The Big Three: Does the Philosophy Work in Today's NBA?

Specific events are always mentioned in history classes as turning points: Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire, The Magna Carta, the Battle of Stalingrad, LeBron James' 'The Decision' special on ESPN. Wait---LeBron James' 'The Decision' special on ESPN? Yes, you read that right. Why is that moment in the same league as the Magna Carta? The assembling of the Miami Heat’s ‘Big Three’, in 2010, was a major turning point by popularizing the concept of a team with three bona fide superstars, which quickly caught on as a practiced philosophy and ushered in the Superteam era, in my opinion. (I define a superteam team to be one assembled primarily through free agency). Plus, the NBA is equally as important as any religion, government, or war, in case you didn’t know. Since that day when LeBron took his talents to South Beach, Big Threes have been formed and broken, and some teams have bought into the system more eagerly and confidently than others. Most recently, LeBron and his talents went to Cleveland (it just doesn’t have the same ring to it does it?), along with brilliant big man Kevin Love, to start a big three with Kyrie Irving, the young point guard already in Cleveland. What has followed has not been the performance expected of a team that was projected to be an Eastern Conference and NBA Finals contender. Of course, the season is still young and the Cavs are currently on a three-game win streak after dropping to 5-7, but their disorganized play and ‘fragile’ quality, as James called it, begs concern. Is the Big Three method worth the investment in the NBA today?

            The Big Three that started it all, Miami’s core of James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh from 2010-2014, saw plenty of success. They went to the NBA Finals every one of those years, winning two. Obviously, the assembly of star power took the team far, but hindered them in three crucial areas: starting the 2010 season, a lack of a good supporting cast, and no future guarantee. Pretty much every superteam had struggled out of the gate, for obvious reasons. Most of the free agent talent coming in is used to being the top dog on their team, so obviously with three major stars, there is some confusion and hesitation initially, something the Cavaliers currently struggle with and the Heat had issues with as well. With so much talent, time is needed to effectively blend playing styles and overcome initial awkwardness. For major markets like Los Angeles or New York, patience is not a practiced virtue, and this adjustment period can be too much for fans or front offices to handle. Secondly, superteams are wildly expensive to assemble. With so much money being spent on stars, there is little room to add a quality supporting cast. Miami struggled with this problem all four years, going through at least four different starting backcourt mates for Wade and about another four different starting frontcourt mates for Bosh. Miami was forced to get older, washed-up players like Mike Miller, or use young, and frankly mediocre players such as Mario Chalmers. The disparity of talent hindered the Heat against the two teams they lost the Finals to: the well-balanced 2010-2011 Mavericks and the talented, ball-sharing 2013-2014 Spurs. Lastly, with assembled talent there’s a lesser guarantee for the future, as exhibited by LeBron’s departure following the Heat’s embarrassing play in the 2014 Finals.

While the Heat had tons of fans during the days when they had Big Three, their interest has declined without LeBron. With a team that builds itself from the ground up, like current powerhouses San Antonio and Oklahoma City (once Durant returns) and teams recently becoming elite like Golden State and Washington. The players on those teams feel more personal to the fans and the city, as they have endured bad times and stuck with the team anyway. Especially for a franchise like San Antonio, who has kept the same core of players for nearly 15 years, the loyalty shown results in a feel-good quality for both the team and the fans. In the NBA of yore, players would stick with the team that drafted them for their whole careers much more often, so players staying put nowadays feels like a refreshing novelty act. With the money becoming an increasingly more influential factor to players in terms of whether to go to a new team, players who don’t leave are applauded for staying true, while those that leave seeking more money are criticized for selling out.

Superteams have had varying levels of success this decade. Obviously the Heat had a great run while it lasted, but teams like the 2012-2013 Lakers (Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, Steve Nash) and the 2011-2013 Knicks (Carmelo Anthony, Tyson Chandler, Amar’e Stoudemire) and epically failed trying to use the model. So what went wrong? For starters, a smart coach is needed to balance all of the egos and talent. Mike D’Antoni and Mike Woodson were not effective in that regard. Secondly, the players can’t be old. That’s just a fact that’s been proven by the Lakers superteam, as Steve Nash played a grand total of 65 games in three years. The positioning has to work as well, something the Knicks struggled with, as all of their big three were primarily post players. Their backcourt always struggled, as it was hard to afford guards with three stars, including the incredibly pricey Anthony, on the payroll. Also with the positioning, Chandler was a defensive specialist who didn’t contribute that much on offense, and Anthony is a scoring machine but a liability on defense. When either paired with Stoudemire, it didn’t go too well.

