Posts Tagged ‘Michael Jordan’

The Curious Obsession with the Black Athlete’s Smile

Friday, June 21st, 2019

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

ZW

(Originally published on June 20, 2019)

When Zion Williamson goes number one in the NBA draft tonight, many platitudes will be offered. Some will be completely basketball based, such as his explosiveness, his “handle” (dribbling ability) etc. Others will not have anything to do with basketball, such as his humble beginnings and the one that annoys the hell out of me most will be, “he has such a great smile!”

I have been a sports fan for my entire conscious life. I am now 52 years old and not once can I recall sports commentators swooning over the smile of a White athlete the way they do over that of a Black athlete.

The Black athlete’s smile is one of many “dog whistle” codes in sports used to discuss race while maintaining plausible deniability that one is in fact talking about race. Others are “how hard he works” and “how scrappy he is”. Translation: White. Then there is “God-given talent” and “head case”. Translation: Black

Surely, some will say that I am over-reacting and that it is really just a simple compliment that actually could lead to lucrative commercial endorsements for the Black athlete. There certainly is something to the endorsement angle. My contention is that the Black athlete’s smile is selling more than a product or service to America. It sells the assuaging of White guilt for America’s past AND present transgressions and oppression of Black people. The Black athlete’s smile reassures America that everything is all right and that Black people are content and have no interest in rising up and revolting.  There is no better platform for the delivery of this reassurance than one in which the highest profile Black men in America reside and that would be professional sports. Not only are they the most recognizable, but they are, relatively speaking, the biggest, fastest, and strongest. If they are reassuring, there is little reason to fear the rest of us.

In reality, it is just the opposite. The professional Black athlete’s life is so diametrically at odds with that of the masses of Black people from a material perspective, to the point of it being a total misrepresentative sample. The rebels of Ferguson and Baltimore should be what America pays more attention to than the smile of the Black athlete.

What is fascinating about this is the fact that it is not at all a conscious process. Even marketers, who correctly think that Zion Williamson would be a good pitchperson, do not fully understand the WHY. We have been so well schooled in the do’s and don’ts of racial etiquette and social mores to the point that we act and react on automatic pilot.

That etiquette has been interrupted by the current presidential administration which has unmasked and put away all of the previously agreed upon rules regarding race. At the same time, the president has made it blatantly clear how he feels about Black athletes, when he referred to NFL players who kneeled in protest to racial injustice, overwhelmingly Blacks, as “Sons of Bitches”.

Perhaps now, more people can understand why the great sportswriter William C. Rhoden called his book, “40 Million Dollar Slaves”. One of its central points is that regardless of the Black athlete’s wealth, his ultimate role is his usefulness to White America, be it from an entertainment standpoint, commercial standpoint, or psychological guilt relief.

The good news is that the Black athlete is perhaps more conscious of these factors than at any time since the 1960s. We have the various intersectional movements to thank for this to include Black Lives Matter.

If America is interested in moving forward on the issue of race, it must pay much more attention to the pain and experience of everyday Black folks. One way to do this would be to honestly assess, no matter how uncomfortable it may be, the legacy of Slavery and Jim Crow. The current reparations discussions in Congress is a place to start. If we have that honest assessment, we will come to understand that all of the combined wealth of the Black athlete to include Michael Jordan and LeBron James would be pennies on the dollar compared to the wealth created by slavery and inherited by White America, be it in terms of privilege and or capitol.  That reality cannot be dismissed with a smile.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

The King of Golf is Back!

Wednesday, April 17th, 2019

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

Apr 14, 2019; Augusta, GA, USA; Tiger Woods celebrates after making a putt on the 18th green to win The Masters golf tournament at Augusta National Golf Club. Mandatory Credit: Rob Schumacher-USA TODAY Sports

Apr 14, 2019; Augusta, GA, USA; Tiger Woods celebrates after making a putt on the 18th green to win The Masters golf tournament at Augusta National Golf Club. Mandatory Credit: Rob Schumacher-USA TODAY Sports

Perhaps it is only fitting that on the day the iconic and wildly popular Game of Thrones resumes for its eighth and final season, that another throne was recaptured. This throne is in Augusta, Georgia, home of the Masters Golf tournament, which is the sport’s most prestigious event. In as dramatic of fashion as fire-breathing dragons or frozen zombies could match, and after 11 years, Tiger Woods is once again a major champion.

