Posts Tagged ‘MLB’

Browns/Steelers: A Perspective

Thursday, November 21st, 2019

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

myles-garrett-helmet-fight

On August 22, 1965 the hated Los Angeles Dodgers were in San Francisco to play my Giants. As was often the case during this era, these were the two best teams in the National League. At that time, there was no wild card or even division winners to qualify for the playoffs. In fact, there were no playoffs. A team had to finish first in the league to advance to the World Series. It is against this backdrop and within the context of the heated rivalry between the two teams when it happened. According to the great Giants Hall of Fame pitcher, Juan Marichal, the Dodgers catcher John Roseboro was throwing close to his head when returning pitches, while Marichal was at bat.

JMHis reaction: he hit Roseboro in the head with his bat and thus what many consider the ugliest brawl in baseball history was ignited!

Marichal was suspended for 8 games, which in that era, meant he would miss 2 starts. My Giants would win 95 games that year, largely on the power of Marichal’s 22 wins and a league leading 10 complete game shutouts, and Willie May’s league-leading 52 homers and 2nd MVP season. And yet, a team with 6 future Hall of Famers would finish 2 games behind the Dodgers, in second place. The Dodgers would go on to win the World Series.

Juan Marichal was arguably the most stylish pitcher of all time. His elegant high-leg kick, reminiscent of a matador, and pinpoint control was legendary. He, not Bob Gibson and not Sandy Koufax, won the most games in baseball during the 1960s. I am a die-hard Giants fan and consider Marichal to be the most underappreciated Hall of Fame pitcher.

And yet he was dead wrong!

On June 28, 1997, Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson had a rematch for the heavyweight championship of the world. Less than a year earlier, in the first match, Holyfield upset Tyson, whom manyMT considered to be “the baddest man on the planet”. Holyfield also had a boxing-wide reputation for using head butts as a deliberate tactic. Intentional or not, he certainly used this against the shorter Tyson in the rematch.

Most of you know how Tyson reacted: he bit Holyfield’s ear to the point of drawing blood.

Tyson was banned from boxing for 15 months and was never the same as a fighter.

I always liked Mike Tyson.

And yet he was dead wrong!

Fast forward to last week, November 14, 2019. Everyone reading this knows by now what happened in the Browns/Steelers game and thus repeating it here is not necessary.  I do believe the backdrop of this “rivalry” can be useful for understanding. I say rivalry in quotations because to call it that over the past 30 years from a competitive standpoint is beyond a stretch. I could not remember the last time that the Browns were actually favored to beat the Steelers, as was the case last week. You literally may have to go back to the Bernie Kosar era, which is 30 years ago. The Browns had lost 8 straight to my Steelers since 2014.

Think of the Browns like the weak kid who has been bullied year after year. He finally goes into the gym to bulk up in the way of getting Odell Beckham Jr, Baker Mayfield, and of course, Myles Garrett.

Think of my Steelers like the bully who has been smacking the Browns around whenever bored and takes their lunch money.

Last week, the Browns had finally had enough. They became the bully, opening a can of whoop-ass on my Steelers.

But apparently that gym work the Brown’s engaged in included something that drove them over the edge.

What is interesting to me are those who are equating the provocation with the retaliation.

In all three of these incidents, one can cite and validate the provocation. Roseboro later in life in his biography admitted to intentionally throwing near Marichal’s head, which surprised no one. That is how the Giants and Dodgers roll.

But all provocation and retaliation is not created equal.

MGOnce Garrett had Steelers QB Mason Rudolph’s helmet, dispatching it and a simple Floyd Mayweather combination would have been sufficient to put the unwise charging QB down.

Garrett chose the nuclear option! As a result, an outstanding player drafted 1st overall in 2017, who had 10 sacks through 10 games, and was going to be a viable Defensive Player of the Year candidate is gone for the season, without pay.

There has been a significant focus on the fact that all of the players suspended from the Browns/Steelers brawl were Black, and Rudolph, who is white, was not suspended.

He too should have been suspended. But some want to point to this as an example to prove that there are racial disparities in how the NFL and America meets out discipline.

To them I say that water is wet and there are so many more relevant samples that have already confirmed this reality.

In addition, this assessment fosters a selective analysis of what actually happened. To say that Rudolph initiated the whole thing is subjective and assumes knowing what Garrett was thinking when he took Rudolph down. No one, including myself, has a clue what Garrett was thinking at any point in the melee. What we do know is that Rudolph escalated the situation beyond what he could handle.

But some are sounding too much like the child on the playground after the fight, declaring, “He started it”.

If one demands proportionate discipline, I’m with you.

If your demand in this situation is for equal discipline, I can only say to you: don’t be that guy.

That guy who defends the road-rager who runs a motorist off the highway in retaliation for getting the middle finger.

Don’t be that guy who defends an occupying military force that levels an entire city because a few teenagers, who actually have a right to be there, threw rocks at the soldiers.

And don’t be that guy who says “when you play with fire you get burned”. Fire does not have the capacity for self-constraint. People do…and the more we rationalize the failure to exercise that constraint, the more we invite others to bypass the capacity altogether.

Having said all of that, I can’t wait until December 1st when the Browns come to Pittsburgh!

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

The Redemption of Stephen Strasburg…and Dave Martinez

Saturday, November 2nd, 2019

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

Dmart2

Redemption stories in sports are like the biblical prodigal son.

The Washington Nationals winning the World Series gives us several from which to draw. Howie Kendrick as the journeyman who actually was the last out as a Dodger two years ago in the World Series against the same Astros. This year he was NLCS MVP and drove in the winning run in Game 7 of the World Series.

Then there is Gerardo Parra, who after being released by my Giants signed with the Nats at their lowest point, and by all accounts immediately became the spirit booster in the Nats clubhouse. His enthusiasm spread to the fanbase with the Baby Shark tune, which has become an anthem among some international protest movements. He supplemented that by being their most reliable bat off the bench.

There is Ryan Zimmerman, the Dean of the Nats, and the Washington franchise’s first ever draft pick in 2005. He was once compared to Brooks Robinson as a 3rd basemen. Then the injuries and throwing hiccups came, and while the bat has always remained formidable, his place as a potential all-time great was missed.

All good stories but for me the two that resonate most are those of Stephen Strasburg and Manager Dave Martinez.

Oct 29, 2019; Houston, TX, USA; Washington Nationals pitcher Stephen Strasburg throws a pitch against the Houston Astros  in the first inning in game six of the 2019 World Series at Minute Maid Park. Mandatory Credit: Mike Ehrmann/Pool Photo via USA TODAY Sports

Oct 29, 2019; Houston, TX, USA; Washington Nationals pitcher Stephen Strasburg throws a pitch against the Houston Astros in the first inning in game six of the 2019 World Series at Minute Maid Park. Mandatory Credit: Mike Ehrmann/Pool Photo via USA TODAY Sports

I can remember the night of Strasburg’s debut in 2010. He was hailed as the franchise savior and lived up to every expectation that night, striking out 14 Pirates over 7 innings of work. It doesn’t always work out this way. For every Tiger Woods or LeBron James, both of whom met and exceeded their expectations, there are about a dozen Michelle Wie’s. While Strasburg clearly succeeded more than Wie, the narrative always seemed to be about what he wasn’t. That was compounded when the Nats shut him down in 2012, short of the postseason, and then a monumental collapse of pitching against the Cardinals led to their elimination. It was compounded when he would suffer the very arm trouble the team was trying to protect him from a few years later. Even I had added to the narrative by saying he just wasn’t mean enough. By that I mean to say that the power pitcher must be intimidating to maximize his capacity. Strasburg has a greater arsenal than Nolan Ryan ever had and the command of Roger Clemens. What he did not have was the intimidating presence of either. Ryan and Clemens were feared by hitters. Strasburg was not because he simply did not pitch inside enough. The intent need not be to hit batters but the thought that he might is in of itself a weapon and an advantage to the pitcher.

In 2017 he turned down a postseason start against the Cubs due to illness and the narrative about his “heart” ratcheted up yet again. Even tossing 7 shutout innings in his eventual start in Chicago in an elimination game to send the series back to Washington did not quiet the whispers.

Today, as the Washington Nationals prepare to take to the streets of our nation’s capital for their World Series victory parade, there are no more whispers and the narrative is clear and without dispute or subjective to interpretation: Stephen Strasburg is the World Series MVP and one of the greatest postseason pitchers ever. His 1.46 earned run average is top 5 for pitchers with at least 7 starts. When you are on any pitching list with Sandy Koufax, you no longer need to explain yourself to anyone. He is the evolution of the hype.

DMartI am as happy for manager Dave Martinez. For years, I have been playing softball with a group of rabid baseball fans, several of whom root for the Nats. A Sunday could not pass without second guessing his handling of the bullpen or bench. I might add that they had the same criticisms of previous managers Dusty Baker, Matt Williams, and Davey Johnson. Two of those 3 I believe have Hall of Fame cases. The point is that even though the managing changed, the results were still the same. So clearly managing was not the central problem.

The second guessing of managing and coaching is baked into the sports talk culture. Given that there are 162 games plus the postseason, its understandable that it be even more so in baseball. The two most common flaws in the criticism of managers or coaches are, 1) the assumption of knowing all the factors in the decision made, and 2) an analysis of choices without an analysis of options. The latter was precisely the burden of Martinez. For most of the year, the Nats had the worst bullpen in baseball. Doolittle was hurt and Hudson was in Toronto. Those were their only two consistently reliable relievers. Even when the team was 19-31, Craig Kimbrel, one of the best closers over the past 10 years, who played that role on the 2018 World Champion Boston Red Sox, was waiting for a call. Instead, the Nats chose Fernando Rodney. No disrespect to Rodney, who has led the league in saves and has been a 3-time All-Star, but he is 42.

Martinez stayed the course with what he had. He even endured a heart health scare. The bottom line is that if Martinez’ management of the team were as much of a liability as so many claimed, the team would have never won the title.

His critics should admit that they were wrong.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. I will say that the best response to one’s critics in sports is to win, and being the 2019 World Series Champions is something that no one can ever take from either Strasburg or Martinez.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Should Computers Call Balls and Strikes?

Friday, June 14th, 2019

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

7c46d28d-8f47-4e7c-b943-3b81ab04a29a_750x422

About a month ago, much to my surprise, I received a notice in the mail from the State of Florida, for a speeding ticket. It had my correct license plate number and declared the vehicle was registered in the State of Maryland. This is certainly not a new experience for me. I am a “lead foot” and have earned many speeding tickets in my day.

There were two problems: 1) the car in the picture was not mine; and 2) I have never driven in the State of Florida in my entire life.

Therefore, I responded via the online link, explaining what I previously stated, and attached my work hours for that fateful July 30, 2018 day, as well as a picture of my actual car in a recent “legitimate” speeding ticket I received.

This past week, I received an email notification that my case was closed and thus I can save the $2 fine.

This experience reminds me of this ongoing debate in baseball to have computers take the place of umpires calling balls and strikes.

As you may guess, this debate is largely a generational one, with the opponents of this idea, who are disproportionately older, insisting that this would take away from the tradition of the game, and that mistakes in baseball…like life…are unavoidable.

The proponents, younger and much more comfortable with technology, insist that this would add consistency to the most common calls in the game, which are balls and strikes.

They are both wrong, albeit for different reasons.

Baseball traditionalist are among the most sanctimonious assholes in the sports fan world. They are all worked up over all proposed changes to the game, just on the tradition tip. They often have zero pragmatic objections. They are in the same category as the people who cried “Armageddon” because some wanted old movies colorized. They had a similar reaction to the notion of inter-league play. Today, we hardly even notice when the Yankees play the Padres. They are, by definition, conservative, and surely it is not necessary to highlight the record of such mindsets when in charge, be it baseball, or the country.

The proponents are wrong as well because they are grossly overestimating the improvement this technology will make. This notion that if you see the ball on TV go through the outlined strike zone that it is in fact a strike is ludicrous. Why? To put it simply, I paraphrase the words of the recently departed Bushwick Bill of the Geto Boys: “Your mind is playing tricks on you”.

The greatest weapon in the arsenal of a major league pitcher is not velocity/speed or big movement, as can be with a curveball. The greatest weapon is late movement. The sliders and especially the cut fastball or cutter can move 4-6 inches as it approaches the plate. So, though it may appear to have crossed the plate in the strike zone, that just is not necessarily so and the technology is not going to necessarily reveal such. The cutter in particular is the primary reason the great Mariano Rivera could get professional hitters to swing at pitches that looked as if they would be strikes or take pitches that looked as if they would be balls.

The experiment is being tried in the Independent Atlantic League as we speak but the sample results will not tell us much. Several modifications to the mound and distance to home plate have been made to the point that it simply will not be an apples to apples comparison.

I would like to be confident in an improved product should this be implemented but for all the reasons I have noted, there just is no basis to believe we will get that. Not even the fact that the technology is supposedly the same Doppler radar used for weather forecasts. Are we really suggesting that the weather man has never been wrong? This technology has actually already been used to evaluate umpires and according to one assessment, it missed 500 pitches in

April alone and that did not mean they called them wrong. They did not call them at all.

Therefore, while I have no objection to the concept of a computer calling balls and strikes, the reality is the technology is not as close to an improved product as its proponents would have you believe.

As was the case with my mystery speeding ticket from Florida, sometimes the technology just gets it flat out wrong.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

The Death of “Small Ball” and Why Baseball Should Care

Thursday, May 23rd, 2019

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 10: Washington Nationals shortstop Trea Turner (7) bunts during a MLB game between the Washington Nationals and the Philadelphia Phillies on September 10, 2017 at Nationals Park, in Washington DC. (Photo by Tony Quinn/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 10: Washington Nationals shortstop Trea Turner (7) bunts during a MLB game between the Washington Nationals and the Philadelphia Phillies on September 10, 2017 at Nationals Park, in Washington DC. (Photo by Tony Quinn/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

Nationals’ leadoff hitter Tre Turner is back in the lineup after injuring his finger while attempting to bunt. Though he is a non-traditional leadoff hitter with 19 homers and 73 RBI’s last year, he did steal 43 bases. What is baffling about his injury is that it was foreseeable. When one looks at how he was holding the bat while trying to bunt, it really was just a matter of time before just such an injury would happen. His finger was wholly exposed. I was taught to bunt by a great little league coach named Felix Duncan. I already had a good idea because it was much more a part of baseball in the 1970’s compared to today, especially for smaller players like myself with decent speed. You pinch the bat from the backside of the barrel, which both provides control and protects your fingers. Therefore, the only conclusion that I can think of is that either Turner was taught poorly or never taught at all how to bunt.

The fact that one of the better leadoff hitters in baseball is not adept at bunting is telling of where the game is today and baseball should care.

While home runs, even in the supposed post-steroid era, are up, bunts, singles, sacrifices, and stolen bases are down. The latter four were once considered the core of “Small Ball” or the strategy of winning without the 3-run home run. It was not a fringe tactic. The best two National League teams of the 1960’s, the Dodgers and the Cardinals, were not power hitting teams, but employed this offensive strategy. It worked well enough for them to make it to six World Series and win four. Neither team had a single player hit 30 homers the years that they made it to the Worlds Series. In fact, they each would only have one 30-homer season for the entire decade. Yes, this was the height of a dominant pitching era. So much so, that the mound was lowered after the 1969 season. Nevertheless, highly successful managers Billy Martin and Whitey Herzog continued to use “Small Ball” throughout the 1970’s and into the 1980’s.

