NBA Mondays: The Killer Instinct

First, a preamble before I ramble. I don't like talking about myself on here, because I've noticed a familiar pattern befalls male sports bloggers who talk about their lives. At first, people respond in a favorable manner; that's partly because the sports blogger tells his most interesting stories first. Then, after some period of time, readers start competing with the writer, or they make fun of their quirks (i.e. Will's t-shirts, Matt's skin tone, BDD's weight, etc.). That's ok to a certain extent, but then readers start judging all of the writer's output by his personal anecdotes ("only a man who owns a cat would say that", or some other nonsense). Also, it's hard for a writer to stop writing about themselves once they start, and writers tend to be so oblivious to their personal biases. Besides, do you really want to know that I've watched more than one episode of the Miley and Mandy Show in my life, or that Tavis Smiley may be my favorite late night talk-show host? See? Really, you don't want to know more. Here's all you need to know about me; I am a former high school athlete, I tend to favor the underdog and/or minority because I often perceive myself as one, I'm a Christian, and I'm a fan of most Ohio teams. That outlines my main biases well enough so that you can be properly aware of them. However, I'll talk about myself briefly for this post.

Your NBA player random photos are of Zydrunas Ilguskas this time.


A few weeks ago, I was at the gym playing a game of pickup basketball. I was having an unusually good day, having hit 3 of 3 from behind the arc and having nutmeg'ed (sorry, soccer term) two of the other team's players. (The secret is to charge directly at the defender, then push the ball through their legs at the last possible moment and run past them to get the ball). I owed my success to our very good post player, who was drawing double-teams that allowed me to get open. (I also have a theory that my recent weight gain is acting as ballast, ha, allowing me to get better arc on my 3-balls). At the end of the game, I got the ball one last time behind the arc. However, as I prepared to shoot, a little voice said something like "3 of 3 is good enough for today" and I missed the shot! They rebounded my miss, went down and scored, and beat us by 11-9.



That's what the killer instinct is about to me; the ability to view things in an illogical, unbalanced manner on the court. Whether you are 7 of 8 or 1 of 8, you believe that you will make the next shot, and that you deserve the last call. It's also a state of unnatural focus. I lacked the killer instinct, and thus I was unable to maintain my basketball zone where I could not miss, and started to doubt.



Now, an interesting question when surveying the NBA teams is, which guys have the killer instinct? The fact is, you don't want your role players to have a true killer instinct, else they'll be taking the shot that your star should be taking. On the other hand, to be a role player in the NBA, you must have been a star somewhere. So you probably do have somewhat of a killer instinct.

Another interesting question is how one feels about teammates with killer instincts. There's a mercilessness and lack of grace that is strongly identified with the killer instinct. Look at how Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant would at times mercilessly heckle inferior players, to the point of ruining some talented teammates. Is that bad attitude worth the superior performance? I have to say, from the male athletes I have known, the better the player was, the bigger jerk the player was. Do you put up with the abuse in practice, or challenge them?



A final question is, do you really want a chaplain in basketball? I once sat down and tried to investigate for each sport whether you would want religious players or not. (This is highly sacriligious and nonsensical, FYI). I decided that baseball should defintely have chaplains; baseball requires a lot of patience and perseverance, which are definitely religious traits. Even football seems to benefit from religion; the top-down nature of religion meshes well with the top-down nature of football, where many sacrifice without crowds knowing their names. I don't know if I'd want my defenders to be religious, but on the other hand a safety who knows the power of forgiveness is less likely to fret over being burned on a play and thus lose his confidence. But what about basketball? The game is so creative and quick that I don't see a natural connection to religious traits. Could a major star be religious and still keep that killer instinct? After all, much of the killer instinct relies on a certain level of arrogance and confidence that seems mutually exclusive with religion.

Jesus Plays Sports: New York Times Strikes Out

I've already voiced my displeasure with the New York Times for their over-coverage of Ashley Alexandra Dupre. They made an anonymous woman into a minor celebrity, somewhat against her will (although I'm sure she'll profit down the road in some way), and turned what was a governor's scandal into a promotional vehicle for a prostitute. But I recently was made aware of more poor coverage from the New York Times. It is disappointing, because I used to be a voracious reader of the NYT; but I can't put up with UnCerebral Bias.

Warning: the following material contains Christian bias! I always try to be clear when my demographic details or core beliefs may shade my coverage of a story. I of course have done my best to look at the story fairly, but if you object to this perspective, this is your signal to quietly X this blog post and go elsewhere. On the other hand, it's Good Friday, so you should be able to tolerate it today (if ever), right?

