ESPN bashing time.
I despise ESPN in many ways. Many, many ways.
Now, don't get me wrong. Having sports on TV 24 hours a day is pretty awesome. ESPN has single-handedly made sports into an American phenomenon. The money that goes into sports since ESPN started up has sky-rocketed. Players used to make thousands of dollars and made a meager living doing something they loved. Playing sports. Now, even the bench players can make millions of dollars a year basically being cheerleaders that might have to play if someone gets injured.
I have no problems with sports stars making millions and millions of dollars. If the teams can afford it, then their players deserve it. (Except for A-Rod. That A-Hole deserves nothing. The fact that he's getting paid about $30 million this year is ridiculous.)
No, my beef with ESPN is the way they commentate. ESPN only will follow certain sports. Within those sports, 90% of the talk will be about specific big market teams. I suppose I'm part of the community that gets the most upset. My favorite sport is soccer. My favorite teams (in sports that ESPN actually covers)? The Buffalo Bills, the Buffalo Sabres, and the Seattle Mariners. I'm lucky if I hear 1 story a week about any of those teams.
I have mentioned before that the major reason people in the US don't like soccer is because ESPN refuses to show important soccer games. (They won't even cover them on SportsCenter unless it's the World Cup.) But on top of this, even the sports they do cover only involve specific teams. Do you want to know why people become bandwagon fans? Because ESPN will cover those teams every day for most of the day. As soon as the Stanley Cup finals are over, only baseball will be playing of the sports that ESPN will cover. You know what this means for SportsCenter? Over half of the show will be about the Yankees and the Red Sox. Sure, they'll show a couple highlights of most of the other games. But don't expect any in depth analysis of anything except the AL East. In fact, the NL basically doesn't exist to ESPN. (Except for the Phillies.)
At one point this year, the Mariners were one of the hottest teams over a couple week stretch. Want to know the extent of the coverage? A quick highlight and a 1 sentence mention of their winning streak. If the Yankees had done that, they would break down why they were playing so well, which players were contributing the most, their future schedule and starting pitchers, etc.
This hatred for ESPN doesn't stop at SportsCenter. Live games are full of bologna. Showing a football game involving the Patriots? Better mention Tom Brady every 2 minutes, even when he's not on the field. Heck, even if the Patriots aren't playing, someone will be sure to mention him during a football broadcast. Also, if Tom Brady is having a bad game, the announcers will be sure to mention how "unlucky" he is. Or maybe his "receivers aren't getting open enough". If someone like Ryan Fitzpatrick (or any other run-of-the-mill QB) were to do the same thing? They would say how inconsistent that guy is. ESPN has man-crushes on certain superstars. These include, but are not limited to: Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Troy Polamalu, Adrian Peterson, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, A-Rod, Derek Jeter, David Ortiz, CC Sabathia, Robinson Cano, Mariano Rivera and pretty much any other Yankee you can think of. Give me a break. Just because you want to have sexual relations with these "superstars" doesn't mean you should ignore the truth. Or ignore other potential stars that are on smaller teams. Want to know why many sports analysts didn't want Felix Hernandez to win the Cy Young last year? It was because he played for the Mariners. The Mariners weren't a good team and aren't a big market team, so he shouldn't win. This was disguised as a rant about how wins are the most important stat a pitcher has. But make no mistake, they just wanted CC Sabathia to win because he plays for the Yankees.
Oh, and what about cheating? Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro and Barry Bonds? Shunned. They are scum according to ESPN. Jason Giambi, Roger Clemens, David Ortiz and A-Rod? Well, let's reserve judgement or accept their apology. After all, they weren't the only ones cheating, so they deserve a break. Get caught stealing signs? Meh, short mention on SportsCenter maybe, nothing to get upset about. It's just blatant cheating, no big deal.
And you know what this all does? Makes more people become fans of the larger market teams because they are covered more and turning into idols. This in turn gives those teams even more revenue. The small market teams, however, lose money and suffer even more.
So go suck the big one, ESPN. You are terrible at what you do. Try being a little less biased one of these days. Give each team the respect they deserve.
PS: I didn't even mention the fact that ESPN tries to turn Spelling and Poker into sports... That always makes me shake my head.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Soccer. Why America hates it and why Americans should embrace it.
Here's the post you've all been waiting for. My take on soccer. Okay, so probably only a few of you have been waiting for it. The rest of you are probably saying something like: "Soccer sucks and Haaafs sucks for liking it." That's fair. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Unless you hate soccer. Then your opinion sucks. But if that were true, then most of America would suck. Well... Let's face it, most people do suck. And I'm a full believer in that they suck because they hate soccer.