Even today, if you look at the baseball team with the longest drought of seasons without a 30-home run player, you will also discover the same franchise has won three World Series over that time span. The bottom line is a team need not be prolific in hitting home runs to win the World Series. In fact, a case can be made to the contrary. Feast or famine/swing for the fences teams tend to fizzle out in the playoffs and it is no accident. The playoffs are stacked with the league’s best pitching staffs and a common trait for such staffs is their capacity to limit the home run in general, but especially with men on base. For example, the great Orioles Hall of Famer, Jim Palmer threw just under 4000 innings in his career and NEVER gave up a grand slam home run. The same great Orioles teams for which Palmer played would have likely won one or two more World Series titles if Hall of Fame manager Earl Weaver used the small ball approach more. Weaver had the luxury of having the power of Frank and Brooks Robinson, Boog Powell, Lee May, Reggie Jackson, Eddie Murray, and Cal Ripken. He hated the idea of the sacrifice. His position was that a team only gets 27 outs. Why give any away? This was always the wrong question. The question should be “how productive can one make those outs?”, and the undisputable answer is that a sacrifice to move a runner is much more productive than a strikeout.

The problem is that baseball does not seem to care to keep Small Ball as a part of the strategic buffet. There are several factors behind this:

 

  • Chicks and D*&#s dig the long ball: One of the most exciting aspects of the game has been embellished in ways beyond PEDs. Parks are rarely built to accommodate pitching anymore, with such things as contracted foul territory, which means hitters get extra chances, as opposed to being out:
  • Attendance is dropping but profits are at an all-time high
  • Why fix what (financially) isn’t broken?

 

However, if unsustainability is an indicator of brokenness, and it is, baseball should care. The current home run or bust trend is squeezing out smaller potential baseball players and in doing so, in effect, pushing the sport in the direction of football and basketball, in that there is an unofficial size requirement. It is precisely the lack of size requirement that made baseball the most democratic of the three major sports in terms of opportunity. Sure, there was an Allen Iverson in the NBA and a Darren Sproles in the NFL. But both are the exceptions and not the rule. The irony of this all is that now is the greatest window for baseball to bring back young fans and potential players. The concern of parents about head injuries in football and the ever-increasing lottery nature of becoming an NBA player, as well as the expense of AAU basketball, provide a vacuum in sports options that could benefit baseball.

What should baseball do?

 

  • Mandate a greater emphasis on “Small Ball” skills that have been clearly deemphasized in all MLB camps and developmental leagues;
  • Be sure that the next round of new parks are pitcher-friendly, which would force teams to build around an alternative to power;
  • Move the fences back around the league. If the NBA can recognize the need for this regarding the 3-point line, surely baseball can do the same regarding home runs.

 

As baseball’s core fan base gets older and whiter, the game risks missing the boat on the obvious demographic changes around the country. It cannot afford monolithic appeal. Bringing “Small Ball” back would go a long way to expand that appeal and sustain the game.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Frank Robinson: An Overdue Appreciation

Monday, February 11th, 2019

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

FR1

There are many apt descriptions of the late Frank Robinson, who passed away last week. The one that comes to mind most for me is the single most underappreciated member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

 

The reasons for this are complex. They begin with when he played. Robinson came up in 1956 with the Cincinnati Reds and had an immediate impact, winning the National League (NL) Rookie of the Year award. It was also the first of two consecutive years starting for the NL in the All-Star game.

 

He would never start another All-Star game for the NL.

 

For the better part of his remaining years in the NL, the honor was reserved for the Giants’ Willie Mays, the Braves’ Hank Aaron, and/or the Pirates’ Roberto Clemente. Robinson, though a perennial All-Star, was the odd man out along with the Cubs’ Billy Williams. Add the Yankees’ Mickey Mantle to the fray, and Robinson always found his greatness in the shadow of others.

 

And even before breaking into professional baseball, Robinson was in the shadow of others. His high school basketball teammate was one William Felton “Bill” Russell, who only would become the single greatest winner in team sports history. Several scouts actually thought that Robinson was better than Russell.

 

I suspect another aspect to Robinson’s under-appreciation was the simple fact that he did not believe in taking any sh*&&^% from anybody. In 1961, Robinson was constantly receiving racist threats. So, he decided to buy a gun. When a man made such a threat toward him in a restaurant, Robinson showed the gun and was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. Insult to injury was that no one from the Reds management bothered to come to his aid. So, he spent the night in jail.