Murray Chass tries his best to portray "Faith Nights" in baseball as an underhanded evangelism tool. He uses the provocative title that "Is a Night Devoted to Faith Really About the Money?", and I'm sure he was hoping to find a right-wing, crazy-Christian plot to save the dirty souls of baseball fans across America. But his story fails to answer his own question! There are no surprise testimonies, no hawking of literature in the stands, and no compulsory attendance. John Smoltz doesn't pause before pitching the top of the 5th to announce "I still am going to pitch, but first, let me give you my Christian testimony for an hour and ask you to repent!". The T-shirt guns don't send "Jesus-Wis-Er" knock-off shirts into the stands, and the cheerleaders and ball girls aren't replaced by nuns. Despite the absence of a smoking gun piece of evidence, Chass slurs Faith Nights with weak analogies and high-minded quotes about separating church and baseball. It's a shame the Times let him use them as a platform.

I've been to one of those Faith Nights before. You wait 30 minutes after the game is done for it to start. Trust me, no one is still there who doesn't want to be there, unless perhaps someone is so drunk that they're still sleeping it off in their seats 30 minutes after the game. I would cheerfully submit that even Murray might concede that a "Faith Night" might do such a degenerate some good.

Perhaps I haven't proved my point well enough. Let's take a quote from the end of the article:

Why should teams be in the business of promoting any particular religion?
Some clubs, like the Mets, hold heritage nights: black history, Latino, Irish, Jewish, Polish. But those are ethnic celebrations, not religion based.
“It’s just a way for a team to reach people in another way,” High said, meaning a different way of luring fans.
The idea has caught on in baseball because clubs want to sell tickets. That’s why Major League Baseball will never halt faith nights. Anything for a few dollars more. But it has no place in baseball. Baseball crowds are made up of people of all faiths and no faith. No segment should be singled out.

Do you see how he contradicts himself? First, he disproves his own title, by saying that MLB IS in it only for the money. Second, he makes an argument that no segment should be singled out...while admitting that there are plenty of promotions to target ethnicities (and gender). How are those not exclusionary? Would Mr. Chass be brave enough to show some consistency, and object to Hispanic Night, Family Night, or Pride Night? How non-hispanic, single, or non-homosexual people might feel singled out or ignored on such nights? No, of course not, because that would sound like bigotry. Hmm...so why didn't this piece sound like bigotry to the Times' editors? Consistent standards is all I ask for, seriously. (That's why I'm not sure I agree completely with the Mark Cuban boycottsuggested by esteemed colleague Jordi Scrubbings; at least Mark is being consistent, although he is acting unfairly in my opinion).

If fans were subjected to a bait-and-switch; if they were showing up to what they thought were a baseball game, only to be held hostage to listen to a sermon--I would object. True belief can't grow from coercion. But Faith Nights are labeled as such, and no faith content is occurring during the games itself. If some fans are so threatened by Faith Nights, then they can avoid that 1 out of 81 games, right?

NBA Mondays: The Barkley Video

Bryan and I dissected our feelings on the Barkley video where he criticizes Christians over at prayersforblowouts.com. As I usually do on here when I employ demographic bias, I'm warning? notifying? you that we're both Christians and thus our commentary will be biased in that way.

My suspense-filled move to another site will not happen this week. KSK rejected my idea for a storyline around "Eddie the Happy Referee's Neighborhood." Apparently they don't have an opening for NFL fiction aimed at children--who knew?! Sigh. Don't they know how long it took me to photoshop black stripes onto the white T-shirt for the illustrations?! Heartless, I tell you, heartless.

Hmm, drag out the suspense for the one reader that cares (thanks, Google Search Robot!) or stop stringing my readers along? Let's just say that the move is currently cryogenically frozen, but could begin wiggling again in the near future. It's alive! Besides, it's fun pretending (?!) to be a pathetic blogger attempting to leech on to various web-sites and being rejected. Whose site should I hypothetically attempt to latch on to next?

Eh, I may give myself the week off from blogging. But if any video can buy your temporary forgiveness (or sharpen your thankfulness for my absence, whichever), this NBA video can. It's Reggie Miller, Chuck Person, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and many more on NBA "Freedom of Speech"--also known as trash talking. Anyone know where the original is from?



UPDATE: The Money Shot gives the Miami Heat a well-deserved tongue lashing(obscene language warning).

Nike, Lebron James, and Jesus: An Unholy Trinity?

Some of you may remember Lebron James' first big Nike ad, where he shows off his basketball skills in a setting that looks like a typical black church:

When I saw this commercial, I was a little troubled by Nike's borrowing of the black church to use as a symbol to sell shoes. That clapping, dancing, and standing up isn't a song-and-dance routine; it's how many black Christians express their love and devotion to Jesus. On one level, it could be seen as Nike telling young black Christians to shift their allegiances to Lebron. However, I figured I was reading too much into the commercial, and moved on.

Next came the Witness commercial with the tagline "We are all witnesses".

Where does that tagline come from, you might ask? It's a near-direct quote from Acts 3 of the Bible, which refers to the disciples being witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

You might argue that that's a mere coincidence...but note the end of the commercial above. It says "Believe at nike.com." Why did they choose the word "believe"? Why not "watch" or "enjoy"? This once again represents a deliberate attempt by Nike to associate Lebron James with Christian imagery. In this case, they are essentially equating Lebron James to be the equal of Jesus Christ. Far out, isn't it? Too crazy to be true! I once again thought I was over-reacting, though. It had to be coincidence, right? But wait, this is the second time Nike has done something like this...

Then, I received my latest copy of SLAM magazine, with a cover story on Lebron James. Inside the magazine's front cover was this ad:

That thought is the exact opposite of Matthew 7:7-8, in which Jesus encourages his followers that he is a generous God who will provide for them. It reads as follows

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

No longer content with treading on the edge of blasphemy to sell shoes and worship the almighty dollar, Nike kicks the church door down with this ad. The first time it's funny, the second time it's creepy, the third time it shows a deep lack of respect for both religion and the customer. It's clear to me that the Nike corporation will steal any religious or racial imagery that could help them sell a few more pairs of shoes. Doubt me? Then take a look at the Nike ad that got banned in China for showing Lebron overcoming Chinese symbols and gods:

Nike is no longer marketing Lebron as an athlete, or even a role model. They are marketing Lebron as a god stronger than your cultural gods, whether they be Jesus or Confucius. I would be upset at this god marketing, but I don't think that Jesus is worrying about the competition's strength until Lebron can muster enough moral authority to sign a petition on Darfur. But that's just me.

Add this latest offense to what Nike's already done in stealing principles from feminism and using images of pit bulls to sell shoes, and there's plenty of reasons for people of any belief system to buy Reebok or Adidas. I have a feeling such an action would be the only ritual or belief that Nike will respect.

Jesus Plays Sports: David Tyree, Eli Manning, and More

I love how David Tyree comes across in this video. He's rather humble about the whole thing. I appreciate as well how Eli is willing to admit that it wasn't his best throw. After seeing Strahan's "stomp" comment on video, I wasn't so pleased with Giant sportsmanship.

And what the guy says in the end is worth listening to as well. It wasn't that the Giants won because Tyree was such a great Christian; many Patriots are also believers. No, it's about doing your best, and then still acknowledging God, win or lose. Take a look:

Night of TV + Kelly Tilghman and "That Word"

Wow, what a night of TV on Sunday! I was yelling at the TV half the night--couldn't believe what I was seeing. Hey, it's not every day that you see that on TV! I couldn't stop cheering and yelling out "Talk British to me, baby" and "Say something I don't understand! Then say it again! And purse those perky lips while you're doing it, and adjust your petticoat!" I mean, a Jane Austen adaptation I've never seen before, with an attractive actress playing the part of Catherine Morland? Northanger Abbey was on PBS, and Felicity Jones did not make me angry one bit! Oh, the football games were all right too.

Ha-ha, I've always wanted to pull a dumb routine like that on this blog. Anyway, on to more relevant topics. Recently, bloggers such as D-Wil , Michael David Smith, Awful Announcing, and The Starting Five have been covering the Kelly Tilghman story and aftermath as a serious incident. However, other bloggers and writers are brushing off Kelly Tilghman's use of lynching to refer to how the other players could stop Tiger Woods. (For an amusing parody on such efforts, see here--highly recommended!). They are referring to it as a mere slip of the tongue, an understandable lapse given how long commentators must opine on live TV. However, what bothers me is that I think we may have gotten a glance at Kelly Tilghman's heart, what she really thinks. And no, this is not an effort to pile on a woman who already has received her punishment and criticism. The reason is I have a Kelly-esque story of my own about a slip of the tongue.

It was my sophomore year at a small, mostly white high school (35 kids in grades 9-12), and I was on the basketball team. That is, they let me wear a uniform because they had no other players; don't think I was any good. We were a suburban school, and we went into the inner city to play an all-black Christian school. They were taller and more athletic than us, but we had a secret weapon that we did not fully appreciate until that night. Our 5'7" senior shooting guard, Ricky, who had ridiculous hops (could 360 dunk a volleyball) and a quick first step, decided to try to save our season. He went head-to-head with their athletes, scoring 30+ despite being double-teamed often, and we only lost by 4. Moral victories do exist. We won our next 15? games in a row after that loss.

