With the signing of Eddie House, Miami has completed most of its roster moves for the 2009-2010 season. After signing Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade, and Lebron James, the Heat had to figure out who else to sign with the limited money remaining. With the goal of championships in mind, the Heat went out and signed veteran contributors Mike Miller, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Eddie House, Juwan Howard, and Eddie House. They've been praised for picking up so many shrewd veterans. However, was this truly the best plan to win championships?
The legacy of signing veteran stars to would-be championship contenders is not particularly noteworthy. One can certainly point to the 2006 Miami Heat as a team that was victorious by signing veteran players around a bright young star. However, that team quickly tanked in the next two years, and had to be completely rebuilt. Similarly, the 2004 Los Angeles Lakers had to rebuild the point guard and power forward position after the departures of Karl Malone, Gary Payton, and Horace Grant. And ceremonial stars like Mitch Richmond and Glenn Robinson did nothing for their squads except generate frequent "He's still playing?" comments. Plus, older players may get worn down more easily deep in the season and let the team down. Look at how Rasheed Wallace struggled through Game 7 this year. I argue that Miami's signing plan was directly contradictory to their goal of winning multiple championships.
So what else could Miami have done besides signing these veteran players? If Miami was truly interested in contending for multiple championships, here's an interesting proposal. Why not follow more closely the path of the 2008 Celtics? They had Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins, and Glen Davis on the roster when the Big Three signed. All three markedly improved over time; one might argue that the players would have improved regardless, but I doubt it. I believe that stars help younger players to develop. Miami could sign young players to cheap, long-term contracts, and develop them into complementary players to the Big Three. Players like Kenny Hasbrouck, should they pan out, also provide attractive trade pieces because they will be overrated due to playing with stars who mask their deficiencies.
Miami's organizational structure is also excellent for player development, due to a holistic system that even monitors the players' weight. Sure, some of the young players will not improve, but they can be easily jettisoned and replaced, or shuttled to the Development League as needed. And although you hear plenty of talk about how Miami has a recruiting advantage, let me ask you this. Since expansion in the late 80's/early 90's, what successful NBA team has been able to consistently lure high-quality veterans to its organization for less pay? The lessons from the recruitment of McGrady, Iverson, and Shaq this off-season should also show that veteran players can be much harder to deal with than young players.
I understand that after the draft, there are not that many talented rookie free agents out there. I'm not necessarily fond of signing complete rookies either; I would wish to sign players with a few years of professional experience. But the Heat could also sign some Developmental League players with experience, or sign younger European players instead. Players like Charlie Bell, Anthony Parker, Josh Childress, and others passed on some NBA opportunities because the pay was better in Europe. The Celtics' 2007 signing of Eddie House, who had only played for 7 seasons (compared to Mike Miller's 10) to play guard is another example. The ability to play for a top NBA team in a starting position and gain such exposure should be enough of a draw to bring a younger but experienced player back to the States.
It just surprises me that with so many stars in their prime, Miami is taking a "win-now" approach rather than taking a more long-term view. I definitely think this combination can win a championship. I just don't see it being easy to reload and replenish this squad in two years to create a true championship run. While young players in South Beach carry their own risk, the veterans of 2007 and 2008 didn't necessarily seem the most disciplined or energetic, either. In a league where quick, young guards become more important each year, the signings of two guards over 30 (Miller and House, although Miller can also play the 3) are particularly odd, and I believe these choices will come back to hurt the Heat. Thoughts?
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Mike Miller, NBA Superfriend
Yes, this guy:
Just the other day I was rereading the Free Darko book's excellent section on the 2000 Draft. I'm enough of a draft nerd that this may be my favorite section of the book (sad, I know). Anyway, it said that Mike Miller's friendship with Tracy McGrady was so close that the Magic were concerned about trading away Miller for needed talent because of the effect it would have on Tracy!
Today, I was reading about the Udonis Haslem signing. The article had this fascinating quote from Udonis, who called Miller
“My boy from day one. That’s my college roommate. He’s like Dwyane is to me, just a different color.”
Then finally, I looked up Lebron's reaction to the Mike Miller acquisition:
"Happy to have sharpshooter and good friend Mike Miller join us. Looking forward to this. Congrats Mike"
I understand that Mike Miller apparently is a pleasant fellow. (To be kinder to him after that first photo, here's a photo of him and his wife after giving $200,000 to a hospital).
But how in the world does a guy who was born in a South Dakota town of 13,000, who had no NBA stars as his relatives (unless you count the scoring records his uncle held at the mighty Dakota Wesleyan, of all places), who loves hunting and fishing, of all things, become such good friends with so many NBA stars? I'm beyond intrigued at this. Someone set up a 6 Degrees of Mike Miller game, or launch a special I-Team investigation. What's his secret? This guy seems to be the definition of who wouldn't fit in an NBA locker room, a small-town boy from nowhere, and he's adored by some of the greatest players. I'm honestly impressed. How does he do it? Guesses are welcome below.
Just the other day I was rereading the Free Darko book's excellent section on the 2000 Draft. I'm enough of a draft nerd that this may be my favorite section of the book (sad, I know). Anyway, it said that Mike Miller's friendship with Tracy McGrady was so close that the Magic were concerned about trading away Miller for needed talent because of the effect it would have on Tracy!
Today, I was reading about the Udonis Haslem signing. The article had this fascinating quote from Udonis, who called Miller
“My boy from day one. That’s my college roommate. He’s like Dwyane is to me, just a different color.”
Then finally, I looked up Lebron's reaction to the Mike Miller acquisition:
"Happy to have sharpshooter and good friend Mike Miller join us. Looking forward to this. Congrats Mike"
I understand that Mike Miller apparently is a pleasant fellow. (To be kinder to him after that first photo, here's a photo of him and his wife after giving $200,000 to a hospital).
But how in the world does a guy who was born in a South Dakota town of 13,000, who had no NBA stars as his relatives (unless you count the scoring records his uncle held at the mighty Dakota Wesleyan, of all places), who loves hunting and fishing, of all things, become such good friends with so many NBA stars? I'm beyond intrigued at this. Someone set up a 6 Degrees of Mike Miller game, or launch a special I-Team investigation. What's his secret? This guy seems to be the definition of who wouldn't fit in an NBA locker room, a small-town boy from nowhere, and he's adored by some of the greatest players. I'm honestly impressed. How does he do it? Guesses are welcome below.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Friday Recap: The Shirley Witchhunt
There was so much news this week, it inspired even a lazy blogger like myself to type a few comments. Between Greg Oden's ill-advised naked photographs and Paul Shirley's ill-advised naked ramblings, it was an amusing week in sports.
First, Paul Shirley's column on Haiti caused a tornado of controversy. I was comment 53 or so...and at this point there are 1,689 comments on that post! Yes, I've sunk to the level of bragging about being "first" to comment, +/- 50 comments or so. Surprisingly to me, he was thoroughly gutted even on sports blogs who once published his work.
I find it both amusing and tragic to watch a blogger witch hunt. I've participated in a few in my time, and been on the receiving end a time or two. Blogging is a solitary experience. We write our columns and tweets in a vacuum. Right now I am sitting alone in a room with the door half-closed. I have no feedback except my own conscience and some feeble estimation of what the audience may or may not want. However, once this article escapes on the web, it is completely out of control, and strangers have no reservations about forcing themselves into my space. You are more than able to lift any sentence from this blog to make me seem like a complete fool (or, once in a blue moon, an idiot-savant who finally got something right).
To be honest, I intentionally avoid hot-button quotes in my posts most of the time, because I know how such things spin out of control on the web. This is how many blogging witch hunts work: over-moralizing web commenters find yet another target that they can feel superior to and try to beat him up in his own comment section. It's a brutal business, recalling the lynch mobs of a previous century. Often good people go down to satisfy the ego of strangers and the Internet hate machine. I usually only like to participate in blogger witch hunts if absolutely no one is criticizing someone worthy of criticism, which is why occasionally I'm so tough on Deadspin and other popular sports blogs.
