support the notion as well.
The family of McNair, with good reason, has hired superstar attorney Billy Murphy, in preparation for
a wrongful death suit against the University. Anyone that knows Maryland, will tell you that Murphy
is the closest thing in the area to Johnny Cochran. He is a mover and shaker and feared by both
police and corporate entities. Murphy has already called for Maryland coach DJ Durken to be shown
the door following the primary culprit, strength coach Rick Court.

So the stage is set for the typical corporate/organizational reaction, which goes about as described
thus far. Then denials of any wrong doing by the university, which then only attracts more external
scrutiny, that demands a pound of flesh…as it should.

You see the typical response to such happenings, be they of an institution or individual, is to go into
CYA mode, straight from the Scandal 101 playbook. It’s next to never about finding truth. It’s about
damage control over the damage itself. Because it is not about a finding of truth, what typically
happens is that a few mid-management folks are thrown under the bus, regardless of their culpability
(in this case, I can’t see a plausible defense for Durken). A few reforms of protocol will be put in
place, which usually do more to simply push the cultural toxicity underground than to uproot it, and
the institution proceeds over time to “just get past it”.

One of the best and yet pathetic examples of such institutional behavior is the Catholic Church.
Its latest is currently unfolding in Pennsylvania, where the behavioral pattern of abusing children and
then covering it up is on display. Insult to injury is the fact that if a priest abuses children, he is
transferred and unlikely to be held criminally accountable. But if a priest steals from the church, he
will go directly to jail! PROFIT OVER PEOPLE prevails yet again!

But a funny thing happened on the way to the standard script:

The University of Maryland refused to play its part.

In a press conference, University President Wallace D. Loh not only apologized to the family but took
moral and legal responsibility for McNair’s death. Of course this was the right thing to do, but it next
to never happens.

This was the equivalent of a vehicular manslaughter suspect admitting that he was driving the car
intoxicated. To do so is to make his own conviction a slam dunk and make himself liable for both criminal and civil
consequences. As a result, human nature being what it is, very rarely does an institution or
individual actually do this….even if they know full well that they are indeed responsible.

There are two primary reasons people and institutions are reluctant to admit when they are wrong;
one is ego, which is more prevalent among individuals. The other is liability, which is more common
among institutions.

Maryland’s actions will not save it from liability, nor should they. So why the change in script?
Some will contend that Maryland’s mea culpa was a desperate attempt by the president and athletic
director to save their jobs. Still others might say their admission was aimed at mitigating possible
NCAA sanctions, in the hopes of avoiding a Penn State-like fate.

As cynical as those reasons may sound, they are possible.

I would like to believe that this one time, a powerful American organizational entity is doing the right
thing, regardless of the price, simply because it is the right thing to do and in doing so, can possibly
reverse a sorry trend by its contemporaries, such as the Catholic Church.

Simply put, when such tragedies occur, you don’t need Olivia Pope to do the right thing. An honest
process of candid self-assessment, though difficult and expensive, will serve the aggrieved family,
the institution, and society in general, much better.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports