Was Charles Barkley Truly Short for a Power Forward?

Much of Charles Barkley's legacy has been built on him being an undersized power forward. For example, nba.com says "However, as a player he was the greatest anomaly in basketball history. Listed at 6-6, but probably actually closer to 6-4, he played power forward as well as anyone, often dominating players half a foot taller...an undersized power forward with rebounding as his only discernible basketball skill." You can also read a rather passionate debate on Barkley's true height, thought to be 6'4.75", here.

However, the problem with measuring height from head to toe to determine NBA skill is that it does not correlate well to basketball skills. For example, a guy with a long neck and long face will be several inches taller than a guy with a small face and no neck. What is most important is how high the shoulders are. For example, I am 6'0", but quite honestly, a lot of that is my giraffe neck, ha. When I was pressed into playing forward/center for some teams, it quickly became clear that I played much shorter than my height. But just who do you think has a small face and no neck?



For example, take a look at this photo of the 1992 dream team. Jordan, reported to be 6'6", and Barkley are side by side. But Barkley's shoulders are definitely higher than Jordan's.



I think Barkley was a great NBA player. But I always get annoyed at how head height is so overrated in the NBA. I believe Barkley's shoulder height was more in line with a 6'7" or 6'8" player. While that still makes him undersized for the typical power forward, it no longer makes him extraordinarily so. I'd like to read a Barkley profile without unnecessary gushing about how undersized he was, because it's just not true.

Doug Shackler and the Erin Andrews Hotel Tapes

At first I thought Deadspin's late Friday story that Erin Andrews may have been illegally taped in her room, was just filler, or that week's deleted scenes. However, turns out that Erin Andrews really was videotaped by a scheming pervert. What frustrates me about the situation is that Doug Sheckler, the owner of the site that posted the video, is a fellow sports blogger. He had the vision to help start Epic Carnival, which was a great chance for some smaller bloggers to write back when Fanhouse and Deadspin seemed to control everything. I knew him in passing only--he promoted and linked to a few of my stories here and there, which I really appreciated. I did know he was a hard worker. He always was tweeting more stories he had just posted. I in fact finally unfollowed him, as too many of the numerous tweets were NSFW links to some actress on one of his "other" blogs. Lots of good that did me while sitting in my office!

Yes, that "other" blog...let's be honest. Sports blogging gets some views, but it is nothing compared to porn. I've watched with equal parts disdain, irritation, and amusement as several colleagues decided to add more pictures of women with few or no clothes or ads to NSFW material in their blogs. I understand the rationale. If you're trying to make money off your blog, nothing brings viewers like women. But my views on ethics and posting photos of hot women are rather prudish...and yes, I'm proud of that now."

But unfortunately, Doug worked too hard. I found the following short e-mail from him in my folders. It's two years old, written after I had complained about his site's comment section in a comment on the site. He followed up with me (click to enlarge)

At first glance it's great--the editor of a big sports blog site was willing to hunt down a commenter just so he could improve his site. But no, "always looking to improve" was exactly the problem! Unfortunately, the path Doug followed in trying to improve made him commit a crime. The traffic and money from sports blogs apparently weren't enough for him. He kept branching out, going just a little farther with each new blog...and went way, way, too far. There's a lesson there for some of us sports bloggers. Ambition and hard work are not pure virtues.

The very mundane nature of the videos is what makes them so sad. Erin is curling her hair before work. Like many a woman, she's preparing herself for the harsh scrutiny of a world that tends to judge women on their looks first. And so, the violation seems more offensive because of it.

I'm ending this rambling with a few quotes from some old Erin Andrews interviews that seem sad now. Click to read the complete interviews.

Q: What about the attention you receive for being a sports personality when you're not an athlete?

E.A.: It's flattering...I know that there's a window of time where people think, "Oh, she's a big deal." You know that's going to run out. You kind of just look at it and laugh. I grew up in the media; my dad is in the industry as well. I know there's a time frame and this will all go away and I'll go, 'Wait a minute! What about me?' I know it's nothing to get freaked out over.

OMDQ: ...I think a lot of it is the sense that they’re waiting for a mistake, waiting for a slip-up somewhere.

EA: ...I remember one of the first times I ever saw something on the Internet that was written about me I ran out into my parents’ living room and I started to cry. Somebody had written about the size of my nose and that I needed a nose job. And my dad is in television, and I grew up in the industry, so I never found it weird to see my dad on the six o’clock news because that’s what he does, but when I came out crying - and this is when I first started - he just said, “Look, do you want to do this?” And I said, “Yeah.” And he’s like, “Suck it up, because this is what it’s about, and because you’re a female, people are gonna take notice more than anybody else,” so…it’s a fantastic job, it’s an amazing thing to be a part of, I have the best seats in the house, it’s what I want to do, so to me, those little things are worth it.

OMDQ: I think you’re right on in that because it seems like lately that there has been more focus on you. It’s like every blogger (including me) has to write something at some point.

EA: I can’t do anything on the sideline without somebody making a big deal out of it. So, you know what? At one point, I can look at it and be like, “Oh my gosh, why do people care?” But at the same time, it’s so flattering because who am I? I’m nobody...

I'm afraid that Erin Andrews is indeed crying tonight, over something much worse than a cruel comment about her nose. I feel bad. I can't really think of a good way to end this. I hope sports blogs won't be crucified for one man's sin. But I worry we may deserve some of that blame and shame. Eh, good night all, I'm done.

Pick-up Chronicles: FEED ME!

On Sunday I tried out with a league volleyball team. I'm relatively new in town, and I was a free agent. They wanted to make sure I could play first, which I had no problem with. We played a weak team, and our setter told us "See that guy with the glasses? This is his fourth game ever--he's awful! I saw him play Wednesday. Try to aim at him if you can!"

We killed in the first game, but the second game was tight. It was about 20-19, us, and I was hitting strong side in the front row. I was antsy--the game was slipping away, and I knew it. If you've ever played pickup, you know the feeling of fear when you realize the other team wants it more than you do. Pickup ball isn't really about talent, to a certain extent. It's about the will to win, and which team is willing to eat sand, wood, or gravel to get the ball first.

Our weak side hitter was decent, but he was matched up against the other team's two strongest players on blocks. He got a weak spike off, and then got blocked on the next volley. I was seething with unusual rage. I made eye contact with our setter when she looked my way and half-hissed, half-growled "Feed me!"

I was embarrassed, quite honestly--here I am trying to make a good impression on this team, and I'm growling at our setter. The words came out before I could stop them. (I'm lucky a certain 5-letter word didn't follow; thank you, conservative upbringing!). I tried to correct myself by making a plaintive head nod towards my opponent on the other side of the net. It was the guy with the glasses. She set me the next two times, I scored, and we won.

Why did I tell this story? (It's not because intermediate volleyball is so fascinating, promise). Because it taught me a lesson. Whenever a Terrell Owens, Dwight Howard, or Shaq pops off in the media about wanting the ball more, I used to scoff. "Ooh, what a baby! Work hard and stop talking, and you'll get the rock!"But then I think of that game on Sunday...and how I was utterly helpless to take advantage of my matchup. My hopes for helping our team were completely on the shoulders of our short setter. I could jump out of the gym and be 7'0", but it made NO difference unless she decided she wanted to set me. I felt powerless. And I realized that it's exactly how a big strong guy like Shaq or TO must feel when their fate is in the hands of a short guard or scrawny QB. Next time some wide receiver or center complains about not getting the ball enough, I'm keeping my mouth shut. I've learned my lesson.

AJ Daulerio Follow-up to Deadspin Post

AJ was kind enough to follow up on Saturday's post about Deadspin and the Decline of Merit-Based Commenting. I had some open-ended hypothetical questions that he answered, and his take is below.

1. Where are these new commenters going to come from?
AJ: I don't know if it's actually a matter of adding new commenters to replace old ones.It may seem like that at first glance, but the whole "execution" postwas really a way to scatter the herd a little bit, shake things up,and give me a starting point. Once the new system goes into place (anyday now? next week? next month?) the starred commenters will have roles that are truly indicative of their star. I don't know when the original star system went into play. I don't think Leitch does either. It wasn't necessarily a system that either one of us fully supported-- and, frankly, didn't worry about -- but with this new system in place, it was absolutely necessary to take a look at who had stars,etc. It sucks, but sometimes corporatey things suck. We all deal.