The other group of you reading this are probably saying something like: "It's football not soccer, you ignorant American." Look, I grew up calling it soccer. Just like I drive a car that has gas in it. It has a hood and a trunk. Petrol, boot, bonnet, flat? It all hurts my head it's so British. Basically what I'm saying is, I speak Americanese. It's some sort of mix between English and words some people made up a couple hundred years ago. But I'm seriously digressing... (This is how my brain works. Some kind of weird ADD or something.)
At any rate, soccer. Why the hatred in the US? Well, here's what most haters would say... They would say that it's too low scoring, too slow paced, and the players are a bunch of floppers. To be fair, the 3rd part is right on the ball (heh). But let's address the first two.
Too low scoring. This excuse comes from the people who want to see homeruns blasted out of the stadium every at bat in baseball. They want to see a 7 foot tall monster jump and dunk the ball as hard as possible, preferably while running a couple people over. These people cheer at a huge check in hockey, even when the result is a breakaway for the other team. These people do not appreciate sport. They just want to see huge people do ridiculous things. In my opinion, these people should just stick to watching professional wrestling. A real athlete requires not only strength, but also finesse. Who's a better baseball player? Ichiro Suzuki or Adam Dunn? If you said Adam Dunn, stop reading now. My words are way too truthful and right for you to be reading them with your stupid opinions overshadowing them. Seriously, I'll wait for you to leave. Alt+F4 if you need some help (and are using a Windows machine).
But honestly, being low scoring is a good thing! When it's down to the final couple minutes, there's nothing better than seeing a team down by 1 goal, trying their hardest to tie it up. Or a tie game, where one team HAS to win to move on in a tournament. Did you watch when Landon Donovan scored the game winner for USA in the World Cup Group Stage? If not, you missed one of the most exciting moments in sports history!
Here's the goal
Here's the reaction by fans all over the world
How exciting is it when a basketball team is up by 20 with a few minutes left? Or when a football team is up by 17 with 2 minutes left? Sure, that's not always the case with those sports. Buzzer-beaters are great in basketball. But exciting end-game scenarios with those sports are pretty rare. Most games in soccer are within reach when the second half goes into extra time.
And how about slow-paced. I guess I can sort of see how soccer can be slow paced at times. Finesse isn't something you just do instantaneously. You have to wait for the right opportunity. Just like how Ichiro waits for his pitch. Oh, speaking of baseball, if you say soccer is slow paced and watch baseball games everyday, you can leave, too. Your argument is immediately invalid. The same thing for football. Sure, there's more action when a play is happening. But then it stops and everyone stands around for a minute or longer if a commercial break is needed. Honestly, the only major sport I would consider faster paced than soccer is hockey. It's basically soccer on ice. Everything should be faster on ice. Oh, and NASCAR is faster. But yeah. Cars. Also, "sport".
And then we get to the flopping. Yes, soccer players flop. But try to name a physical sport where flopping doesn't occur... Guess what? You can't. Basketball? Ever seen a guy try to draw a charge? "Oh, I got nudged so hard that I fell backwards straight onto my back! I was so stunned that my legs could not work!" Hockey? Please. Again, drawing fouls. Tripping means you have to flop around and fly into the boards. Hit from behind? Throw your face into the boards to draw a boarding penalty. High sticking? Throw your head back violently, then fall to the ice, grabbing your face and look for blood. Football? Less noticeable. Occasionally you'll find someone fall on purpose trying to draw pass interference. But what happens a lot are fake injuries, especially in college. If a team is faster, especially if your team is on defense, don't be afraid to stay on the ground after the play is over. You'll get an injury timeout and your defense can rest. (This "strategy" has been used against the Saints a few times.) Your penalty? Well, the injured player has to sit out a play. All that means is that your star players can't be faking injuries. But your dime-back? Sure, why not. He's barely even on the team anyways. He might as well do something useful. The only thing soccer players are guilty of is being bad actors. That has always bothered me. Did your foot get stepped on? Fall down and grab your knee. Did someone bump you off the ball? Fall down and grab your knee. Did someone say inappropriate things about your family? Headbutt them and watch as they fall down and grab their knee. Did someone kick you in the groin? Fall down and cry, because that probably hurt a lot. Just like most sports, it's just done to draw fouls. The most dangerous position in soccer is a set-piece. Just like in basketball, the most dangerous position is, umm... having the ball in your hands. Just like how in hockey, the most dangerous position is being on the power play. (Unless you're the Boston Bruins.)