So poor Paul Shirley, right? He unfortunately is being punished for daring to confront the bias of popular culture? Railroaded and forced to ride his own petard until it exploded and got him fired from ESPN? Nah. He's smart, handsome, and talented...and also not afraid to look down on those who aren't blessed in the same way. There was a smug "Well at least I don't listen to rap" feel to his recollection of his basketball career that I tried to ignore but which bothered me. Paul sounded like that frat guy you know who goes around proclaiming things like "Why doesn't everyone walk around naked?" that sound smart and oh so EDGY at first, until you grow out of college and get your god complex beaten out of you at your first job when you realize that special snowflakes melt like every other type of snowflake. Then of course you end up behind the white picket fence like everyone else with 3 kids and get horrified when you meet the 20-year-old version of yourself. Ayn Rand's philosophies work fine as long as you're 10 feet tall and bulletproof; but when the first bullet hits, Rand disciples cry for their mommy. Yawn. Paul gets to figure out if he really is bulletproof now. Good luck to him, and I'm slightly sad that ESPN fired him, but I can't muster up as much pity as I expected. Blogger witch hunts are fair game when a blogger makes other bloggers look bad, when they make a bad argument poorly, when he/she breaks basic principles of Internet community (ah, unwritten rules), or when I have nothing else to write about on a Friday and the alternative is work and...ok, maybe not the last one. But otherwise, Shirley was fair game.
First, Paul Shirley's column on Haiti caused a tornado of controversy. I was comment 53 or so...and at this point there are 1,689 comments on that post! Yes, I've sunk to the level of bragging about being "first" to comment, +/- 50 comments or so. Surprisingly to me, he was thoroughly gutted even on sports blogs who once published his work.
I find it both amusing and tragic to watch a blogger witch hunt. I've participated in a few in my time, and been on the receiving end a time or two. Blogging is a solitary experience. We write our columns and tweets in a vacuum. Right now I am sitting alone in a room with the door half-closed. I have no feedback except my own conscience and some feeble estimation of what the audience may or may not want. However, once this article escapes on the web, it is completely out of control, and strangers have no reservations about forcing themselves into my space. You are more than able to lift any sentence from this blog to make me seem like a complete fool (or, once in a blue moon, an idiot-savant who finally got something right).
To be honest, I intentionally avoid hot-button quotes in my posts most of the time, because I know how such things spin out of control on the web. This is how many blogging witch hunts work: over-moralizing web commenters find yet another target that they can feel superior to and try to beat him up in his own comment section. It's a brutal business, recalling the lynch mobs of a previous century. Often good people go down to satisfy the ego of strangers and the Internet hate machine. I usually only like to participate in blogger witch hunts if absolutely no one is criticizing someone worthy of criticism, which is why occasionally I'm so tough on Deadspin and other popular sports blogs.
So poor Paul Shirley, right? He unfortunately is being punished for daring to confront the bias of popular culture? Railroaded and forced to ride his own petard until it exploded and got him fired from ESPN? Nah. He's smart, handsome, and talented...and also not afraid to look down on those who aren't blessed in the same way. There was a smug "Well at least I don't listen to rap" feel to his recollection of his basketball career that I tried to ignore but which bothered me. Paul sounded like that frat guy you know who goes around proclaiming things like "Why doesn't everyone walk around naked?" that sound smart and oh so EDGY at first, until you grow out of college and get your god complex beaten out of you at your first job when you realize that special snowflakes melt like every other type of snowflake. Then of course you end up behind the white picket fence like everyone else with 3 kids and get horrified when you meet the 20-year-old version of yourself. Ayn Rand's philosophies work fine as long as you're 10 feet tall and bulletproof; but when the first bullet hits, Rand disciples cry for their mommy. Yawn. Paul gets to figure out if he really is bulletproof now. Good luck to him, and I'm slightly sad that ESPN fired him, but I can't muster up as much pity as I expected. Blogger witch hunts are fair game when a blogger makes other bloggers look bad, when they make a bad argument poorly, when he/she breaks basic principles of Internet community (ah, unwritten rules), or when I have nothing else to write about on a Friday and the alternative is work and...ok, maybe not the last one. But otherwise, Shirley was fair game.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Race, Genes, and Sports Performance: What do We Know?