Anyway, in the locker room after the game, one of my fellow bench scrubs and I were conversing in awed tones about the athleticism of the black players and the boisterous nature of their fans. He said something like "Wow, those guys looked tough and mean--it was a good thing Ricky was on tonight!" I said back "Yeah, I was kind of scared they'd pull a gun on us on the way back to the locker room!" Suddenly, our only black player, a freshman, spoke up. He said "You mean you thought they'd pull a gun because they were black, don't you?" I tried to stammer out that since it was in the middle of the inner city, I thought there would be tough people there, but he gave me a look. He said something else to correct me (I can't recall what, it was a while ago), and let it go.

You know what? My heart's thoughts were revealed when I said that. Why didn't I just say "beat us up" instead of "pull a gun"? Why did I go the extra mile and say something that made no sense in context with the situation? I said it because in my heart, there was an equation that said tall muscular black people + inner city = gang members. And when the left side of the equation came up in conversation, I spoke up and revealed the right side of that heart equation.

The saddest part was, I was completely wrong in this case. That team was one of the classiest teams we played all year, and they made sure to praise our shooting guard after the game for his amazing performance. But I was too busy thinking about size and skin color and the inner city to see the truth. Ironically, later in the year, a scary, violent incident did happen after a game. We walked out of the locker room to see a fan putting one of our star players in a choke hold. Of course (you can't make this stuff up), the fan was a white country boy. So much for me being able to determine the real threats to our team...

My point in telling this lengthy story? It's not about slips of the tongue. It's about a person's heart being revealed. My concern is that what Kelly said revealed a little piece of her heart. It's not that she herself would ever consider lynching a black man, any more than teenage me would ever consider exchanging gun fire with black gangsters. It's that she has been in situations and environments where biased words were said about black people, and she let those concepts get into her heart without questioning the speakers or the ideas. The Golf Channel was right to suspend her for a little while.

I don't want her fired. Lord knows that there's plenty of hate and wrong thinking in all of our hearts, so why should she suffer because hers was on TV? But for the last time, this issue isn't about "sensitivity" or "Sharpton" or "slip of the tongue"; it's about our souls and the sadness and sin that resides within each of us. We don't just need greater racial sensitivity, although that would be a nice start. We need a true soul-cleansing, one and all. I'd say more, but I don't preach without taking an offering, ha, so I'll let it go for now.

For you brave souls who read this far, a treat; watch Mehmet Okur play the old "I'm tired and I need to wipe sweat off my face...AFTER I DUNK ON YOU!" trick. I love playing this trick myself in pick-up ball...only, it's more like a lay-up, and I trip over my own shoes while trying to convert. But other than that, exactly the same!

Sex in the NBA: Dwight Howard's Sex Dunk Nets 1 Baby

The news that Dwight Howard is having a baby with a woman he's not married to just came out. See it here. Based on some links Stopmikelupica sent me, there's much more to say about sex (and celibacy) in the NBA; it's time for a mini-series! Now, in Dwight's slight defense, apparently they were together for a few years (see the girlfriend's myspace for details), but are now broken up.

But for right now, I'm going to stick to the smallest of issues. This story allows me to finally feel comfortable about linking to one of my first blogs, on Myspace, about Dwight Howard. Deadspin.com did a story about how Dwight was hanging out with Mary, who is a famous actress in porn movies. It was played strictly for laughs, and Will was polite enough not to mention that Dwight made a lot of noise about his Christian faith when he first came into the league. However, there was much more to the story, as you'll see in the blog.

I do feel a little conflicted about linking to it, because it seems like kicking a man while he's down. I'm not saying that Dwight Howard is a hypocrite or not a Christian, but let's just say not everyone who says they are a Christian, is. And I'm definitely not saying I'm better than Dwight! What I am saying is, Dwight is losing his "benefit of the doubt" that he had with me. This is twice now that he's been involved in sexual chicanery (the myspace blog is about the first time). I don't ride the jock of every athlete who thanks God after a TD catch. I only want to support Christian athletes who are genuine Christians. The rest should get God's name out of their mouths if they don't really believe what they're saying. I certainly am not here to judge the status of Dwight Howard's relationship with God, and I'm not here to condemn him. I just want Dwight to make up his mind. Either he's on the Jesus train with the rest of us redeemed sinners, fighting to stay clean in a world gone wrong, or he's not. There's no halfway here.

Jesus Plays Sports: Death of Sean Taylor Coverage

I label posts "Jesus Plays Sports" when some of my analysis is from a Christian perspective. That way if you don't like that, you know and can skip the post.

By now every blogger has written their “It was wrong for Shapiro, Wilbon, etc. to judge Sean Taylor” column, and all I have to add is AGREED. (I apologize that I'm not linking to all of the excellent columns: Modi, fast becoming a personal blog fav, has a list at cosellout.com , and D-Wil is keeping the updates coming as well. Check Redskins fan blogger sites as well.) I have new details on it below, but let me quickly touch on something regarding the bad coverage. It was not bad coverage just because some people passed judgment on Sean. I do NOT think judging people is wrong. “Do not judge, lest you be judged” is a Bible passage quoted out of its context. If we never carefully considered a person’s actions and made decisions on them, nothing would ever get done in this world. We’d be in a paralysis of analysis, too fearful of offending to ever do anything.

No, I much prefer to quote Jesus’s other, lesser-quoted statement on judging: “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.” Judgment should be done, but only after a sincere, time-consuming attempt to get at the truth and go deeper than the surface. Sean Taylor, although extremely violent on the football field (as are, say, John Lynch, Warren Sapp, etc.), was never tied to instigating violence without cause off the football field. For that and other reasons below, Shapiro, Wilbon, etc., were wrong to judge him. But the very act of judging, itself, is not incorrect.

A few things that haven’t been noted yet in the coverage I read:
The kitchen knife left on the bed a week before the shooting has been seen as some sort of revenge warning. Wrong. If that were true, the assailants would have gunned down Sean’s family as well, so there would be no witnesses, and put an insurance bullet in his brain. What I am about to say is pure speculation, but I think it fits the facts fairly well and does not slander the dead or living. I suspect that the knife was there because the robbers found a safe in the bedroom, and tried to pry it open with the knife. Failing, they decided to return the next week with safe-opening tools to that very bedroom. However, what they didn’t bargain on was that the bed would not be empty, but instead have Sean Taylor in it.

Sean Taylor had a poor relationship with the media in DC, and that might be why his own hometown columnists were so hard on him. How poor? Let’s turn to Dan Steinberg’s past blogs (I use Dan because he hasn't been accused of being too hard or soft on Sean) on Sean Taylor:

Sean Taylor cancelled 4 scheduled press conferences in 6 days at training camp, and said he’d “never” speak to the media.


Sean Taylor made a habit of being unresponsive to the media or being rude. As Dan says when trying to get a quote from him, "Anyhow, I asked another scribe why no one was approaching Taylor, and he explained that people have pretty much given up. Sometimes you'll get a grunt in reply to a question, sometimes he'll merely walk past you and not speak."

Thus, the media tended to define him by the gun incident (scroll down, and yes Dan Steinberg is being light-hearted, just making a point about how little there was to say about Sean outside his hard hits and gun incident).

I hope the DC media didn't let this affect their coverage of his death, but I wonder.

Shot in your own home, in the middle of the night, surrounded by family, has to be a top 5 nightmare for many of us men. That's why so many of us took note of the death of a human being we had never met before. I understand Lozo's point that many people die daily and tragically (scroll down to Tuesday, November 27th). He made good points about celebrity worship. EDIT: I removed a part here if you came here earlier. END EDIT. In addition, it's of little consolation to the dead person exactly how they died; dead is dead. But for me personally, any sympathy is not about Taylor the football player. This is about Taylor, the man in his 20's, supposedly in the prime of life as many of us are, treated like a shooting target in his own home in front of his family. I don't live in Baghdad, trim trees, deliver pizza, or do any of the other things Lozo's death examples were doing, so I can't empathize as much. But I do go to my bed every night, pull the covers over my head, and hope that I wake up in the morning...and that's what Sean Taylor did last Sunday.

Jesus Plays Sports: When Christian Athletes Fail

So with the Rockies and Paul Byrd both having fallen on hard times lately, I thought I should squeeze off a quick post about that. I hate it when people only talk about their causes or favorite players when times are good, thus I respond.

First, the Rockies were swept in the World Series. I wrote about this team's unique relationship to Christianity here. Quite honestly, I'm not surprised they lost in the World Series. You know, some might argue that had the Rockies won, they could have been this great testimony to fans about the power of Christ, etc. But rarely do things work out that neatly for Christians. Look at Kurt Warner's up-and-down career as an example. No blessing of God is guaranteed for being a Christian athlete.

Warning: Christian speculation ahead!
My personal bias, which I don't think Christians or non-Christians may agree with, is that God has a way of being coy about his role in the affairs of men. That way, only people who really are looking for him will notice. For me as a Christian, a few times my team won or lost games, and I thought "Wow, that was ALMOST miraculous the way we won or lost, it felt like something different was in the air, etc." But you can't prove it to be truly miraculous on pure statistics alone; unlikely, yes, but miraculous, no. So you're just left wondering if God may have intervened or if you're making too much of nothing. I think that although sometimes God is obvious, more often he makes himself known, then retreats. It then becomes a matter of faith as to whether you believe he really exists or not.

Second, Paul Byrd. There's a temptation to defend Paul Byrd as just trying to compensate for a medical condition in a way that was legal at the time. After all, often people complain that Christian athletes aren't tough or competitive enough. There's nothing uncompetitive about the man who got into a heated confrontation with Bob Wickman last year because he felt Bob cost him a W.