So say what you want about soccer. But it's really just like any other sport. You want to know the real reason America hates soccer? ESPN. ESPN refuses to show many soccer games. Sure, they show a few MLS games. But let's face it, MLS sucks. I want to see more Premier League, more Champions League, more La Liga, More Serie A. A lot of people get excited about the World Cup. You want to know why? Because for some reason, ESPN loves the World Cup. They will talk about it for hours and show every game they can. I'm glad they do, but they're missing out on some exciting European soccer games. People are pretty dumb. ESPN is a huge source for Americans who love sports. People will like and watch whatever ESPN says they should like and watch. Heck, even Texas Hold'em got big because of ESPN. They are solely responsible for the huge poker craze over the last decade. So get a clue, ESPN. Play more soccer games. And not that crappy MLS. The real leagues. Then Americans will start embracing soccer. It will take some time, but do what you do with all of the "American sports". Shove it down everyone's throats and they will learn to love it like the rest of the world.
The other group of you reading this are probably saying something like: "It's football not soccer, you ignorant American." Look, I grew up calling it soccer. Just like I drive a car that has gas in it. It has a hood and a trunk. Petrol, boot, bonnet, flat? It all hurts my head it's so British. Basically what I'm saying is, I speak Americanese. It's some sort of mix between English and words some people made up a couple hundred years ago. But I'm seriously digressing... (This is how my brain works. Some kind of weird ADD or something.)
At any rate, soccer. Why the hatred in the US? Well, here's what most haters would say... They would say that it's too low scoring, too slow paced, and the players are a bunch of floppers. To be fair, the 3rd part is right on the ball (heh). But let's address the first two.
Too low scoring. This excuse comes from the people who want to see homeruns blasted out of the stadium every at bat in baseball. They want to see a 7 foot tall monster jump and dunk the ball as hard as possible, preferably while running a couple people over. These people cheer at a huge check in hockey, even when the result is a breakaway for the other team. These people do not appreciate sport. They just want to see huge people do ridiculous things. In my opinion, these people should just stick to watching professional wrestling. A real athlete requires not only strength, but also finesse. Who's a better baseball player? Ichiro Suzuki or Adam Dunn? If you said Adam Dunn, stop reading now. My words are way too truthful and right for you to be reading them with your stupid opinions overshadowing them. Seriously, I'll wait for you to leave. Alt+F4 if you need some help (and are using a Windows machine).
But honestly, being low scoring is a good thing! When it's down to the final couple minutes, there's nothing better than seeing a team down by 1 goal, trying their hardest to tie it up. Or a tie game, where one team HAS to win to move on in a tournament. Did you watch when Landon Donovan scored the game winner for USA in the World Cup Group Stage? If not, you missed one of the most exciting moments in sports history!
Here's the goal
Here's the reaction by fans all over the world
How exciting is it when a basketball team is up by 20 with a few minutes left? Or when a football team is up by 17 with 2 minutes left? Sure, that's not always the case with those sports. Buzzer-beaters are great in basketball. But exciting end-game scenarios with those sports are pretty rare. Most games in soccer are within reach when the second half goes into extra time.
And how about slow-paced. I guess I can sort of see how soccer can be slow paced at times. Finesse isn't something you just do instantaneously. You have to wait for the right opportunity. Just like how Ichiro waits for his pitch. Oh, speaking of baseball, if you say soccer is slow paced and watch baseball games everyday, you can leave, too. Your argument is immediately invalid. The same thing for football. Sure, there's more action when a play is happening. But then it stops and everyone stands around for a minute or longer if a commercial break is needed. Honestly, the only major sport I would consider faster paced than soccer is hockey. It's basically soccer on ice. Everything should be faster on ice. Oh, and NASCAR is faster. But yeah. Cars. Also, "sport".