Deadspin recently posted an article on an unfortunate snafu by Darren Rovell. He essentially argued that Meb Keflezighi's NYC Marathon win was not truly "American", because Meb was born elsewhere. Meb moved here when he was 12, however, so Darren sounded as if he only accepted "certain" Americans as fully American. He apologized, as he should have.
However, in taking Darren to the woodshed, Deadspin itself seemed to tread on dangerous ground in trying to insist that race is just one of many factors in top distance runners. There is no question that the Kenyans and other East Africans focus a lot more on distance running than many other countries do; cultural elements (and geography) have a big impact. However, in the last paragraph especially, Tommy Craggs seemed to veer away from solid ground in claiming that "It's not a debate. It's science and common sense on one side and on the other a handful of grumpy people who've decided that the genetic advantages that may or may not sort themselves according to race somehow matter more than the countless other genetic advantages all world-class athletes necessarily possess."
This is an attempt to state that runners are a mix of culture, circumstance, and geological phenomena...while trying to poo-poo race and genes as not a dominant factor. The expert in the New York Times story states
Special cases and outliers are notoriously hard to measure. No, they haven't found that exact connection, but no, they aren't shutting the door to there being one either. So to argue that science and common sense is on any single side of measuring the impact of race on genes on sports performance is already debateable. I did some further research and found the BBC's article, written by a statistician. As Kenya was able to achieve the same level of training and coaching that the British runners had, thus leveling the playing field--suddenly, Kenyan runners were far superior. This seems to indicate that when other factors such as training are controlled, genetic (or geographic) differences are the difference between finishing first or fifth. Also, the BBC statistician says " Kenya's men are stronger in depth in the marathon than any other country in a single discipline in athletics." It's so marked a domination that 65 of the world's top 100 marathoners are Kenyan.
Look, race in sports is a very tricky issue. I cringe at blanket statements like "Whites are better in golf" or what have you. But East African runners may indeed be the only true example where one group has a provable genetic advantage over another that can't be explained by culture, nutrition, or, well, genetic bingo cards. Why is that such a scary thought for some to contemplate? I believe that some worry that pointing out racial differences lead to some nationalities being relegated to more menial tasks than others. However, open-minded people can still appreciate diversity even if it means that some of us may have pre-ordained genetic gifts, related to race, to be better than others in some limited, narrow areas. Unfortunately, in justifiably trying to point out what was wrong with Rovell, Deadspin seems to have fallen into its own trap. What do We Know about Race, Genes, and Sports Performance? Absolutely nothing, I fear--and I am sure I created my own mistake and fallacy in writing this blog. I don't think it should stop us from discussing these issues; but we should be well-aware that in correcting the mistakes of others, we tend to create our own.
However, in taking Darren to the woodshed, Deadspin itself seemed to tread on dangerous ground in trying to insist that race is just one of many factors in top distance runners. There is no question that the Kenyans and other East Africans focus a lot more on distance running than many other countries do; cultural elements (and geography) have a big impact. However, in the last paragraph especially, Tommy Craggs seemed to veer away from solid ground in claiming that "It's not a debate. It's science and common sense on one side and on the other a handful of grumpy people who've decided that the genetic advantages that may or may not sort themselves according to race somehow matter more than the countless other genetic advantages all world-class athletes necessarily possess."