GOT

Comeback stories are always appealing. What is unique about Tiger’s is how far and public his fall was from the top.

The man once held all four major titles at one time (The Tiger Slam). He was the highest-paid athlete in the world and considered by far the most dominant athlete over his sport in the world. The gap between Tiger Woods and say Phil Mickelson was far wider than Michael Jordan and Clyde Drexler or Muhammed Ali and Joe Fraizier. Speaking of Jordan and Ali, those two, in addition to the Williams sisters, are the only other athletes that compare over the past half century in terms of moving the needle of public interest, even beyond the die-hard and marginal fans of their respective sports.

But neither of them ever fell as far as Tiger had.  Ali’s fall was exclusively political and of conscious when he chose to refuse induction into the armed forces during the Vietnam War era. He was stripped of his title and license to box in his prime for 3 years. He would come back to win the heavyweight title, not once, but twice.

Jordan never had a fall but a self-imposed sabbatical in the wake of the murder of his father.  He would return to lead the Bulls to 3 additional titles, earning MVP in all three Finals series.

However, Tiger’s decline was as much due to his own self-destructive, non-golf-related behavior as it was due to injuries. How far had Tiger fallen?  In July of 2017, he was ranked number 1005th.

That was not a typo.

Less than two years ago, Tiger Woods was not even a top 1000 player. Announcers were openly saying that he should join them in the broadcast booth.

Today he is ranked number 6.

AAThe closest comparison that I can think of is the fall of Andre Agassi. He was ranked number 1 and had collected three major titles, only to fall to being ranked number 141 in 1997. Off the court, there was a disintegrating marriage to actress Brooke Shields and drug use. But in 1999 he would begin his climb back that would eventually lead to five additional major titles, to include completing a career Grand Slam…a feat his top rival Pete Sampras was never able to accomplish.  As popular and iconic within tennis as Agassi was, in terms of larger cultural impact, he was never on Tiger Woods’ level.

It is hard to put one’s finger on Tiger’s appeal. It certainly is more complex than the obvious, which is being Black (even if he is confused about such matters) in a lily-white sport.  Certainly, the power of his game and early historical dominating wins at the Masters and US Open helped. The confident and purposeful strut on Sunday in the trademark red shirt and black pants is as identifiable branding as there is in sports. His once reputation as the most mentally tough player on the tour was the stuff of mythical folklore. I also suspect his gallery appeal is a part of the formula.

By comparison, golf fans are tame and the polar opposite in every way of soccer fans. The exception to this is when Tiger is near or on top of the leader board on Sunday at a major. The roar for Tiger is unlike the roar for any other player and can be unnerving to other players. We saw an example of it Sunday with Brooks Koepka. Over the past 18 months, Koepka has been the best player in the world, winning three majors and ending 2018 ranked number 1. However, on the 18th hole, with a chance to cut into Tiger’s lead, he missed what should have been an easy putt. Just before he lined up to take the putt, he heard the roar of the crowd…the roar golfers only hear when Tiger is on the prowl. To his credit, Koepka was among the many fellow golfers to greet Tiger’s return to the clubhouse for the “Green Jacket” presentation after his win. This may be tradition, but I prefer to think of it as a generation of golfers, who grew up watching Tiger at his best, giving him his proper due. The case can be made that no single athlete in American history has increased the public interest and revenue in his/her sport more than one Eldrick Tiger Woods. In other words, they know who the hell has been buttering their bread.

TW2

The King of Golf is back and the entire sports world is for the better.

 

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

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

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

Harden is Not the MVP and Everybody Knows Damn Well Who Is!

Monday, May 7th, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

LBJ

I have already fortified myself for the haters that will come from this column.

So bring it!

It is true that in March, I said that I would vote for James Harden to be NBA MVP. At the time, the Rockets were on a 15-game winning-streak and had the best record in basketball, with Harden as their undisputed best player. The Cavs had just reconstituted half its roster less than a month earlier. I assumed that would eliminate “HIM” from any consideration to challenge Harden for the honor.

What changed my mind?