However, I keep thinking that Christians should hold a higher standard in the competitive arena. After all, on the Sermon on the Mount Jesus talks about "If someone forces you to go with them one mile, go with them two" and talks about thinking about adultery and saying harsh words to a brother as being a sin. Other muscle-building substances were illegal at the time Paul Byrd injected HGH. It seems that Paul Byrd obeyed the law of MLB but disobeyed the spirit of the law. That doesn't seem quite right to me.

However, I'm saddened because Paul Byrd's book was going to talk about his struggles with porn, despite being a married athlete. To think that athletes, known for being wealthy and supposedly having all these women at their disposal, have problems with porn would be a new perspective for a lot of people. I think it would start some badly-needed conversations about the lure of virtual reality (VR) in general (video games, porn, Internet communities, TV, etc.). Many, many Americans are getting addicted to VR at the cost of everyday relationships and experiences. It's a problem we need to seriously confront as a society and as individuals. Now, though, there's not much chance that book comes out.

Jesus Plays Sports: Paul Byrd's ESPN Interview

Take a look. It's rare that I do a post that contains one link and no real commentary. But I thought it would be worthwhile to have an open forum on what you think about faith in sports. See, when I first started to write on this blog, I wanted to bring it up more. But there really weren't any stories out there. Now, in the past two months, it's been all over the place, with Jon Kitna, the Rockies, and now this Paul Byrd interview. So read the interview and tell me what you think.

Posterized: The Weak and the Elderly

UPDATE: The Starting Five has split up. Long-range, I think it'll help the writers to be separate. But short-range...to me, this was the best thinking-man's sports blog out there.

For this week, I decided to focus on some unlikely heroes. The aging Trot Nixon and Vinny Testaverde and the unlikely play-off bound Rockies are the poster topics for this week.




My mini-rant is on the attention paid to the Rockies' Christian leanings. I think that Christians in positions of power need to be very careful about subjecting non-Christians to Christian standards. That said, banning pornography and playing music with obscene lyrics from the workplace is hardly an unusual move. It's not as if most workplaces outside sports allow those things either.

I'm more cynical about columnists' reasons for questioning the Rockies. Think back to changes in the default athletic culture over the years--whether it's coaches who are soft-spoken instead of drill sergeants (Tony Dungy), using mathematical know-how to design a team (Moneyball with Oakland), or a change in the dominant demographics (majority black, Latino, or Christian players). Usually, what we saw initially in all those cases are columnists' harshly judging these changes. It's made to sound as if the previous culture made no demands on anyone, and all these new quiet or smart or black or Christian people are ruining everything.

However, this is a manipulation of the truth. The dominant culture (or if you will, government) ALWAYS coerces follower personalities to do what it wants. We just don't recognize the type of coercion after we have lived in it for a while. To pretend as if the new culture is coercive and the previous culture was not is revising the truth.

The main question instead is, which type of behaviors do you want the dominant culture to push on people? And after the deaths of Beck, Hancock, Caminiti and other baseball players due to rampant substance abuse, I think the Rockies style deserves a try. Even though as a Christian, I have some concerns about the Rockies's decisions (Christians are called to influence and infiltrate the dominant culture, rather than create their own separate culture), I think that this is an improvement over the default sports culture. So I'd ask you as well, dear reader, to keep an open mind.

Jesus Christ Should Be Controversial

See also:
Jordi on Dan Snyder Should Be Controversial
The Pacifist Viking on NFL Coaches being Controversial
Leave the Man Alone on Who is Controversial

This week's situation with Jon Kitna claiming to be healed of a concussion nearly ruined my pick, but I'm sticking with Jesus as the controversial NFL figure no one's talking about. Christianity (or any faith, really) isn't controversial to many NFL fans or media members most of the time, and I wonder...why not?! Shouldn't it bother you that your favorite player cares more about the Good Book than his playbook?

See, here in America, we have made a deal with religion. You can believe whatever you want, and do whatever you want in your mosque, synagogue, temple, or church. That freedom comes at a price, however. You must not say that your religion is better than anyone else's. And you must not say that your religion is powerful in the real world. You can't upset the American status quo. Those are the rules in a free America, and most people are more than willing to play by them in return for complete freedom of religion.

Kitna broke a rule last week. By saying Jesus healed him of a concussion, he's admitting that he believes his faith has power in the real world, at his job. That statement provoked strong reaction. LZ Granderson had an interesting argument here. But I think in some ways LZ was being nice. Does what happened to Kitna, if it really happened, mean that if you're in competition with a job with a Christian, she could pray to God and get the position over you? Yes, it does. No wonder so many columnists reacted negatively. Who wants to compete against someone with God on their side if it really does make a difference?