 

Be it Frank Robinson in 1961 or Marissa Alexander in 2010, when we, as Black folks attempt to stand our ground, we go to jail!

 

FR2But such injustices never seemed to dissuade Robinson. In fact, they seemed to only give him more resolve. For example, he went on to win the first of two MVP awards in 1961. From a mental standpoint, he may have been the toughest hitter in baseball history. He crowded the plate, knowing full well that contemporary pitching intimidators such as Don Drysdale and Bob Gibson would hit him. As a result, he led the league in being hit by a pitch 6 times.

 

Gibson, a Hall of Famer in his own right, said this about Robinson, “As a rule, I’m reluctant to express admiration for hitters, but I make an exception for Frank Robinson”.

 

After the 1965 season, the Reds ownership decided that Robinson was an “old 30” and traded him to the Baltimore Orioles.

 

It was, and still is today, one of the most impactful trades in baseball history.

 

The Orioles were already an up and coming team. Robinson put them over the top. In 1966, Robinson would winFR4 the Triple Crown (leading the league in homers, RBIs, and average), and both the American League (AL) and World Series MVP, as the Orioles would sweep the defending champion Dodgers in four games. The MVP award made him the only player in history to win the award in both leagues, and he still is today. Injuries to Robinson and a young pitching phenom named Jim Palmer would limit the Orioles’ success in 1967-68. But once healthy again from 1969-1971, and with the addition of southpaw pitcher Mike Cuellar, the Orioles would go on to average 106 wins over the next 3 seasons and win another World Series in 1970 over his former team, the Reds. For whatever reason, the Orioles traded Robinson after the 1971 season and dropped to 80 wins in 1972.

 

Robinson would end his career with 586 home runs, but to truly appreciate this, once again one must understand the era in which Robinson played. It was during the golden age of dominant pitching. In 1956, the National League only had 8 teams and they all used a 4-man pitching rotation. Unlike today’s 5-man expansion diluted rotations, every team had good pitching. Over the next ten years, Robinson would face the Braves’ Warren Spahn, the Phillies’ Robin Roberts, the Cardinals’ Gibson, the Giants had both Juan Marichal and Gaylord Perry, and the Dodgers had Drysdale and Sandy Koufax. In other words, the Cubs and Pirates were the only two teams that did not have a future Hall of Fame pitcher or pitchers at the top of their rotation.

 

By the time he got to the AL, expansion had begun to dilute pitching. Nevertheless, most teams still had high-level pitchers at the top of their rotations. The Indians had Louis Tiant, the Tigers had Denny McClain and Mickey Lolich, the Twins had Jim Perry and Bert Blyleven, the A’s had Catfish Hunter and Vida Blue, the White Sox had Wilbur Wood, the Yankees had Mel Stottlemeyer, the Angels and Rangers would eventually acquire Nolan Ryan and Ferguson Jenkins. When he returned to the American League in 1973, he had to face his former Orioles teammates in Palmer, Cuellar, and Dave McNally. Every pitcher noted is either a Hall of Famer, or at the very least, a multi-year All-Star, or 20 game-winner over their careers. Pitching was so dominant that the league decided to lower the mound after the historical 1968 season, to try to help hitters.

 

This is the backdrop of Robinson’s offensive accomplishments. It was the equivalent of what Pedro Martinez was able to do as a pitcher, at the height of the steroid era. Robinson was not feasting off 4th and 5th starters who struggled to get through 5 innings.

 

Robinson was the first Black manager in baseball history and though his record was sub-.500, so too was his talent. There are two years that make the case for him being a better manager than the record may indicate. After management decided to trade away the entire starting rotation, led by perennial All-Star Vida Blue, Robinson led the Giants to 87 wins in 1982.

 

In 1988, after an 0-6 start, Robinson took over the Baltimore Orioles, who would go on to lose its first 21 games, which is still a record to start the season. That team would only win 54 games. The next year, without a dramatic roster overhaul, the Orioles won 87 games under Robinson’s leadership, and he would win the AL Manager of the Year award.