Have you been watching these NBA playoffs? Did you pay attention to the last month of the season? If the answer to either question is yes, you should not even need to ask that question.

This isn’t about what Harden hasn’t done. He averaged about 30 points and 8 assist during the regular season and has maintained that level of play during the playoffs. This is no small feat. It’s about what “HE” has done. During the regular season, “HE” averaged 27 points, 9 rebounds, and 8 assists. “HE” has maintained the assists, raised the rebounds from 9 to 10, and points from 27 to about 34. Add two game-winners for good measure and to think we are not even in the conference finals yet.

How about the supporting cast for each? I’ll concede that without Harden in the deep Western Conference, where 46 wins were not enough to get Denver into the playoffs, the Rockets would have struggled to make the playoffs. Without “HIM”, not only do the Cavs miss the playoffs, but it’s a lottery team.

Let’s preempt the most common darts used by “HIS” haters:

1) Michael Jordan never lost in the NBA finals: That is actually a team analysis. Jordan did not win any NBA title by himself any more than “HE” has lost any by himself. Jordan’s teams never won without Scottie Pippen. “HIS” teams have won without Dwyane Wade;

2) To be a 6’8 260 lbs. former all-state football player from talent rich Ohio, he whines too much for calls: I completely agree. That annoys me as well;

3) The “take my talents to South Beach” forever branded him as an unrepentant narcissist: maybe so but you must admit, it was marketing brilliance;

4) MVP is not supposed to consider the post season: technically true, but you cannot have it both ways. For years the shortcoming was “HIS” failure to win a title. That is postseason. Now that one can no longer cite this, it’s something else?

5) “HE” ain’t going to beat the Warriors: I don’t believe “HIS” team will either. But if beating a team with 4 all-stars and 3 recent MVPs is the bar to stop the hate, you are embarrassingly grasping for straws.

Last year while trying to make his case for MVP, Harden argued that playing all 82 games should count for something. He was right and as if to respond to Harden, after 15 years in the league, “HE” played all 82 games this year. Harden played 72. There clearly is no comparison between the two as defenders. If “HE” finds a way to carry this subpar Cavs roster to the NBA Finals, it would be “HIS” 8th straight appearance. You have to go back to the great Bill Russell Celtics of the 1960s for the last time any player has done this. It will compare to what Iverson was able to do with the 2001 Sixers……but at least he had the same roster for the entire year.

Surely by now you have noticed that I haven’t mentioned “HIS” name. There are two reasons for that, 1) to throw a bone to the haters who are losing their minds, not only because I say “HE” is MVP this year again, but the blasphemy of affirming that “HE” is not only worthy of the MJ comparison, but has a case for being better; and 2) you need not speak the name of royalty. Everybody knows who is “KING”!

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Dear Michael Jordan…STFU: How We Should Think About Super Teams and Corporate Monopolies

Thursday, October 26th, 2017

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

MJ

Michael Jordan is upset about the Warriors and Cavaliers being super teams while the other 28, in his words, “are garbage”.

Never mind the insult to the San Antonio Spurs, who would not fit the description of garbage in any era of basketball. Let’s keep the focus on Jordan the player and Jordan the owner.

Michael Jordan the player, was quite possibly the greatest ever and was the primary reason that his Chicago Bulls won the NBA title every year of his last 6 full seasons with the team. It wasn’t just his ability on the court. It was his willingness to play for a “mere” $3-4 million per season (he was making in the range of $36 million in endorsements). This gave his team a huge unfair advantage that they would eventually use to help secure Dennis Rodman and keep Scottie Pippen from leaving before his prime was up.

Michael Jordan the owner, apparently does not want other teams having the kind of advantage his Bulls had in his playing days.

The irony of it all is that the max deal restrictions on player salaries today is a direct result of Jordan’s last 1-year deal with the Bulls.  For the 1997-98 season, Jordan earned just over $33 million, which is still the single season record for a player. This salary was also more than the entire roster of 19 teams that year.

Back to Jordan the player, who once suggested if Wizards owner Abe Pollin could not afford the team that he should sell the team. Jordan would later work for Pollin in his last comeback.

The only conclusion that I can make about the contradictions between Michael Jordan the players vs Michael Jordan the owner is that when people win and/or get the outcomes they want, fairness is not a principle that is very important to them.