And then we get to the flopping. Yes, soccer players flop. But try to name a physical sport where flopping doesn't occur... Guess what? You can't. Basketball? Ever seen a guy try to draw a charge? "Oh, I got nudged so hard that I fell backwards straight onto my back! I was so stunned that my legs could not work!" Hockey? Please. Again, drawing fouls. Tripping means you have to flop around and fly into the boards. Hit from behind? Throw your face into the boards to draw a boarding penalty. High sticking? Throw your head back violently, then fall to the ice, grabbing your face and look for blood. Football? Less noticeable. Occasionally you'll find someone fall on purpose trying to draw pass interference. But what happens a lot are fake injuries, especially in college. If a team is faster, especially if your team is on defense, don't be afraid to stay on the ground after the play is over. You'll get an injury timeout and your defense can rest. (This "strategy" has been used against the Saints a few times.) Your penalty? Well, the injured player has to sit out a play. All that means is that your star players can't be faking injuries. But your dime-back? Sure, why not. He's barely even on the team anyways. He might as well do something useful. The only thing soccer players are guilty of is being bad actors. That has always bothered me. Did your foot get stepped on? Fall down and grab your knee. Did someone bump you off the ball? Fall down and grab your knee. Did someone say inappropriate things about your family? Headbutt them and watch as they fall down and grab their knee. Did someone kick you in the groin? Fall down and cry, because that probably hurt a lot. Just like most sports, it's just done to draw fouls. The most dangerous position in soccer is a set-piece. Just like in basketball, the most dangerous position is, umm... having the ball in your hands. Just like how in hockey, the most dangerous position is being on the power play. (Unless you're the Boston Bruins.)
So say what you want about soccer. But it's really just like any other sport. You want to know the real reason America hates soccer? ESPN. ESPN refuses to show many soccer games. Sure, they show a few MLS games. But let's face it, MLS sucks. I want to see more Premier League, more Champions League, more La Liga, More Serie A. A lot of people get excited about the World Cup. You want to know why? Because for some reason, ESPN loves the World Cup. They will talk about it for hours and show every game they can. I'm glad they do, but they're missing out on some exciting European soccer games. People are pretty dumb. ESPN is a huge source for Americans who love sports. People will like and watch whatever ESPN says they should like and watch. Heck, even Texas Hold'em got big because of ESPN. They are solely responsible for the huge poker craze over the last decade. So get a clue, ESPN. Play more soccer games. And not that crappy MLS. The real leagues. Then Americans will start embracing soccer. It will take some time, but do what you do with all of the "American sports". Shove it down everyone's throats and they will learn to love it like the rest of the world.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Bowling? Golf? Cheerleading? What constitutes a "sport" anyways?
People argue about this all the time. What's a sport? In high school, kids always made fun of cheerleading. The cheerleaders would all say how it's a sport... The guys would laugh hysterically... In my opinion, cheerleading was only a sport when they were in competitions. Jumping around and chanting "Go School!" didn't really seem like a sport. But if they were doing complex maneuvers and competing against other teams, I could see counting that as a sport. But that's just my opinion. Is it really a sport?
And don't get me started on ESPN. I could write an entire article on how I love and hate ESPN. But some of the things they show on there shouldn't be considered sports. Cheerleading, Poker, Bowling, Fishing, Golf, that weird "sport" where people saw wood... Then it gets even worse with the National Spelling Bee, Scrabble championships, and even Chess sometimes. I've even seen paintball matches. We're getting closer and closer to needing ESPN The Ocho.
But what is a sport? Well, dictionary.com defines it as:
And don't get me started on ESPN. I could write an entire article on how I love and hate ESPN. But some of the things they show on there shouldn't be considered sports. Cheerleading, Poker, Bowling, Fishing, Golf, that weird "sport" where people saw wood... Then it gets even worse with the National Spelling Bee, Scrabble championships, and even Chess sometimes. I've even seen paintball matches. We're getting closer and closer to needing ESPN The Ocho.
But what is a sport? Well, dictionary.com defines it as:
"1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc."
Now, according to this, physical prowess isn't necessary for something to be a sport. It just has to be an athletic activity that requires skill and is competitive. But wait, they then go on to say racing, bowling, hunting, and fishing are all sports. Those are athletic? I don't feel like you need to be athletic to do any of those. And that's saying a lot from me. I love bowling. It's always been a borderline sport to me... But I bowled a lot, got pretty good at it, and generally had fun doing it. I didn't really care if people called it a sport. That definition didn't really seem to make sense, given the examples they had...
Let's try wikipedia...
"A sport is an organized, competitive, entertaining, and skillful activity requiring commitment, strategy, and fair play, in which a winner can be defined by objective means. Generally speaking, a sport is a game based in physical athleticism. Activities such as board games and card games are sometimes classified as "mind sports," but strictly speaking "sport" by itself refers to some physical activity. Non-competitive activities may also qualify, for example though jogging or playing catch are usually classified as forms of recreation, they may also be informally called "sports" due to their similarity to competitive games."