 FR3

But his managerial success would always fade, no doubt due at least in part to his personality. Robinson was never shy about his lack of interest in making friends. Furthermore, like Ted Williams, I am not sure how understanding or encouraging one of the games great players can be of a struggling .202 hitter.

 

There is something profoundly sad about a person who seemingly must die before getting his/her flowers. I am not sure if Robinson much cared if it had no bearing on winning. If you look in the baseball dictionary by the term “Old School”, there will be a picture of Frank Robinson, and I doubt that he would have it any other way.

 

Rest in Peace!

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

So Much for Alabama or Duke Beating Pro Teams

Sunday, January 27th, 2019

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

AD

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

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

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

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

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

2001 Miami Hurricanes

2001 Miami Hurricanes

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

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

GTFOOHWTBS!

LA

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

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

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

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

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

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

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

How Baseball Became a Litmus Test for Blackness and Why I Don’t Give a Damn

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2018

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

BB

Baseball is back and along with it the same annual rituals: the Spring and warmer weather is approaching, my Giants spanking the Dodgers, and other Black folks giving me the side-eye of suspicion for so openly loving the game.

 

Yep! It is not an uncommon line of thinking among some Black folks that baseball is a white game. This thinking is not totally without merit but it was not always this way. As hard as this may be to believe for the younger generations, there was indeed a time when baseball was the unquestioned most popular sport among Black America. Its representation at the Major League level peaked in the mid-70s to early 80s at about 25%.

 

And then things began to change. I cite two primary reasons: 1) deindustrialization of the economy and the criminal industrial complex, both of which disproportionately adversely affected Black men, who would have been the primary teachers and passers of the game of baseball. Subsequent reasons are the rise of the Latin American player to fill the void and AAU basketball, which all but requires year-round participation. The cumulative result of all these factors is that today that 25% from the mid-70s-early 80s is now about 7% and declining.

 

With this change in the face of baseball came the stigma for Black youth who aspired to play the game in the form of the accusation of “acting white”. Peer acceptance among youth is important across cultural and demographic lines. That importance is even greater among oppressed and already isolated peoples. The value of community endorsement is not easily set aside.

 

One of the many struggles of oppressed and segregated groups is to resist oppressed and segregated thinking. This is outlined beautifully in the late Brazilian Educator Paolo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The less we see our reflection in baseball or any other activity or venue, the more the thinking creeps in that this just isn’t for us. The natural companion of that thinking is that any Black person who aspires to or likes the activity is running from his community identification. For Black folks the need to dismantle a criminal justice system, rooted in Capitalism and White supremacy that literally kills us with little to no accountability for doing so, is an overwhelming challenge and discouraging for some. It is much easier to question the cultural identity of someone who likes baseball than to deal with the substantive sources of our oppression.

 

This is not to suggest that there aren’t Black folks who do both consciously and subconsciously seek out interest for the specific purpose of separating themselves from the lager group.

 

I’m just not the one.

 

There is hope and high profile Black baseball fans exempt from this litmus test. One who comes to mind is local cultural icon and poet Ethelbert Miller. Besides finding a way to never age, for some 40 years he worked at my alma mater, Howard University, as head of its Moorland Spingarn Research Center. It is one of the world’s greatest repositories of Black history, culture, and life. I met him upon my arrival at Howard in 1991. He also just released his second book on baseball called “If God Invented Baseball?”. Yes, I will be reading it soon.

 

But with or without high profile Black baseball fans, I always have and always will love baseball. For any cultural legitimacy gatekeepers who have a problem with that, I strongly suggest you find a more useful way to spend your time and hate. I don’t care what you think!

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports

Dusty Baker is a Hall of Fame Manager

Friday, September 29th, 2017

by Gus Griffin

gus

 

 

 

 

Washington Nationals manager Dusty Baker looks on from the dugout before a baseball game against the New York Mets at Nationals Park, Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2016, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Washington Nationals manager Dusty Baker looks on from the dugout before a baseball game against the New York Mets at Nationals Park, Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2016, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

As the Washington Nationals prepare for the post season, it should be noted that this is old hat for manager Dusty Baker. In fact, it’s as good of a time as any to make the case that Dusty Baker should one day be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

That’s right, I said it, and the reasons people resist this idea are as interesting as the case that he is, so let’s start with those reasons.