This is an attempt to state that runners are a mix of culture, circumstance, and geological phenomena...while trying to poo-poo race and genes as not a dominant factor. The expert in the New York Times story states
"Scientists have looked for — but not found — genes specific to East Africans that could account for their distance ability, said John Hoberman, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who studies race and sports. But, he said, “there is a difference between saying we don’t have a scientifically respectable conclusion and the very broad and perhaps mistaken claim that there is no physiological phenomenon here whatsoever.”Regarding the question of whether East Africans have a genetic advantage, Hoberman said, “We don’t know.”
Special cases and outliers are notoriously hard to measure. No, they haven't found that exact connection, but no, they aren't shutting the door to there being one either. So to argue that science and common sense is on any single side of measuring the impact of race on genes on sports performance is already debateable. I did some further research and found the BBC's article, written by a statistician. As Kenya was able to achieve the same level of training and coaching that the British runners had, thus leveling the playing field--suddenly, Kenyan runners were far superior. This seems to indicate that when other factors such as training are controlled, genetic (or geographic) differences are the difference between finishing first or fifth. Also, the BBC statistician says " Kenya's men are stronger in depth in the marathon than any other country in a single discipline in athletics." It's so marked a domination that 65 of the world's top 100 marathoners are Kenyan.
Look, race in sports is a very tricky issue. I cringe at blanket statements like "Whites are better in golf" or what have you. But East African runners may indeed be the only true example where one group has a provable genetic advantage over another that can't be explained by culture, nutrition, or, well, genetic bingo cards. Why is that such a scary thought for some to contemplate? I believe that some worry that pointing out racial differences lead to some nationalities being relegated to more menial tasks than others. However, open-minded people can still appreciate diversity even if it means that some of us may have pre-ordained genetic gifts, related to race, to be better than others in some limited, narrow areas. Unfortunately, in justifiably trying to point out what was wrong with Rovell, Deadspin seems to have fallen into its own trap. What do We Know about Race, Genes, and Sports Performance? Absolutely nothing, I fear--and I am sure I created my own mistake and fallacy in writing this blog. I don't think it should stop us from discussing these issues; but we should be well-aware that in correcting the mistakes of others, we tend to create our own.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Deadspin's Raging Sense of Entitlement--With Deleted Scenes!
After yesterday's uproar over Deadspin posting ESPN rumors, I couldn't help but laugh. So many bloggers tried to write the story as if this was just a random event--that the real Deadspin was nice, cuddly, and gave out piggyback rides to small children. Hey small bloggers--it's 2009! You don't have to kiss up to big blogs anymore! I suppose they missed the memo that Deadspin will be doing more original reporting now, so bye-bye to your links. Since I don't care (proved by the huge number of entries I've written this year), here's my take on AJ Daulerio's little excursion to crazytown. Better takes are here, here, and here.
There's nothing new about Deadspin's raging sense of entitlement when it comes to big stories. Throwing a fit because they didn't get what they wanted, when they wanted it, is standard practice at Deadspin. Just look at this classic from Tommy Craggs over the Josh Hamilton story. Craggs is furious that Johnny Narron, who was Josh Hamilton's accountability partner/counselor, wouldn't rat out Josh Hamilton in response to his clumsy, misinformed questions. Read the money quote here:
"The alternatives are that Narron — who did not return my call this morning — was either lying to me to give Hamilton a chance to respond in full (understandable, but damned un-Christian of him) or the whole thing had just slipped his mind, making him perhaps the worst accountability partner in the history of drug addiction. Whatever the case, Narron is probably not someone in whom we should put a lot faith."
You know, the worst accountability partner ever probably would be the guy who would give up his friend to a media site who didn't even have the right month for when the photos were taken. "Oh, it was January, not March! And you don't have all the photos right--here, let me send you the one where he's naked, holding a Bible! I would LOVE to help ruin my friend's reputation!" That's what he should have done, right, Tommy?