Now that sounds like a good definition. "Physical athleticism". On a side note: who the hell calls jogging (or yogging. I think the 'j' might be silent.) a sport?
At any rate, Wikipedia knows all. And if they say a sport needs physical athleticism, so be it. Goodbye poker. You are not a sport. Neither is chess... Except for chess boxing. Now THAT'S a sport. One that I actually want to try one of these days.
Cheerleading's out if the winner has to be determined by objective means. Same with figure skating, gymnastics, diving, and most "extreme sports". So the things that women are good at and men who want to pretend they are still kids are good at aren't sports. Good to know. Wikipedia tries to turn this around and say that even though they are judged sports, the criteria is so precise that they are still sports. Stop contradicting yourself, Wikipedia. It's as if more than 1 person wrote the article. I'm sticking with your original definition. You were just trying to be nice to people who compete in those events.
But wait, physical athleticism? What about bowling, fishing, etc... You need to physically be able to do something well in order to do those things, and they have a scoring system where a winner is determined by objective means... It sounds like these are now sports.
My conclusion: Sports have to have something physical and have an objective way of scoring. No cheerleading, figure skating, poker, or anything like that. However, golf, bowling, darts, billiards, polo, fishing, hunting, and the like are all sports. Fat people everywhere rejoice. You can be athletes, too.(And not just offensive linemen in football.)
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Cheating. It's all fun and games until you get caught... And for many, it's still fun and games afterward.
Cheating in sports is pretty much mandatory these days. And why not cheat? Most fans either forget that a player or team cheated... Or they forgive them.
Look at the New England Patriots. They blatantly cheated. (How do I reeeeach these kiiiiiids...) I guarantee you that 15 years down the road, very few people will even remember that they did. They were not stripped of their Super Bowl titles. In fact, minor fines and a lost draft pick were the only punishment. But how much of a punishment is a fine anyways? Sure, technically the league fined them the highest amount they could. But in reality, that's nothing. The team makes millions and millions of dollars a year. That fine is chump change to them. And what about all of the new bandwagon fans that are now buying tickets, jerseys, hats, and other memorabilia. And as for the draft pick? Does it really hurt a team that is cheating? Any pro can do the job if you know what play has just been called. The Patriots just laughed, shrugged it all off, and continued as if nothing happened.
Then there are the individual cheaters. Now, there is a slight hitch to being a cheater as an individual. It is NOT okay to cheat by yourself....... unless you confess. Then it's cool. "Sorry. I took HGH. It was a mistake." That's okay, Jason Giambi, after a suspension, come back and everyone will welcome you with open arms. Applause all around! Look how brave he was to admit he cheated! Please, continue playing! Even though you are still huge from all of the time you took the banned substance! That's okay!
The major problem with this is that there is very little punishment. With this comes accusations. How many people are 100% sure Ken Griffey Jr didn't take steroids? I'm guessing not many. Or what about Albert Pujols? Most people would believe that neither of them ever took a banned substance, but how many are 100% sure? I know neither of them have been accused. But because the punishment is so small and so many people before them have taken these substances, you can't help but wonder.
In my opinion, the punishment should be MUCH stricter, especially in baseball. 1st time offense? 162 game suspension. If you are caught even once, you are no longer eligible for the Hall of Fame. 2nd time? Banned for life. Also, any team you were on that won the World Series with you on their roster forfeits that season. Large fines will also be given. Not only would the suspension be without pay, but they would have to pay the league an amount equal to half of their salary, which would be donated to a charity of their choice. These guys are getting off WAY too easy. Lay down the law, commissioners! It's your job! And it's the only way to make sports fair again!
Look at the New England Patriots. They blatantly cheated. (How do I reeeeach these kiiiiiids...) I guarantee you that 15 years down the road, very few people will even remember that they did. They were not stripped of their Super Bowl titles. In fact, minor fines and a lost draft pick were the only punishment. But how much of a punishment is a fine anyways? Sure, technically the league fined them the highest amount they could. But in reality, that's nothing. The team makes millions and millions of dollars a year. That fine is chump change to them. And what about all of the new bandwagon fans that are now buying tickets, jerseys, hats, and other memorabilia. And as for the draft pick? Does it really hurt a team that is cheating? Any pro can do the job if you know what play has just been called. The Patriots just laughed, shrugged it all off, and continued as if nothing happened.
Then there are the individual cheaters. Now, there is a slight hitch to being a cheater as an individual. It is NOT okay to cheat by yourself....... unless you confess. Then it's cool. "Sorry. I took HGH. It was a mistake." That's okay, Jason Giambi, after a suspension, come back and everyone will welcome you with open arms. Applause all around! Look how brave he was to admit he cheated! Please, continue playing! Even though you are still huge from all of the time you took the banned substance! That's okay!
The major problem with this is that there is very little punishment. With this comes accusations. How many people are 100% sure Ken Griffey Jr didn't take steroids? I'm guessing not many. Or what about Albert Pujols? Most people would believe that neither of them ever took a banned substance, but how many are 100% sure? I know neither of them have been accused. But because the punishment is so small and so many people before them have taken these substances, you can't help but wonder.
In my opinion, the punishment should be MUCH stricter, especially in baseball. 1st time offense? 162 game suspension. If you are caught even once, you are no longer eligible for the Hall of Fame. 2nd time? Banned for life. Also, any team you were on that won the World Series with you on their roster forfeits that season. Large fines will also be given. Not only would the suspension be without pay, but they would have to pay the league an amount equal to half of their salary, which would be donated to a charity of their choice. These guys are getting off WAY too easy. Lay down the law, commissioners! It's your job! And it's the only way to make sports fair again!
Monday, April 11, 2011
The NBA. Where all of the richest athletes with the least talent go.
I can't watch the NBA. Seriously. Don't get me wrong, you do have to have some talent to play in the NBA. That is definitely true. Unfortunately, that talent is given to you at birth. Are you really tall? Great. Can you shoot a basketball? No? Well, you can learn how to do that. Or, you can just push people out of your way and dunk every time.
Case in point: Shaq. This guy is ancient at this point and still has a job in the NBA. The guy can barely walk down the court, but teams still want this guy on their team. Why? Well, partly because people like him and he probably makes the team a decent amount in jersey sales... But also because he's massive. All he has to do is stand in the way on defense and dunk on offense. No one can do anything except avoid him and hope he misses layups. (You can also foul him and laugh as he tries to shoot free-throws. But you can only do that so many times before you pile up fouls.)
Do some of these guys have a good amount of talent? Sure. Guards generally need talent in order to do anything because they are significantly smaller and can't just push people around. They have to have a great jump-shot and good ball-handling skills to get around defenders or make good passes.
The worst part, however, is that the most popular players are the ones with the least talent. If I asked basketball fans who their top 10 players of all time were, they'd probably answer with 9 big dudes who push people around and Michael Jordan. (Although even he pushed people around a lot... But I would never say that MJ didn't have a lot of talent. Anyone who thinks that should be shot immediately for believing in something so ludicrous.) You think John Stockton would be on that list for most people? Maybe for some people... But he was probably one of the most talented ever to play the game. I guess Allen Iverson might make the list for some people... But a lot of people would pick Shaq, LeBron, Kobe, Chamberlain, Russell, Pippin, Malone, Abdul-Jabbar, Dr. J, etc. Again, these guys aren't talentless... But it seems the biggest reason they're "talented" is because they are huge.
Who's getting all of the spotlight this year, despite being on a horrible team? Blake Griffin. Fun to watch? Sure. Talented? Meh. He's big and can jump really high. I wouldn't call that extremely talented, just athletic.
For all of the NBA fans out there, try to guess the top 10 3-point shooters of all time. I know this is really an opinion, but let's just see how many of the most talented players people know... I'll wait...
Keep in mind the 3-point line didn't exist until the 79-80 season...
Ready? Alright, here's a list compiled by BleacherReport.com:
10- Eddie Jones
9- Glen Rice
8- Jason Terry
7- Rashard Lewis
6- Chauncey Billups
5- Peja Stojakovic
4- Dale Ellis
3- Jason Kidd
2- Reggie Miller
1- Ray Allen
How many did you get? Probably 2-4 for the average fan. Maybe 6 or 7 for the hardcore NBA fans, right?
Now, I will admit a couple of those guys were 3-point specialists, but even so, they all gathered minimal fame compared to the likes of the list of big guys I mentioned earlier. Certainly Ray Allen and Reggie Miller are fan favorites. Kidd gets a decent amount of fame as well. But the others? I'm sure their names are recognizable, but considering how good they were, they certainly are underrated.
Yes, your height and weight matters in most physical sports. But this is 90% of the NBA. Huge freaks that push each other around. I simply can't watch it. It's boring. I would rather watch tennis.