But what if all NFL personalities, not just Kitna, decided to be truly radical in their Christian outlook? Let's take a look, based on what I know of the Bible. Now mind you, I'm not saying all of these actions would be accepted by all Christians. For example, many Christians would argue drinking is ok, just don't get drunk. I'm just saying, you could get to these decisions by reading the Bible.

Christian Players
What if an NFL player quit the league because he didn't want to play on the Christian worship day of Sunday?
What if a defensive player decided to quit because he didn't want to be responsible for causing lifelong injury to his fellow man, shortening their life and clouding their thoughts?
What if a player asked his coach to stop swearing around him because he didn't want to hear God's name taken in vain?
What if a player refuses to do commercials for a company because he thinks their product harms people's bodies or causes people to sin?
What if he dedicated himself to using his fame for preaching the gospel, and wouldn't give interviews unless he could preach during the interview?

Christian Owners
What if an owner turned down public money for his stadium and insisted it go to programs to help the poor, widowed, sick, and mentally/physically challenged?
What if he told fans to stay home sometimes from the games to make sure to spend time with their families?
What if he cut off the sale of beer at his stadium because too many fans get drunk and misbehave?
What if he got rid of his cheerleaders because he felt that they made women feel ugly and men feel horny and want to cheat on their wives?
What if she gave the team's RB a better contract than he deserved, just to make up for the years when his contract underpaid him?
What if he fired a successful coach because he was treating players badly or was cheating?

Christian Broadcasters and Media
What if a media member refused to go public with a spicy story about the QB's infidelity, but instead went to him and begged him to get pastoral/counseling help with his marriage?
What if the media would remind fans not to judge until the true facts were known, and to have more patience with their teams?
What if talk radio guys worked on discussing the truth about a team, instead of exaggerating points and mocking fans to make themselves look more manly?

Christian Fans
What if fans put their family and work before the NFL?
What if they did their best to behave appropriately, because they want to love their neighbor and not hinder their enjoyment of the game?
What if fans stopped questioning a referee's decisions because he is the authority over the game, and deserves respect?

Christian Coaches
What if a coach cared about his players not only for what they could do on the field, but for what they could do off?
What if the coach refused to cut marginal players because of injury, knowing they need the money even more when they can't work?
What if the coach admitted his faults freely when he messed up a game, instead of letting his players take the heat?

Now tell me Jesus Christ isn't the most underrated controversial figure in the NFL! (with apologies to Jordi, PV, and Leave the Man Alone's entries, of course, ha). True faith in anything is not passive. It is active, and it causes changes not only in you, but in the world around you. And that SHOULD create controversy.

Jesus Plays Sports: William Wesley + 100 Posts of Moderately Cerebral Bias

This is my 100th post of Moderately Cerebral Bias on Blogger, so I figured I'd give you a chance to tell me what you liked and didn't like about the first 100. Shoot your mouth off in the comment section or send me an e-mail; what types of posts were your favorites?

I was quite inspired by the William Wesley story on TrueHoop. William Wesley is...oh, go read the link first, too hard to explain here.

Anyway, if you don't recall, Jesus Plays Sports is a series where I apply some Christian worldview/thought on an issue of sports. William Wesley intrigued me because of two abilities that I found noteworthy. He has become wealthy and well-regarded because he serves others and doesn't ask for anything for himself. "Worldwise Wes" also excels at finding talented people at their most humble points and then growing with them as they grow. Now, before you read the rest of this; William Wesley is not a role model per se. However, I'm going to have a "White Hat" approach in writing this blog.

William Wesley's servant attitude has turned him into a leader for very wealthy, athletic basketball players. Read the article in GQ; note how LBJ, an occasionally cocky young man, speaks of WW with so much respect. I find this intriguing because I see Jesus' recommendation that "Whoever wants to become great among you must become the least" and think "How is that possible?" How can one become a leader by being a servant? Well, there's an intriguing story that Jesus tells about a steward who uses his position of power to do favors for lots of his friends when he is about to be fired. The idea of the story is that by your generosity, you can create a network of friends and people who will then take care of you when you have needs; Jesus then relates that spiritually.

That's exactly what WW has done; by serving athletes and entertainers, he has now gained a network of favors that he can selectively tap. Note, for example, how WW is able to call Jay-Z and Beyonce on the spot to talk to Leandro. You can bet that happened only because WW had served Jay-Z in the past and thus earned the right to call on Jay-Z for an occasional favor. When you serve first and then ask later, you have earned the right to be heard. Of course, the challenge such a person has is not to smack around people who take and take and never give back, ha.

I could see this working for sports blogs, too. If you constantly supply more popular blogs with story material that they desperately need to keep up with their 4+ posts per day cycle, guess what? When you want a link for your blog, they are going to give you one, just to keep your flow of stories going. If you comment on other sites and help make someone else's blog better, then they will be more open to your requests as well. Another example of this perspective is Deadspin; I really think Will Leitch's allowing comments on his posts and letting some of his readers get some of the credit on the site was a gutsy gamble. By allowing others to be funny on his material, even possibly at his expense, the blog became a lot better. Now true, not just ANYONE could comment, but it still was a risk.