2. Instead of (Deadspin) being so myopically focused on comments and commenters, why not take a truly broad look at its community of fans and find a way to increase fan support and monetize that fanaticism?
AJ: I don't know how anyone can really "monetize" fanatacism. That's not really the goal of this. All Gawker sites have always had a standard for comments on the site -- try outs, approvals, etc. -- and since all of the sites have grown that system kind of collapsed under its own weight. The new system will have two-tiers: the starred commenter comments will be the only ones available after the initial click-through button. The non-starred commenters will still be able to comment, but they'll be collapsed. (Readers can still see them if they click a "See all" button or something.) However, starred commenters will now be able to go through and move non-starred comments to the front page. Once everyone gets used to that system (including me and the comment moderators) I think we'll have a better idea of how to employ more comment-of-the-week/starred comment nominees and other ideas to better blend the editorial with the commenting community. Since the whole system hasn't even been launched yet, it's tough to conceptualize a concrete plan for how this will be executed a.) we don't know who will be left b.) who will be added. c.) if people will hate the system and not bother with it. But once it gets going, I do have a plan to rebuild the community. It'll be smaller, sure, but thegoal of this is also to recognize that some of the commenters do enhance a post -- or make a post, in some cases -- and give people a better idea of what we're looking for in a starred commenter.

3. How is Deadspin going to reward its best commenters?
AJ: This was kind of covered above, so that's still a work in progress. But rewards are nice. I like presents. Who doesn't like presents?

Bloggolalia: Deadspin and the Decline of Merit-Based Commenting

I've been interested in discussing Deadspin's decision to trim its commenter ranks for a while, but have been overwhelmed by apathy and underwhelmed as to how many people would be interested in such a topic. However, a surprisingly dull Saturday has finally provided me with the impetus to happily babble.

First, the Deadspin fiasco was funny because of all the uncomfortable truths that no one seemed to want to discuss. A sampling:
1. DU!AN only worked because of the fanaticism of Deadspin's commenters. It was an awful format to have a conversation. I tried it a couple times, and couldn't stand having to wait 5-10 minutes to get a reply for each comment. AOL circa 98 laughs at that form of discussion. The only times DU!AN really worked is when there was a major evening sporting event that could be discussed. Now, if Deadspin had been clever enough to adopt CoveritLive or another form of fan discussion for DU!AN, it may have been able to duplicate the fan enthusiasm I saw on Twitter for chatting about big games. However, it never quite could pull off a decent format for game discussion. (I did like the energy of live-bloggers, but Deadspin seemed to go away from that in the last year, e.g., no live-blogs for the NBA play-offs).

2. If you were a funny commenter, you should have left Deadspin long ago to start your own blog. KSK, among others, were smart enough to realize this. An occasional "+1" from Internet strangers sucks compared to being able to control your own blog and show off all your skills. No one gets wealthy, noticed, or benefits solely on the basis of being a Deadspin commenter.

3. Based on 2, Deadspin had to eliminate some commenters eventually, because soon only mediocre commenters would be left. If you just allow everyone to sign up, over time the old commenters start to dominate. It creates a dead site, humor-wise, because the best leave, and the mediocre commenters keep trotting out the same type of humor repeatedly. If you remember the fiasco over Facebook commenters, it was difficult for any new voices to truly get a shot. I signed up with a fake Facebook name and was amused to see how people over-reacted and refused to give this "new" person a chance. AJ had to clean house eventually, one way or another. I give him props for waiting a little while to do it instead of making wrong moves when he first took over. However...that's about it for Deadspin praise on this post.

4. Merit-based commenting is dead, for now. When I first became a sports-blogger, I wasted a lot of time commenting on different sites and interacting with other commenters. However, I can't say that it ever did me much good. It took me an hour just to exchange two comments with another blogger. Perhaps Twitter offers a better way; one can be notified via cell-phone when there's been a comment response. But right now, I don't see sports bloggers being interested in the comment section any more. The trade-off between responding to 5 comments and writing a new post leans heavily towards writing a new post. And when was the last time you saw a site truly reward its hardest-working commenters? Which leads me to...

5. The gold-star idea on Gawker (and thus Deadspin) was breathtaking in its stupidity. Many sites get unpaid help from commenters, reviewers, and editers. Gawker should have done its homework on how other sites rewarded free labor. Eventually, commenters have to be rewarded or given some attention, lest they focus on other sites instead where they get more feedback or praise. Rather than come up with an interesting reward system like thumbs up/down (youtube style) or comment of the week, a lazy default mode was used to award stars. People of course took advantage of this method. Then, when Deadspin belatedly realized that the star method was being abused, people actually bewailed the loss of their star. Kindergarten-style rewards provoked kindergarten-style behavior.

6. Randomly removing people's Deadspin accounts seems like an arrogant bet that commenters can be easily replaced. They can't, and it appears that AJ's background in oddsmaking failed him here. See 4: I really believe any so-called "golden-age" of commenting is long-gone. It's too late to go back to some ideal of merit-based, survival of the fittest commenter. Those days are long gone; the blogging culture has changed since 2006. People aren't as excited about hitting the "Submit" button anymore in a major blog's comment section; they take it for granted.