And so the ESPN fiasco just fits into a larger pattern of Deadspin demanding ridiculous access for stories, and then crying when they don't get it. Some PR departments and friends don't want to sell out their friends for free--earth-shattering, I know. Even Judas got 30 pieces of silver. But I was thinking--does Deadspin play by its own rules? Why don't I host a Deleted Scenes on Deadspin, myself? So here you go...something I've sat on for at least a year.
You know, maybe I should have gotten more angry when Will Leitch told me that AJ Daulerio wasn't replacing him at Deadspin Here, want the screenshot? Just 2.5 months before Will announced he was leaving Deadspin? (Click to enlarge)
Now if I did things the Deadspin way, I should have been a big baby too that my "exclusive" wasn't honored, that Will didn't get in touch with me and tell me the news first because I asked first. If I did things the Deadspin way, I should have called Will a two-faced liar trying to cover up his departure at Deadspin, instead of looking the other way and assuming the best about him. If I did things the Deadspin way, I'd speculate, with zero facts to support it (but a nice timeline of circumstantial evidence!) that a deal was done the day AJ came on board, and that those other applicants for the Deadspin editor job had as much a chance as the Browns do of wining this year's Super Bowl.
But that's not a fair look at that story. At worst, Will was a man trying to look for another job and not wanting to get fired from the first. That's why I sat on this then, even though I was furious at the time that I got played so easily. The story doesn't matter now, but it makes my point. Even Deadspin can't and won't play by Deadspin's own rules, its own sense of raging entitlement. And please, spare me the email, Deadspin. If I wanted your opinion on this blog, I would email you--it's no different than the way you treated ESPN yesterday, now is it?
There's nothing new about Deadspin's raging sense of entitlement when it comes to big stories. Throwing a fit because they didn't get what they wanted, when they wanted it, is standard practice at Deadspin. Just look at this classic from Tommy Craggs over the Josh Hamilton story. Craggs is furious that Johnny Narron, who was Josh Hamilton's accountability partner/counselor, wouldn't rat out Josh Hamilton in response to his clumsy, misinformed questions. Read the money quote here:
"The alternatives are that Narron — who did not return my call this morning — was either lying to me to give Hamilton a chance to respond in full (understandable, but damned un-Christian of him) or the whole thing had just slipped his mind, making him perhaps the worst accountability partner in the history of drug addiction. Whatever the case, Narron is probably not someone in whom we should put a lot faith."
You know, the worst accountability partner ever probably would be the guy who would give up his friend to a media site who didn't even have the right month for when the photos were taken. "Oh, it was January, not March! And you don't have all the photos right--here, let me send you the one where he's naked, holding a Bible! I would LOVE to help ruin my friend's reputation!" That's what he should have done, right, Tommy?
And so the ESPN fiasco just fits into a larger pattern of Deadspin demanding ridiculous access for stories, and then crying when they don't get it. Some PR departments and friends don't want to sell out their friends for free--earth-shattering, I know. Even Judas got 30 pieces of silver. But I was thinking--does Deadspin play by its own rules? Why don't I host a Deleted Scenes on Deadspin, myself? So here you go...something I've sat on for at least a year.
You know, maybe I should have gotten more angry when Will Leitch told me that AJ Daulerio wasn't replacing him at Deadspin Here, want the screenshot? Just 2.5 months before Will announced he was leaving Deadspin? (Click to enlarge)
Now if I did things the Deadspin way, I should have been a big baby too that my "exclusive" wasn't honored, that Will didn't get in touch with me and tell me the news first because I asked first. If I did things the Deadspin way, I should have called Will a two-faced liar trying to cover up his departure at Deadspin, instead of looking the other way and assuming the best about him. If I did things the Deadspin way, I'd speculate, with zero facts to support it (but a nice timeline of circumstantial evidence!) that a deal was done the day AJ came on board, and that those other applicants for the Deadspin editor job had as much a chance as the Browns do of wining this year's Super Bowl.