If you’re going to assemble a superteam, the Heat model of three players in their prime who make sense together on the court, with a smart and effective coach to orchestrate the system, it can work. This is possible primarily for large-market teams, and in the most demand for those markets as well. As a GM of a large-market team, I would say assembling a superteam is acceptable, and maybe even encouraged if you do it right. However, superteams tend to disband quickly, so for smaller markets or GMs looking for a dynasty and longevity of success, building from the ground up, with added veteran pieces as needed, is the most effective model.

            

An Open Letter to Major League Baseball

Dear Robert Manfred and Bud Selig,
     Baseball has long been hailed as America's game. From Ruth to Mays to Aaron to Jeter, our country's pastime has had a long and storied history: a romantic journey from roughly the Civil War as an inspiration, a celebration, and a cultural mainstay. No one can deny that baseball has a past to be praised, but unfortunately for the game today, living in the past is both hurting baseball now, and if not fixed, could taint and ultimately destroy it.
     I understand that one of the components that gives baseball its identity is its steadfast support of tradition. While upholding tradition is certainly important, rejecting change is dangerous. Change is pursued because people see it as an improvement of what already exists: simply rejecting change is missing an opportunity for enhancement. While baseball's traditions often make it charming (the 7th inning stretch, old stadiums, its similarity to the baseball of yore), they also limit the game from reaching its true potential. By reprimanding and shaming players like Yasiel Puig, who bring excitement to the game by taking more risks in base running and fielding, the game is limiting its potential for excitement and flat-out denying Latin baseball culture to affect American baseball, despite the Latin game's flair and the increasing influx of Latin-Americans in the game. Mr. Manfred and Mr. Selig, it's time to embrace change. Constantly living in the past and denying new movements has repercussions, such as turning young people away from the game. Sticking to the comfortable demographic of old white men is no longer acceptable. A sport that doesn't strive for diversity in its viewers and attendees doesn't allow itself the chance to learn and grow from new perspectives as well as spread the game to a wider demographic. With the increasing non-interest from young people, each new generation of old people will be less and less intrigued. If baseball doesn't fix itself, and fast, it could be on the verge of obsoletism.
     So why doesn't baseball appeal to my generation? Here's the single reason: it's so goddamn slow. Take a single at-bat: the amount of time it takes for pitchers to play with the ball, step on and off the mound, stare at the batter, and throw to first base, combined with the amount of time it takes batters to step out of the box, swing their bat around, etc. overweighs the amount of actual action by such an exponentially huge proportion that it's ridiculous.  The fact is, we get bored even without the long stoppages of play for conferences at the mound and counts with tons of foul tips. Games are slowing down. Runs scored per game are also lowering, so you can't blame more runs being scored: the game is becoming simultaneously less exciting (with less runs) and more lengthy. Mr. Manfred and Mr. Selig, you and your friends can continue to blame it on our impatience, our inability to appreciate the game, our need for instant gratification intensified by the Internet, and constant access to distractions. Maybe those are all fair reasons. But the fact of the matter is that until baseball makes changes, neither will we. If nothing is done to speed up the game, nothing suggests that the under 18 age demographic, and even the under 40 age demographic, will sit down and not so much watch as endure 4-hour games on TV. Here's the thing: we have better things to do than watch Norichika Aoki foul off dozens of pitches, watch Stephen Strasburg try to unsuccessfully pick off the guy at first four times in a row, or watch every single pitcher take 30+ seconds in between pitches. Maybe that better thing to do is Instagram a selfie at the game, Tweet about how long this game is taking, or, like most not watch at all, and you can grumble about the Internet and the amount of constant distractions we have all you want, but the fact is unless you speed baseball up, we won't watch.
     Personally, I suggest instituting time limits between pitches and number of pick-off attempts per at-bat. Fun fact to those who say that forcibly speeding up baseball is against the essence of the game: a rule stating that pitchers must throw the ball within 12 seconds of receiving it from the umpire or the batter automatically gets a ball exists. Enforce it, Mr. Selig. And when your impending retirement comes, enforce it Mr. Manfred. The two sports young Americans watch most (and arguably the two most popular), are NFL and NBA. Both operate under large clocks, but under a smaller one as well, the play clock and the shot clock, respectively. You don't have to institute a larger time constraint, because that would be truly changing baseball's foundation, but adding a small time constraint would speed up the game significantly. Adding the shot clock saved the NBA from many of the problems baseball faces today. Learn from history. Maybe you'll lose some old white men who complain about stripping the game of its identity. Not only will the influx of young fans make up for it, but old white men is just about the only demographic you can afford to lose some fans in.
     Age is also prevalent in the front office. Just about every important position in Major League Baseball is occupied by someone old, white, and male. Hire young people. Hire women. Hire diversity. Mr. Selig, choosing Mr. Manfred as your successor is just about one of the worst things you could do. By instating your right-hand man, you're just bringing in more of the same issues. Introducing racial, age, and gender diversity in the front office of the league can help bring new perspectives and new solutions.
     Another issue is scoring. Part of the reason that both the NFL and the NBA are popular is because scoring is higher than ever in both leagues. While pitchers duels can be exciting, casual sports fans and even casual baseball fans don't really enjoy watching a 2-1 pitchers duel, unless maybe their team is playing. Socially, it's probably not acceptable to make every player take steroids, so other options must be pursued. First of all, adding a DH in the National League would promote scoring, and also limit the time needed for a pitching change, as a call to the bullpen because a reliever is up in the batting order would no longer be necessary. Secondly, an electronically-mandated strike zone would put a stop to giving pitchers strikes that are actually outside the strike zone, taking away some of their advantage.
     The NFL is so popular in part because it is so widely accessible: there are so many platforms and medias to watch games on. Mr. Manfred, Mr. Selig, instead of complaining about the Internet, use it to allow the casual fan to have better access to games and to spread baseball. Baseball can't really compete during the early months, as NBA playoffs are going in, and in the later months, as the NFL is going on. So during summer, really take advantage of the fact that baseball is the only major sport on. Change the culture! Promote, promote, promote! You know there's something wrong when more people tune into the Scouting Combine-Long Snapper and Punter Day than a mid-summer baseball game (OK, so that might not actually happen). The point is, take advantage of the time when sports fans don't have anything to watch but your sport!
     My final point is that Mr. Selig and Mr. Manfred, you have to do something. Sitting around and depending on your old white men simply won't hold you through in the 21st century. The last major change, adding the designated hitter to the American League, was 41 years ago. 41 years ago! Baseball, not only do I challenge you, but I implore you to make a change. I love baseball, I really do.  Something I love is deeply flawed. For the sake of the sport I love, I beg of you to not only turn baseball into something much easier for me to love, but for people my age to appreciate it the way I do.  Mr. Manfred, Mr. Selig, if you really love this sport, fix it. If you don't, then I fear the game won't be around for others to love. Will it be challenging? Of course. Will there be opposition? Most certainly. If it's for the greater good of something you love, should you face that adversity anyway? Mr. Manfred, Mr. Selig, if the answer is no, then I'll be forced to doubt the commitment baseball's leaders have to the game they're counted on to preserve and advance, for the sake of those that depend on it and love it.

The Breaking Point

     This week has not been kind to Roger Goodell. First, a video was leaked of the May Atlantic City incident in which Ravens running back Ray Rice beat his then-fianceé in an elevator. After cries for Goodell's resignation, another crisis arrived in the form of one of the league's biggest superstars, and therefore biggest role models, Vikings star Adrian Peterson. Peterson was indicted for child abuse in Texas, beating what new developments suggest as two four-year old sons with a switch. Lastly, Panthers Pro Bowl defensive end Greg Hardy missed this week while also serving time for domestic violence. The media attention and exposure of Goodell and the NFL's faults as a whole was spread far and wide, but most of the drama was an afterthought this Sunday as football went on as usual. The pressure on Goodell will undoubtedly continue, but the NFL will carry on, fortified in its standing as the most dominant sports league. As the allegations and investigations continue, I think it's important to evaluate our own feelings as a fan: although none of the players caught up in allegations played for the Redskins, my team, and none were on any of my fantasy teams, it would be naive to think I'll never face this situation. At what point do our morals coincide with our allegiance to a team?
     Sports fans are among the most loyal of people, and NFL fans are even more so. I mean, can you think of any other league where fans would go all out with body paint for a team like the Oakland Raiders? As a Redskins fan, I've always maintained that nothing could challenge my commitment and faithfulness to the burgundy and gold. The Snyder era and I were born together, and if I can survive having only 2 playoff wins (with one coming when I was less than a week old), only remembering 3 playoff appearances, and starting everyone from Rex Grossman to John Beck to Patrick Ramsey, then I've always thought that I could stay loyal through anything. However, if a Ray Rice were to be starting on my team, and I was aware of his wrongdoings, would I morally be able to root for the Redskins? Such a complex, intricate, and emotionally testing question requires more than a simple black-and-white answer. I can only speak for myself personally as I try to evaluate the relationship between my moral compass and my Redskins loyalty.
    The core of football is a very violent and physical competition. Rooting for a team entails rooting for players, essentially, to either knock someone else down or not get knocked down: this might already take a toll on the moral compass. As a kid, I remember being happy if a player on the other team got hurt. I know better now, but if my naive, innocent self portrayed this as something to celebrate, it's a testament to the NFL culture, reinforced by things such as the Bountygate scandal. Basically, it's a little subconsciously unscrupulous to root for an NFL team, so football is already testing that boundary.
     Obviously, there's a difference between rooting for a football player and rooting for someone convicted of domestic violence. The violence in football is generally accepted, and players on both side are getting paid, plus football is a form of exercise and a forum for team-building, camaraderie, and communication. Beating a wife or girlfriend, on the other hand, has no conceivable positive aspects, and is definitely not societally acceptable, even on the fringes of taboo. Supporting an alleged domestic violence perpetrator whom one does not personally know is seemingly unheard of. However, the scenario changes when said person plays for your favorite football team, because of the loyalty one shows. Ultimately, is it worth it?
     For me, as someone interested in football's best interests, an avid Redskins fan, and most of all, a woman, I don't think that I could root for a player like Ray Rice. I would likely still root for the Redskins, just not for this particular player. I can imagine that when the Ravens cut Rice, it was a relief for many Ravens fans, who could now root for their team without scruples. At the end of the day, I could not bring myself to support said person. Luckily, this is not a dilemma I have to face at present moment, but with the new investigations into domestic violence cases in the NFL, I may have to. As NFL fans, I think everyone should at least consider this potential debacle, so that they may come to a conclusion for themselves.
    I'm not saying that football itself is immoral: I consider myself as among one of the biggest fans of the game and the league, with its faults. However, domestic violence is definitely something I consider immoral, and I think that it (and players who perpetrate it) have no place tarnishing, morally, legally, and otherwise, the game that I love.

Win Your Fantasy League! (You Read It Here First)

I'll admit it-I'm a fantasy football addict. I'm the commissioner of my own league, I send out weekly fantasy newsletters, and I even wrote a 21-page draft guide for my league members. (Email me using this email if you would like a copy). Instead of putting the whole guide on here, I'll give you guys my answers to 8 burning questions. I'm not saying that reading this will necessarily make you the #1 fantasy football player, but you'll probably at least be #2. Jokes aside, have fun reading!

1. Who should be the #1 overall fantasy draft pick? 

This year, that question warrants more thought than previous years. There’s no definitive answer to that question: LeSean McCoy, Jamaal Charles and Adrian Peterson are all very viable options. Jamaal Charles finished with the most fantasy points last season (as Anna can attest), but historically is due for at least a slight drop off. McCoy finished 2^nd, but could lose some receiving touches to new Eagle Darren Sproles. Peterson didn’t finish in the top 5, mostly due to missing 2 games with a groin injury, but of course is always worth a consideration for #1 overall. My bet would be on McCoy, as the loss of DeSean Jackson could compensate for Sproles’ presence by McCoy receiving some of those lost touches. However, I envy whoever has the #3 pick: they can just take whichever one hasn’t been taken.

2. Which rookie position has the most potential, in terms of players worth a fantasy pick? 

Undoubtedly, rookie wide receivers are most worth your valuable draft picks. This year’s crop is especially worth noticing because a lot of talented players landed in great situations to not only start, but potentially excel. I’d say that there are 5 guys (Sammy Watkins, Brandin Cooks, Mike Evans, Kelvin Benjamin, Odell Beckham Jr.) worth a pick. 

3. Which teams have the easiest fantasy playoff schedule, and which players benefit? 

This could change based on defenses performing better or worse than last season, but is still a good question. The Eagles draw Dallas and Washington, two teams with lackluster pass defenses. Nick Foles, LeSean McCoy, and Jeremy Maclin could all be in for big games. The Colts draw Houston and Dallas, so look for dominant performances from Andrew Luck. Lastly, the Ravens draw Jacksonville and Houston. Matchups against teams of that poor caliber warrant a play from anyone decent.

4. How will Peyton Manning come off of a season in which he set new NFL records for passing yards and TDs thrown? 

As incredible as Manning is, it’s seemingly downright impossible for Manning to perform better than his amazing 2013. Manning also lost one of his favorite targets in Eric Decker, and his trusty running back Knowshon Moreno. He is definitely due for some regression, but that being said, should still be the first QB off the board. 

5. Everyone saw Percy Harvin perform exceptionally during the Super Bowl. Can I trust him to be a starter on my team? 

Percy Harvin would be a top-end WR2 (your second starting fantasy wide receiver) if he could just stay healthy. Harvin has struggled with injuries his whole career, dating back to elementary school. Part of the reason he performed so well in the Super Bowl was simply due to the fact that he was fresh, while everyone else on the field had experienced the wear and tear of a 16-game season, plus 2 playoff games. Harvin has tons of potential, but be wary of his injury history come draft day. If you draft him, definitely grab another viable starter at WR2, or a high-end WR3.

6. Which committee backfield should I stay away from? 

Committee backfields are backfields in which two running backs both receive a decent chunk of carries. Some examples are the Bengals (with Giovani Bernard and BenJarvus Green-Ellis) and the Bills (CJ Spiller and Fred Jackson). Taking Gio Bernard is fine, he could even be a low-end RB1, and CJ Spiller and Fred Jackson are both decent RB2s. However, I would definitely stay away from the Saints’ backfield of Pierre Thomas, Mark Ingram, and Khiry Robinson. First of all, the Saints had a 62:38 ratio of passing plays to running plays last year. That’s one of the most pass-heavy splits in the league. That 38% includes short passes out of the backfield to Darren Sproles, who is now departed. Those short passes will likely now go to speedster Brandin Cooks, a rookie wideout. None of these backs are built to be a workhorse, and none of them receive enough touches to be a fantasy starter. Ingram and Robinson might not even deserve a spot on your bench.

7. The Seahawks are obviously the #1 defense/special teams unit (D/ST), but who’s the #2? 

This comes down to Carolina vs. San Francisco. Both are stellar defenses with great playmakers that allow very few points. I think the difference lies in the ability to create turnovers, which generates fantasy points. The 49ers get a lot more turnovers, and for that reason I’m picking San Francisco as the #2 D/ST.

8. Tom Brady experienced a big statistical drop-off last year, and was unreliable and not explosive as a fantasy quarterback. What should we expect from him this year? 

Brady’s 2013 is a classic example of a player who’s real life value was worth a lot more than his fantasy value. Brady went from 340.28 points in 2012 to 251.52 in 2013: almost a 90-point drop. There’s a simple reason for this: an extreme drop-off in the talent of his receivers. He downgraded from Wes Welker and Aaron Hernandez to Julian Edelman and Danny Amendola. His #1 weapon, Rob Gronkowski, was injured for most of the season. The Pats still went 11-5, cementing his real life value, but unfortunately that does little for his fantasy value. With his current receiving corps, I think Brady’s numbers will be closer to his 2013 total. I think he’ll do better than 250 points, but likely won’t approach his previous levels. He’s been downgraded to a middle-low QB1. 

Who deserves ESPYs? (it's a big night for Peyton)

The ESPYs have long been one of sports' best award shows. The very first televised show gave us the immortally inspirational Jimmy V speech, and ever since then, have provided us with fantastic speeches, entertainment, and excitement. While all of the nominees this year are certainly deserving of their respective awards, which are the most deserving?

Best Male Athlete
Nominees: Kevin Durant, Peyton Manning, Floyd Mayweather, Miguel Cabrera

All of these athletes were fairly unquestionably the best at their respective sports, so deciding who was the best of the best requires us to look to other categories, such as challenges faced, winning ability, and the scientifically calculated 'wow factor'. Mayweather was great, winning both of his fights this year, but he was expected to win and it felt as if his level of challenge was not great. KD and Miggy were both spectacular, but only Peyton was able to get to the Super Bowl, his finals. The man(ning) also broke both the TD and passing yards records, which falls right around the line of unheard of.
Verdict: Manning

Best Female Athlete
Nominees: Maya Moore, Breanna Stewart, Ronda Rousey, Mikaela Shiffrin

All of these women rocked their sports, but no one was quite as captivating as UFC fighter Ronda Rousey. She took the fighting world by storm with attitude and dominance. I'd be afraid to not give her the win.
Verdict: Rousey

Best Championship Performance
Nominees: Jimmie Johnson, Kawhi Leonard, David Ortiz, Shabazz Napier

This is tough, but for me it comes to two people: Leonard and Big Papi. While Napier and Johnson were fantastic, I think Napier was actually better throughout the tournament than his performance in the championship game, and does anyone really want to see a racer win when most of the voters don't even know what the NASCAR championship is? No disrespect, Jimmie. Leonard rose above the ranks of supporting cast Spur to Finals MVP, after three truly fantastic games in Games 3, 4, and 5. Leonard's shooting was dynamic, his contribution to the Spurs' pass-first offense obvious, and did one of the best jobs ever guarding LeBron James. However, Leonard wasn't an overly fantastic factor in Games 1 and 2, whereas Big Papi's championship batting average of .668 is more consistent. Consistently ridiculous.
Verdict: Ortiz

Best Team
Nominees: Seattle Seahawks, San Antonio Spurs, UConn Women's Basketball, Los Angeles Kings, Boston Red Sox, Florida State Football

These are all championship teams, so no team sets itself apart by being able to win the big one. However, dominance throughout the regular season can narrow the field, so I'm going to bring it down to UConn, Seattle, and San Antonio. I think the Spurs truly set themselves apart by being so dominant throughout the season despite playing their stars less than the average team, and truly getting it done throughout the playoffs. However, what tips me towards the Spurs is the way they truly encompass the 'team' heading by gelling together and playing team-first basketball in a sport becoming increasingly focused on individual performance. In terms of truly excelling as a team, San Antonio rises above the rest, though any team in this field is worthy.
Verdict: San Antonio

Best Game
Nominees: Alabama vs. Auburn (Iron Bowl), Chiefs vs. Colts (AFC Wild Card), Kings vs. Rangers (Game 5)

Every one of these games was captivating because a big play in the final seconds won it. By that logic, I'm going to pick the game with the most exciting big play: the Iron Bowl. The other two games were great, but the Iron Bowl, and in particular Chris Davis' FG return, is absolutely legendary. This is the type of the game, especially considering the stakes of the rivalry, that will be talked about for ages. I'm not sure I can say the same about the other two games.
Verdict: Iron Bowl

Best Breakthrough Athlete
Nominees: Nick Foles, Masahiro Tanaka, Richard Sherman, Damian Lilliard

These athletes all performed incredibly, but I'm going to start off by eliminating Nick Foles because he didn't play the full season and while very good, didn't dominate on a week-to-week basis. My prediction is that Sherman will win, but I don't consider him to be a 'breakthrough' athlete because he was already considered to be one of the best corners in the game, just not by the average football fan. His post-championship game speech introduced a whole new legion of people to his dominance (see Richard Sherman article from January), but again, his dominance already existed. Establishing that, I'm going to say that Tanaka is the most deserving. Lilliard was incredibly, but Tanaka truly 'broke out' by coming from being unknown in the US to a shutdown pitcher for the Yanks.
Verdict: Tanaka

Those are the athletes I think are most deserving of their respective awards. Did voters agree with me? Find out on ESPN at 9pm!

The Beautiful Game Leads A Beautiful Charge

     I won't pretend to be an expert on soccer. I know as much, maybe a little more, as the next sports fan. The MLS has never really caught on in the US, and our obsession with just about every other sport fits in with our American way of being different. However, this year's World Cup was able to completely change the context of soccer in America, if only for 2 weeks. The beautiful display of heart and pride exhibited by our now beloved 23 red, white and blue-clad men is seemingly juxtapositional with the little relevance of soccer in America, but upon closer examination, exhibits the American spirit in the way only sports can.
     There were plenty of moments throughout the World Cup when giving up seemed a good option: starting with being placed in the 'Group of Death'. Experts predicted American failure at seemingly every opportunity, even now fan-favorite coach Jurgen Klinsmann commented on the impossibility of American victory in Brazil. As a nation, we cautiously watched our crucial game against Ghana tip off. While we didn't witness a spectacular performance, it was probably our worst of the Cup, we saw a type of determination we take pride in. From Clint Dempsey getting back on the field after breaking his nose, to the I-dare-you-not-to-smile moment when unknown sub John Brooks headed in the game-breaking goal, we showed true heart. In America, heart is everything. Faced with difficult circumstances, we prevailed, truly exhibiting the American spirit.
Feeling good, we played a dominant game against Portugal. Jermaine Jones scored a beautiful goal, Dempsey followed, and we were able to contain reigning Ballon d'Or champion Cristiano Ronaldo. Of course, it made it that much harder to bear when Portugal scored the equalizer with 35 seconds left in extra time. Well it was easy to lose faith after the shocking draw, our team, and with it our country, was able to remain composure and consider the positives of drawing with a world-class Portugal team. What better representation of the American, someone who can see the positive in depressing and extenuating circumstances?
Even in our loss to Germany, we were still victorious in that we made it to the next round (and in hindsight, only surrendered a single goal to Die Mannschaft, worlds better than the 7 host nation Brazil surrendered yesterday).
We eagerly awaited the game against Belgium, and what a game it was. There were so many hold-your-breath moments that it's no wonder we didn't all suffer respiratory issues. During regulation time, we had nothing to worry about: we had Tim Howard. While we suffered the heartbreaking loss, sinking after allowing 2 goals, perking back up after Julian Green netted a goal, and tearing our hair out at every oh-so-close opportunity (Wondolowski, Wondolowski!), and ultimately the disappointment of realizing this captivating journey was over, we went through it together. These players went to Brazil as a bunch of vaguely familiar names, and came back heroes (except for Tim Howard, he's a legend). For two weeks, these 23 guys were able to not only unite, but united a nation. Despite our elimination to Belgium, we were able to see the type of heart that is not only refreshing, but inspiring. Well it would have been nice to continue in the bracket, we were still treated, in every sense of the word. Besides, freedom tastes better than waffles anyhow.

Can the Wizards Break DC's Sports Plight?

Promise. On the DC Sports scene, it’s hard to come by and even harder to hold on to, constantly slipping out of the grasp we thought we had secured. We thought we had it when the Redskins made the playoffs in 2012, when DC football seemed rejuvenated and full of hope. If 2013 is any indication, we were wrong. We thought we had it when the Nationals were the best team in the MLB, with the hottest young stars and the right veteran leadership. Pete Kozma changed that. The Capitals? Don’t even get me started on how many times we promised ourselves we were talented enough to make it past the 2^nd round. 

No, promise is something our teams show in flashes, but are never able to hold onto. But the Wizards? They hadn’t given us any sense of promise since we were using Nokia N70s and iPod Shuffles. Post-2007-2008 season, we’ve followed dismal season after dismal season, ridiculous overspending on free agent after free agent (Rashard Lewis anyone?), bad lottery position after bad lottery position, despite our good odds, and random European big man after random European big man becoming another bust. Until. 

Until this year, the year we finally got over the hump. We had a WINNING season. We made the PLAYOFFS. We won a SERIES. And goddammit, we almost knocked off the number one seed. These Wizards? The consensus is that they’re just warming up. We’ve got a young, strong backcourt, abundant veteran leadership, and great team chemistry. Of course, we’ve heard this before. Maybe it’s naivë to think we can retain the sort of promise our other teams exhibited. But something about these Wizards is different. They’ve struggled for so long. They took the time to rebuild instead of hoping one free agent will fix all their problems. Young, growing players highlight the team. Maybe, it’s finally time for DC to emerge out of the hopeless nature of the past. 

As Al Harrington said, to no one in particular as the final buzzer sounded after the Game 5 win against Indiana, “We’ll be back.”

Are Statistics Killing the Essence of Sports?

Legacy is complicated. We all want to live on in other people's stories, memories, and thoughts, but it is hard to recount a legacy, as other people did not experience these stories, memories, etc. with you. In a society increasingly becoming more skeptical, proof is often the first item we ask for after an assertion. In sports, this factual basis is a constant battleground of stat junkies vs. fans, and can often determine the legacy of a moment.
Statistics have to be cited in nearly every conversation about sports, and often, they can be helpful in proving a point. The stats have often been mentioned when talking about NBA star Kevin Durant, and his 41-game streak of 25+ points per game, which ended in early April. This incredible feat is further enhanced upon examining the stats, and these figures clearly serve their purpose. However, years from now when we look back at this amazing string of games, what will we remember? Will we focus on the numbers, and the significance of these numbers in a factual context as compared to other NBA legends? Or will we remember the moments, the dominance, the amazing shots, and the hot streaks? It's a complicated question, and it goes right to the heart of sports.

The true beauty of sports lies in its ability to amaze. It's about the unforgettable heroics: the successful desperation hail mary, the walk-off home run, the buzzer beater, the overtime goal, the moments you dream about as a kid and get to live vicariously through as a fan. It's about the inspirational moments: your countryman winning the gold, the player getting back up, two opposing athletes helping each other, the scrub sinking the game-winning shot. It's about the awe: the freakishly athletic plays, the beautiful finesse, the brute strength, and the amazing strategies, the times that make you stop and just admire the true talent you're witnessing. Sports isn't truly about numbers, or even trends: it's about moments. Moments that statistics will never be able to capture, because a number, no matter how impressive, just doesn't that captivating ability.

Boston and baseball fans alike will always remember Jonny Gomes' series-changing game 4 home run. This hit, which was the key turning point of the 2013 world series, will live on forever. But what will live on? The statistics just don't tell the complete story: Gomes was batting .152 that postseason, and it was a 3-run homer in the 6th inning. Sound groundbreaking? Not exactly. But watching that moment, watching this journeyman veteran blow open a world series, was awe-inspiring, heroic, and inspirational. The stats suggest it was a crap hitter hitting a HR in the middle of a world series game, in the middle of a series. That's not the legacy anyone wants to remember from the moment, except for Cardinals fans and Seth Maness. The true legacy lies in the moment.

The ongoing argument of the existence of 'clutchness' in sports is a prime battleground for the stat junkies to assert their superiority. Stat junkies assert that there is no such thing as hot hand, clutch hitter, or 4th-quarter QB.Through complex algorithms that the average sports fan cannot understand, they claim to have proven that these clutch moments are actually random. True or false, is this really how we want to understand sports? Should we just discredit the Jerry Wests, David Ortizes, and Joe Montanas of sports, Thanksgiving football and playground basketball included? The concept of clutch may not exist in a numerical sense, but no one can deny that with a minute left in the game and down by 2, you would want Tom Brady under center instead of an *arguably* equal QB such as Peyton Manning. Our brains may tell us that with an equal receiving corps and similar numbers throughout their careers, the choice doesn't matter. But our heart reminds us of the Super Bowl drives against the Panthers and Rams, and 2013's dramatic comebacks against the Saints and Broncos. 

Sports are all about heart, and using statistics as a legacy won't allow us to understand the true significance of sports' make-or-break moments.

For short-term analysis, and even long-term analysis, stats are helpful in backing up a point. That being said, the true legacy of sports lie in the moments that make us love them in the first place.

Championship Week

Attention everyone! Sports Gab Champ Week is now available! Just hit the 'NCAA Men's Basketball' heading to check out my predictions, articles, explanations, and more!

Conflict's Antidote: The Beauty of Sport

     As the 23rd Winter Olympics came to a close, as a single tear ran down the face of that creepy bear, we too cried. We, the people of the world, united for 2 short weeks, collectively mourned the ending of a beautiful reunion, a single tear reducing us back to independent nations: nations conflicting, nations warring, nations at peace. But for 2 glorious weeks, our troubled, conflicted nations of the world united and rejoiced together, celebrating who else but our most prized athletes. The true beauty of the Olympics celebrates the true beauty of sport: its uncanny ability to bring together.
     Jeremy Abbott is a four-time US national figure skating champion, and yet when the most pressure  is on, during the Olympics, he has trouble delivering. If the name doesn't ring a bell, surely the memory of the American skater crashing into the wall on a quad jump, and stayed down for about 20 seconds. Abbott may have lost the competition with his unfortunate fall, but he surely won over Americans when, miraculously, he got up. Behind in his program, battered and bruised, and surely in awful amounts of pain, Abbott made the decision to get up and keep skating. Beautifully, I might add. Tell me that didn't give you chills. I won't believe you. No matter what your problems were at that particular moment, we as Americans were compelled to this man we'd known for all of 1 minute, for the drive he exhibited that made us proud to live in the U-S-of-A. Nationally, sports bring us such immense joy. Whether it was Charlie White and Meryl Davis getting the win, the US sweep in men's ski slope style, or Mikaela Shiffrin crying at the top of the podium, we were proud to call ourselves Americans. Sports bring the ultimate pride and joy.
     Maybe the Olympics exist as a platform for what we aspire to be, as a global community. Sure, competition is the immediate backdrop, but doesn't that sort of represent the world? We are all competing with each other for the most revenue, power, etc., but if you delve deeper, we all have deep ties and bonds interconnecting. The Olympics is a representation of this. We are all competing to be the best, but we still gather to celebrate our collective prowess and make friends. Athletes from all over the globe, whatever their countries' conflicts may be, help each other out. This is what we strive for our world to be.
     Sports are able to bring our world together in a way that no else can, and this is the beauty of it. Our most prized athletes put everything on the line for the pride and joy of not just their respective countries' citizens, but the world. Whatever conflict and strife occurs in the world, sports in the Olympics draws us closer. For 2 weeks, we are able to break the lines between our countries, and gather to collectively celebrate the athlete, in all its beauty. Countries still have troubles, concerns, wars even, but the Olympics disregards that. As the Olympic flame stays lit, so too does hope, a light guiding us, the nations of the world, towards the sweet salvation of global cooperation. Hope abounds. Pride flows. Sports triumph.