Case in point: Shaq. This guy is ancient at this point and still has a job in the NBA. The guy can barely walk down the court, but teams still want this guy on their team. Why? Well, partly because people like him and he probably makes the team a decent amount in jersey sales... But also because he's massive. All he has to do is stand in the way on defense and dunk on offense. No one can do anything except avoid him and hope he misses layups. (You can also foul him and laugh as he tries to shoot free-throws. But you can only do that so many times before you pile up fouls.)
Do some of these guys have a good amount of talent? Sure. Guards generally need talent in order to do anything because they are significantly smaller and can't just push people around. They have to have a great jump-shot and good ball-handling skills to get around defenders or make good passes.
The worst part, however, is that the most popular players are the ones with the least talent. If I asked basketball fans who their top 10 players of all time were, they'd probably answer with 9 big dudes who push people around and Michael Jordan. (Although even he pushed people around a lot... But I would never say that MJ didn't have a lot of talent. Anyone who thinks that should be shot immediately for believing in something so ludicrous.) You think John Stockton would be on that list for most people? Maybe for some people... But he was probably one of the most talented ever to play the game. I guess Allen Iverson might make the list for some people... But a lot of people would pick Shaq, LeBron, Kobe, Chamberlain, Russell, Pippin, Malone, Abdul-Jabbar, Dr. J, etc. Again, these guys aren't talentless... But it seems the biggest reason they're "talented" is because they are huge.
Who's getting all of the spotlight this year, despite being on a horrible team? Blake Griffin. Fun to watch? Sure. Talented? Meh. He's big and can jump really high. I wouldn't call that extremely talented, just athletic.
For all of the NBA fans out there, try to guess the top 10 3-point shooters of all time. I know this is really an opinion, but let's just see how many of the most talented players people know... I'll wait...
Keep in mind the 3-point line didn't exist until the 79-80 season...
Ready? Alright, here's a list compiled by BleacherReport.com:
10- Eddie Jones
9- Glen Rice
8- Jason Terry
7- Rashard Lewis
6- Chauncey Billups
5- Peja Stojakovic
4- Dale Ellis
3- Jason Kidd
2- Reggie Miller
1- Ray Allen
How many did you get? Probably 2-4 for the average fan. Maybe 6 or 7 for the hardcore NBA fans, right?
Now, I will admit a couple of those guys were 3-point specialists, but even so, they all gathered minimal fame compared to the likes of the list of big guys I mentioned earlier. Certainly Ray Allen and Reggie Miller are fan favorites. Kidd gets a decent amount of fame as well. But the others? I'm sure their names are recognizable, but considering how good they were, they certainly are underrated.
Yes, your height and weight matters in most physical sports. But this is 90% of the NBA. Huge freaks that push each other around. I simply can't watch it. It's boring. I would rather watch tennis.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Speaking of other sports...
You know, I read a significant amount about sports daily. I am such a fan of sports that I recently decided to reach out and try to get into other sports that I previously would have little interest in.
Seeing as how the 2011 Cricket World Cup just finished recently, I thought I'd try to give it a chance. And I've got to say, I don't get it. Seriously. Look, I understand that it is incredibly popular around the world. I guess you can thank ESPN for the American disinterest in such a sport. Now, I understand the disinterest in some sports for Americans. We Americans (stereotypically, of course) need a lot of excitement. Soccer doesn't do it because it's "too low scoring". Well, cricket certainly takes the opposite route here. The final score of the final game was India 277/4-Sri Lanka 274/6. First of all, that's a lot of points, or runs, or wickets, or whatever the general term is for scoring. Second of all, what?
So, seeing as how the score alone confused me, I thought I would try to learn some more about the rules and scoring. It may seem ridiculous at first glance, but I should at least give this cricket thing a chance.
So, I looked around online. Wikipedia, Google, YouTube... The usual suspects. And let me tell you... After a few hours of watching and reading, I understand one thing about cricket... I still don't get it. It's like some weird combination of baseball and milk-bottle toppling at the carnival, except sometimes you can cheat and just knock over the milk bottles with your hands.
In all honesty, I've gotten a the main points down... I think. 2 batters are up at once, but only 1 batter hits at a time. The "bowler" (or in baseball terms, pitcher) throws (or bowls, whatever) the ball towards the batter who is hitting. The bowler is attempting to get the ball passed the batter and hit the wickets behind him. The batter is trying to hit the ball into play. If he does, the 2 batters run to the other side. If they make it before the other team gets the ball back to the middle of the field and hits a wicket, that team scores a point. They can continue to run back and forth if they so choose, but are risking being put out.