The same is true of American capitalism and its production of corporate monopolies. Despite the lessons that should have been learned from the near crash of 2008, less than 10 years later, the U.S. economy is increasingly being dominated by corporate mergers. Walgreens bought up Rite Aid, Heinz bought Kraft, and American Airlines bought US Airways. On Wall Street, the source of the near collapse, the 5 biggest banks hold nearly half the nation’s assets. An increasing trend is to mandate its customers and employees to agree to arbitration in disputes, thereby signing away their constitutional rights to a trial.

Why should we as sports fans care? Because the trends going on with super team formations in the NBA, though largely driven by a handful of the game’s superstars, will not affect your pension, civil liberties, or living wages. The trends going on with corporate monopolies absolutely will affect all of the aforementioned and yet we don’t personalize our indignation about corporate monopolies anywhere near to the degree that we do when attacking pro athletes.

I am not suggesting that this whole super team thing is something I particularly like as a fan of the game. It, without question, leaves a competitive imbalance. I am suggesting that we have idealized the NBA past as if this has never happened before.  The Bill Russel era Celtics won 11 titles in 13 years and the aforementioned Jordan era Bulls won 6 in 8 years. And yet the league survived just fine.  Even the Showtime Lakers, who won 5 titles, also lost 4 times in the NBA finals. Before the 1982-83 season, the 76ers added the late great Moses Malone, arguably the best player in the league at the time. He would be the final piece to a team that had made it to the NBA finals 2 of the previous 3 years, and already had Julius Erving. They cruised through the regular season and playoffs before sweeping my defending champion Lakers for the title.  It looked like at the time that the Sixers would win multiple titles.

They never won another.

In sports, the impact and collateral damage of super teams is relatively minimal and history has shown that the game will survive their fluctuating eras. The same cannot be said of capitalistic America and its corporate monopolies. I would hope we reserve our outrage for the real danger between the two.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

The Trouble with G.O.A.T. (Greatest of All Time) Debates

Sunday, February 12th, 2017

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

Image via KnowYourMeme.com

Image via KnowYourMeme.com

About a week ago, BEFORE the outcome of the Super Bowl, I made the case against Tom Brady being the G.O.A.T. …or more specifically, against the overly simplistic criteria of Super Bowl rings so many use to come to such a conclusion. Since the Patriots’ improbable comeback, social media has been inundated with claims that it validated his G.O.A.T. status.

 

Even before last week’s win, Brady was well within the conversation…even if the conversation itself is inherently flawed and incomplete. Why? Consider Joe Montana’s response to the question about Tom Brady.

 

“I think that it’s really hard to put anyone in that bucket,” he said. “Even before he got five-you look back to some of the guys some people don’t even know, Sammy Baugh or Otto Graham, I can’t remember which one but one of them won like seven or nine championships and was so far ahead of their time. It’s so hard to compare guys from then to now, how they would compare here and how we would compare back then.”

 

Maybe this is merely one competitor’s refusal to surrender the mythical throne to another, but even if it is, can it be denied that he has a point?

 

Here is the trouble with G.O.A.T. debates: 1) they wreak with recency bias; 2) they lack consideration for era context; and 3) its participants have no way to factor in the eye test.

 

Why are they subject to recency bias? Because it is a natural tendency of human memory. That is precisely why those running for political office try to get the last positive idea about themselves and/or negative idea about their opponent out before the actual election. Whatever is most recent is often deemed “better” or at the very least, most reliable. This is compounded as time goes by. As hard as it might be to comprehend, in 30-40 years some very knowledgeable basketball fans will be having a G.O.A.T. debate and it will not be open and shut that such a title will go to Michael Jordan. In fact, some will not even give MJ proper consideration. As ridiculous as that sounds, trust me, it will happen.

 

Then there is the lack of consideration for the context of eras. Regardless of the sport, different rules and circumstances provide for different challenges. So essentially, the comparisons are next to never “apples to apples”. For example, for most of Mel Blount’s career as the best corner of the 1970s, he could literally maul receivers all over the field until 1978 when the “one chuck within 5 yards” rule was implemented. Add that to the fact that he didn’t have to cover long playing on the back end of the Steelers “Steal Curtain” defense and pass rush. So as great as he was, how does one compare him to Deion Sanders as a cover corner?