The other part of William Wesley's story that I find inspiring is his ability to grow with his clients. It's not hard to impress a 15-year-old Lebron James, but it is difficult to impress the multimillionaire 22-year old Lebron James. In addition, William Wesley has managed to keep Allen Iverson in line, and you know that can't be by cracking the whip on him. After that initial contact with the athlete when they were teens, William Wesley has been able to continue solving clients' problems at a very high level even as his clients grow in wealth and ability.

A criticism that many 20-somethings level (fairly, I'm afraid) at churches is that the church is not growing with the person. Games that were "super-cool!" when you are 15 aren't so cool when you're 25. Unless a religious worldview can grow and meet needs at all stages of life, including those of single people in their 20's and 30's, what good is it? That is the real test, and WW has managed to master the test and make it look easy. My hat's off to him, and I hope I can be as hard-working and talented in achieving my goals as WorldWide Wes.

Jesus Plays Sports: Imus:Wrong::Me and Us:?

Jesus makes his return to the MCBias blog. It's time for a post where I freely admit that this is a Christian perspective on a sporting issue. We all have biases. When they truly are the source of a post, I think it's best to say so clearly. Maybe some other time I'll mix in Republican "Tear Down this Offensive Line" or Democratic "It's about the Defense, Stupid" taglines, too.

There are very few circumstances and actions that our culture universally deplores, but Don Imus made a great attempt at attaining complete revilement. Let's check the profile:
1. Celebrity (and as a bonus, white, rich, old, male, AND unsexy! yes!)
2. Action done in a public place with no shortage of witnesses, instead of at some private location among friends or sycophants.
3. Action is a sexual or racial remark aimed at innocent targets, instead of making fun of accepted targets in creative ways.

Definitely wrong and evil according to our culture. (And I do believe Jesus would think the same). And a quick aside; why is no one focusing on the misogyny, and everyone is focusing on the racism? Is it because there is no feminine spokesman to match Sharpton? Sadly, yes.

So ok, let's judge him already and condemn him. Fine. What I'm more worried about is, what about the rest of us who aren't celebrities? What about the hypocrisy? Let's look at 2. and 3. on society's sin list.

If Don Imus had thought "nappy-headed hos" instead of saying it, he wouldn't have gotten in trouble. And that's too bad. Sadly, I'm sure that other people were thinking similar thoughts, and they will get off without any reprimand. That's what I hate about this press coverage. I feel like bigoted reporters are rushing to pile on Imus so they have some defense for their own past mistakes. The people throwing stones are not sinless. The hypocrisy here is so deep, we're talking Marinas Trench here.

I sympathized with her on this topic; really, does this change the way blacks or women will be treated in our society? The guilty will say "Well, at least I don't SAY nappy-headed hos to that one co-worker." But they think it, don't they? What do the white players think when the black man comes into their gym looking for a game? It's the 00's, so no one fights or makes comments. But you can bet on plenty of frowns, sighs, and turned heads when he comes in the gym. (Speaking of what I've seen here, not hypotheticals). One thing I both love and hate about Jesus's teachings is his emphasis on sins of thought, not just action crimes. Just because you're too much of a wuss to act on your thoughts doesn't make you innocent. You know there are people out there who are an easily procured gun or knife away from doing something about their hate; are they that much better than the ones who did find a gun or knife?

Moving past racism and sexism, I dislike that we like to condemn what we are least likely to do. I don't like thinking of myself as a sinner, a bad person. I have a decent command over my tongue in public situations. So it's tempting for me to blast Imus on this topic. But, what if we expand our definition of sin? What about my command over my hands when I type? Do I manage to avoid slandering and accusing people there? Eek. Thankfully I've been on the web long enough to make smaller mistakes in less visible areas most of the time...and that one forum is thankfully no longer around...but, um, see, there's this post on here labeled "apology" that you can find...yeah, not a good thing.

Bottom line is, we all sin in many ways. This isn't where I mimic the movie "Crash" and try to tell you "Everyone's a racist! It's just how much or how visible it is!" No, that's nonsense. I know people who I'm pretty sure don't have a racist bone in their bodies. We don't all have the same sins; blame genetics, brain type, or upbringing, but they differ.

Some judgment should occur in society, else our prisons are empty and our morgues are full. But let's drop the pretense that Imus is somehow a supreme sinner, just because those of us under 30 are a little more trained in diversity or in spitting hate only among our same race/gender friends (ahem). Plenty of sin to go around, and we all need forgiveness for what we do on a daily basis.