That's about all I get. I keep hearing how there are 2 different styles. One involves playing in a way that is similar to innings in a baseball game. The other can take multiple days to complete... Which makes me wonder how anyone can be a fan of that style. "Hey, I've got tickets to the game this Saturday... and maybe Sunday... and possibly until Wednesday... Want to go?"
Certainly the sport is interesting. It seems strange to me that a team's coach could be like "well, we're down to the end of the game, and we're down by 40, but there's still hope!" Also, how do fans get excited when their team scores? I find it hard enough in basketball to get excited about every basket, and they're only scoring up to 100 in most games. I feel like after the 200th point, my excitement level would drop off significantly. It seems more exciting to pay attention to the defense. It's one of the few games I have seen where the defense is more exciting, simply because scoring is too easy.
Regardless, I plan on watching a full game in the near future. Since I'm here in the good ol' United States, finding a game to watch isn't easy... But I'll get around to it. Expect a post in the future with my findings.
Seeing as how the 2011 Cricket World Cup just finished recently, I thought I'd try to give it a chance. And I've got to say, I don't get it. Seriously. Look, I understand that it is incredibly popular around the world. I guess you can thank ESPN for the American disinterest in such a sport. Now, I understand the disinterest in some sports for Americans. We Americans (stereotypically, of course) need a lot of excitement. Soccer doesn't do it because it's "too low scoring". Well, cricket certainly takes the opposite route here. The final score of the final game was India 277/4-Sri Lanka 274/6. First of all, that's a lot of points, or runs, or wickets, or whatever the general term is for scoring. Second of all, what?
So, seeing as how the score alone confused me, I thought I would try to learn some more about the rules and scoring. It may seem ridiculous at first glance, but I should at least give this cricket thing a chance.
So, I looked around online. Wikipedia, Google, YouTube... The usual suspects. And let me tell you... After a few hours of watching and reading, I understand one thing about cricket... I still don't get it. It's like some weird combination of baseball and milk-bottle toppling at the carnival, except sometimes you can cheat and just knock over the milk bottles with your hands.
In all honesty, I've gotten a the main points down... I think. 2 batters are up at once, but only 1 batter hits at a time. The "bowler" (or in baseball terms, pitcher) throws (or bowls, whatever) the ball towards the batter who is hitting. The bowler is attempting to get the ball passed the batter and hit the wickets behind him. The batter is trying to hit the ball into play. If he does, the 2 batters run to the other side. If they make it before the other team gets the ball back to the middle of the field and hits a wicket, that team scores a point. They can continue to run back and forth if they so choose, but are risking being put out.
That's about all I get. I keep hearing how there are 2 different styles. One involves playing in a way that is similar to innings in a baseball game. The other can take multiple days to complete... Which makes me wonder how anyone can be a fan of that style. "Hey, I've got tickets to the game this Saturday... and maybe Sunday... and possibly until Wednesday... Want to go?"
Certainly the sport is interesting. It seems strange to me that a team's coach could be like "well, we're down to the end of the game, and we're down by 40, but there's still hope!" Also, how do fans get excited when their team scores? I find it hard enough in basketball to get excited about every basket, and they're only scoring up to 100 in most games. I feel like after the 200th point, my excitement level would drop off significantly. It seems more exciting to pay attention to the defense. It's one of the few games I have seen where the defense is more exciting, simply because scoring is too easy.
Regardless, I plan on watching a full game in the near future. Since I'm here in the good ol' United States, finding a game to watch isn't easy... But I'll get around to it. Expect a post in the future with my findings.
Welcome
Welcome to Haaafs is a Bad Sport.
I am your blogger, Joe Haefele. Here, I will be ranting on the sports world. No sport is safe. While I'm sure my focus will be on the "big 4", expect many posts on other sports around the world as well.
Whether it's news, stats, or bashing analysts... This is where you'll find my opinion on everything sports related.
This will start as a bi-weekly blog, but I may expand in the future.
I am your blogger, Joe Haefele. Here, I will be ranting on the sports world. No sport is safe. While I'm sure my focus will be on the "big 4", expect many posts on other sports around the world as well.
Whether it's news, stats, or bashing analysts... This is where you'll find my opinion on everything sports related.
This will start as a bi-weekly blog, but I may expand in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)