 

How does one compare Johnny Unitas to Tom Brady, who faced the same 11 guys on defenses that were far less sophisticated when compared to today’s defenses? But Unitas also had to use receivers that had a much more difficult time getting open then any that Brady has had. Finally, defenders could actually rough up Unitas without getting the flag that they would get today against Brady.

 

The differences cannot be limited to sports factors alone. Our food supplies are different, one could argue for both the better and worst of that supply, I contend has led to bigger and stronger athletes, if not necessarily better. Thus, the more recent era produced a 300+ pounder named Shaquille O’Neal. It’s often said he would have knocked Bill Russel into the second row. But would he have been 300 pounds had he come along during Russel’s era? Would Russel have been a mere 215 pounds had he come up during Shaq’s era? Unless an adjustment is made for both, it’s as a ridiculous comparison as it would be comparing the production of a secretary with a typewriter with one that has a computer. Or the closure rate of a homicide detective with DNA with one before DNA.

 

The last factor in the flawed GOAT debates is the lack of the eye test. This is what stat junkies fall for all the time. Statistics alone do not provide the nuance that only actually watching an athlete does. In other words, consider sports greatness the same as the Supreme Court considers pornography: you may not be able to define it, but you know it when you SEE it.

 

Statistically, some will make the case for Andy Petite being a viable Baseball Hall of Fame (HOF) candidate over other lefthanders such as Mickey Lolich, Dave McNally, Mike Cuellar, Vida Blue, or David Wells; none of whom are or ever will get into the HOF. I remember all five of them and trust me; Andy Petite, though a very good pitcher for many years, was not as good as any of them.

 

So how can we continue these flawed, but highly entertaining debates? One simple adjustment; instead of declaring who is the G.O.A.T., how about we simply limit it to the G.O.Y.T. or Greatest of Your Time? Under this banner, we are all qualified. Recency bias is not a factor, we can all speak to era context and we limit our assessment to those we have actually seen play.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Melanin Mount Rushmore

Thursday, February 12th, 2015

by OGICIC

MMR

I’ll be honest, I’ve never participated in the “Kobe v. LeBron” or “Kobe v. MJ” debates and I’ve refrained for a simple reason. None of the aforementioned names come anywhere close to being the “greatest” in basketball. I love Floyd Mayweather and he has a success story which is filled with hard work and dedication, yet in still he can never be the “greatest”. I just watched the Super Bowl and was rooting for the Patriots, though after the victory I refused to engage in the “is Tom Brady the greatest?” discussion. Why? Because the greatest is named Jim Brown! The greatest in basketball are named Bill Russell & Kareem Abdul-Jabbar! The greatest boxer is named Muhammad Ali!

How do I define greatness, or the “greatest”? I define it by one’s performance on and off the field. To be the “greatest” means that you persevered through far more than anyone else, emerged victorious and uncompromised. How can Michael Jordan, or LeBron James, or Kobe Bryant be the “greatest”? I’ve never heard of MJ speaking up for the inner city youth that die for his shoes, much less the Chinese youth that make them. I appreciate LeBron’s speaking up on issues and his philanthropic efforts, but how does any of that exist without Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? If we are to talk hardware, Bill Russell won 11 NBA championships and did so as both a player and coach in one of the most racially hostile cities in America (Boston). Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (aka Mr. Never White America’s Negro) won 6 NBA championships. If we are to talk about more than championships, Bill and Kareem have been avid advocates and spokespersons for Melanin/Hebrew/African-American people! They stood with boxing’s “greatest” Muhammad Ali, as he took on the racist and biased institution.

Jim Brown? Well he only won 1 NFL Championship, yet his fight of racism and injustice, his youth work and his constant advocacy have more diamonds in them than any ring!!!!

Thats how I define greatness……so sorry….MJ never has a chance, Kobe not even close, LeBron (I guess we can wait and see) can be 3rd at best! Brady, no way, Montana, never heard of him. Marshawn………heeeeyyyyy……..ask Jim about that one!

Zachariah Ysaye Oluwa Bankole “OGICIC”, for War Room Sports