Not only has Dusty Baker never managed a World Series winner, but he has presided over some of the most infamous pennant race and post season collapses in recent baseball history.

He has been the Marty Schotenheimer of major league baseball managers.

The list is as follows:

  • 1993 Giants had an 8 game lead over the Braves in August. Though the team would win a franchise record 103 games, they would lose the Western Division on the last day of the season (losing to those damn Dodgers). That team would not make it to the post season. Many consider that season’s outcome to be the primary basis for the development of the wild card in baseball, giving the best second place team a place in the post season;
  • 2002 Giants have a 3 games to 2 lead over the Angels in game 6 of the World Series and are 5 outs from winning their first world series since 1954. Then it all fell apart and the Angels go on to win in 7 games;
  • 2003 Chicago Cubs and the infamous Bartman game and series. The Marlins win that game 6 and eventually game 7 in Chicago, and beat the Yankees in the World Series.
  • 2012 Reds win the first two games in San Francisco of a best of 5 series, only to lose 3 straight to my Giants in Cincinnati. The Giants go on to win their second World Series of 3 in a 5 year span.

As sports fans, we tend to remember individual failure more than cumulative success.  Ask any fan what they remember most about Billy Buckner and they are likely to cite the 1986 World Series error rather than the 2700+ career hits and 1980 NL batting title.  The same is true of Ernest Byner in football.

It is fair to cite Baker as the only common denominator in all of the above noted collapses.  My primary response is that only an exceptional manager would continually be in these situations.

The case for Baker is as follows:

  • His 1800+ wins are more than Earl Weaver, Tommy Lasorda, or Dick Williams, all of whom are in the Hall of Fame;
  • He is one of only 4 managers to take 4 different teams to the post season, along with Williams, Billy Martin, and Davey Johnson. Martin and Johnson each have their own Hall of Fame cases;
  • He has ten 90 win seasons. All managers with this number or more are in the Hall of fame;
  • He managed Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent over multiple 162 game seasons, which is every bit as difficult as coaching Shaq and Kobe.

So exactly what factors most impact a manager’s success? I say 4, which are communication skills, baseball tactics, instincts, and situation. The manager actually only has control of the first three.  By all accounts, Baker is a great communicator. The problem is that this skill is the least observable to fans and even the sports writers who vote for the Hall of Fame.  So Baker’s greatest skill is the least measurable. His baseball tactics and instincts would have to be above average to win nearly 2000 games. Sure, anyone can find a decision on bullpen or bench management here or there, to dispute over the course of 23 years and 162 game seasons. But surely not enough to question his deserving of Hall of Fame status. The last factor would be the situation, and the manager has little to no control over that factor.  Situation includes the owner, timing, talent, etc. Let’s be clear about this, Joe Torre managed 3 different teams before he took the reins of the Yankees.  In the years before he got there, notoriously meddling owner George Steinbrenner was suspended from the day to day operations of the team.  His history was to win now, future be damned.  What this resulted in was young talent being traded away for veterans.  Due to his suspension, this did not happen in the mid-90s, and thus, Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, Andy Petite, Mariano Rivera, and Derek Jeter remained in their system and awaited Torre’s tutelage.  The rest is history.  From 1996-2000, the Yankees would win the World Series four times.

Joe Torre did not suddenly learn how to manage in New York with the Yankees.  But the fact is, if you take away his Yankees tenure, his career managerial record is sub-500.  Situation matters.

Dick Williams found working under A’s owner Charlie O Finely so difficult, he resigned from a 2-time defending champion team after the 1973 season, in a similar way that Jimmy Johnson left the Cowboys. Situation matters.

Regardless of the situation, Dusty Baker has won and he has won a lot. This should earn him a bust in Cooperstown someday.

 

Gus Griffin, for War Room Sports