But that's not a fair look at that story. At worst, Will was a man trying to look for another job and not wanting to get fired from the first. That's why I sat on this then, even though I was furious at the time that I got played so easily. The story doesn't matter now, but it makes my point. Even Deadspin can't and won't play by Deadspin's own rules, its own sense of raging entitlement. And please, spare me the email, Deadspin. If I wanted your opinion on this blog, I would email you--it's no different than the way you treated ESPN yesterday, now is it?
Friday, September 18, 2009
Stephen Jackson and the NBA's Quiet Desperation
Stephen Jackson or "S-Jax" was fined $25000 for conduct "detrimental to the NBA." Several hoops sites already profiled this fine, such as Warrior blogger Tim Kawakami and Henry Abbott. They pointed out the hypocrisy of Stephen getting fined for making a trade demand while Kobe was not. But there was another point that I want to highlight.
Simply put, the fine shows you how desperate the NBA's economic situation truly is. The Golden State Warriors are at least in the top half of season ticket sales and attendance by most metrics I looked up. Just a few years ago, their fans had the most passionate play-off performance seen in the NBA since perhaps the heyday of the Jazz or Kings. And yet, they're coming off a bad year, in a state plagued by poor economic management. Stephen's trade demand is a sort of economic blackmail. He's their only marquee star right now that they can market for ticket renewals. (No, the casual fan can't appreciate that Randolph, Curry, and Ellis all may be future All-Stars). In my mind, the NBA fined him because they realized just how great an effect a trade demand can have on a team's ticket sales in this weak economy. And if that is truly why--that one average star in a passionate sports town can have that much effect on ticket renewals--the NBA is in a much more precarious position than they have admitted so far.
Simply put, the fine shows you how desperate the NBA's economic situation truly is. The Golden State Warriors are at least in the top half of season ticket sales and attendance by most metrics I looked up. Just a few years ago, their fans had the most passionate play-off performance seen in the NBA since perhaps the heyday of the Jazz or Kings. And yet, they're coming off a bad year, in a state plagued by poor economic management. Stephen's trade demand is a sort of economic blackmail. He's their only marquee star right now that they can market for ticket renewals. (No, the casual fan can't appreciate that Randolph, Curry, and Ellis all may be future All-Stars). In my mind, the NBA fined him because they realized just how great an effect a trade demand can have on a team's ticket sales in this weak economy. And if that is truly why--that one average star in a passionate sports town can have that much effect on ticket renewals--the NBA is in a much more precarious position than they have admitted so far.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
MCBias Live: Cycling
I had a nice surprise earlier this summer; I finally got to meet one of my interviewees from this blog. I had previously interviewed Kathryn Bertine, who was working hard towards her dream to make the Olympics in 2008. ESPN was sponsoring her, and she wrote some very funny blogs on her quest to qualify in sports as diverse as fencing and cycling. She didn't make it in 2008, but she's continued competing in cycling since then. When I got her e-mail update, I decided to see a cycling race for myself.
What surprised me most about the experience is how effortless the women make racing look. They are working very hard to stay close to the pack, but they don't waste any energy doing so. I was talking to Kathryn after the race, and she explained that course curves also have a lot to do with the race outcome. Unlike, say, the Tour de France, the Chris Thater had laps, and so turning precisely was key. That unfortunately held Kathryn back from a great performance, but she was optimistic that it would make the time trials she's practicing for seem easy. Thanks to Kathryn for the time after the race--I know personally I'd be too tired to hold much of a conversation, but it was still a good chat. Best of luck in the time trials!
See below for my pictures and video from Chris Thater Women's Pro. They are fairly self-explanatory. You can see the riders after the race chatting with one another and checking to see how the equipment held up after the race. There was one accident. Thankfully the rider was ok, it happened before I arrived. Click any photo to get a larger picture.
I tried to take pictures of the cyclists as they sped around the track, but it was too quick for me! So I used video instead. This short clip gives you an idea of the speed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)