It's too easy to start up your own blog or become a fan of your team's blog rather than wait for an hour for the latest Deadspin post to go up so you can make a feeble attempt at a witticism that MIGHT get a +1 if it's within the first 10 comments. Where are these new commenters going to come from? Deadspin seems to have trouble drawing in the college crowd in any large numbers for the comment section. It does gain 20-somethings bored at their first or second after-college job or grad school, but those commenters fade out after about 6 months of frenzied commenting. Kicking out mediocre commenters isn't going to bring good commenters back. Once they are gone, they are gone. Rarely do people return to their favorite web-site after the magic is gone--ask, Friendster, Xanga, or Myspace about that. Unless Deadspin truly has a plan to make commenting interesting again or to recruit talented commenters, I doubt that commenting will improve in the short term.

7. I think that in the long-term, no one will remember this decision. Deadspin will be a little more sterile, a little less user-friendly, but will still put up decent traffic numbers. Google is the true driver of hits and revenue, not comments. However, long-term I think that this creates a vacancy for sports blogs that can do a better job of managing community. For too long Deadspin has thought that comments define its fan community, instead of realizing that comments were the only way that the community could express itself. Instead of being so myopically focused on comments and commenters, why not take a truly broad look at its community of fans and find a way to increase fan support and monetize that fanaticism?

In conclusion, comments were closely connected with the start of the site. They don't necessarily have a place in the future of the site; there are many other ways to incorporate reader feedback and tips. But any site (or business) that ignores or mistreats a subset of its readers must be careful of its future. Deadspin kicked out some useless commenters, but it also unnecessarily annoyed people who consistently contributed decent content, and seems to have no plan to create something useful from the entire mess.

Social Networks: Paradigm Shift, or Overhyped Fad? Part 2.

Part 2 of my discussion with Brian of MadPropstoBakedPotatoes follows. Part 1 ended with me asking Brian to explain how social network relationships would result in actual purchases.

Brian: You're approaching it wrong - stop thinking in terms of monetizing your social network
MC: Ok, I'll keep it more to the level I know, then--friendizing it, if you will, ha.
Brian: Stop thinking in terms of real-world vs online-world, because they're becoming the same thing
MC: Hmm...the days of using social networks for escapism are over, then?
Brian: It's the same as walking into a cocktail party as far as I'm concerned
Go in, meet people, learn about them, become friends
Someone needs a freelance writer, and I'm like "Hey, I know so-and-so from this or that network - they'd be perfect"
MC: And so a large database of skills and personalities is assembled, that might not be available locally.
Brian: I mean those are the broad strokes of what this all is.
If you're a business there are certainly tools and techniques you want to use.
MC: But, when we talk about "making friends" in an on-line sense, there still is not the same level of legitimacy, trust, and reliability that there is in real life.
Brian: But in broad strokes, this is "you can now have a cocktail party with the entire world"
MC: And maybe if your vision is true that the two are merging, that will change.
Brian: That's part of what's happening - notice I'm no longer The Cavalier
MC: I see social networks as giving me MANY weak ties--but few strong ones.
Brian: You want to know who I am, you can search me out and find out
It's all what you make of them - you can be as transparent as you want
MC: one thing I appreciate about soc. net. is that credentials don't matter.
Brian: But I'll bet you find you make stronger ties with your real name than you do when you're MCBias
MC: I find the key is to put up real photos/video of myself. If people see a real image, they connect more.
Brian: I'll tell you what the next big thing is
And remember, I called online video a year before YouTube
What's next is Personal Branding
It's why Linkdin is growing so fast
MC: I initially was very high on social networks when I first got involved...I just find over time that I become more cynical on how far they will take you
I can shove my foot in a lot of doors I never could have gotten into before
and having a few friends opens the door to more friends in a nice golden spiral of sorts
But the true pay-offs seem to be beyond social networking--you still can't make a frog into a prince or what not.
MC: I think that looking at social networks as a paradigm instead of a tool may be mistaken, but I am surprised by how many inroads Facebook has made in the older set.
Brian: Well the term social networks is like the fetus of what this will all be eventually
MC: I think that there will be a sharp demarcation in the end
between the daylight, which will be personal branding, somewhat sanitized social networks
like linkedin and facebook
and very obscure, escapist, no one uses their real name communities
But I wonder, what's our capacity to be involved with social networks? Are we all going to be sitting in our houses drinking beer and chatting with each other instead of going out locally?
Brian: Sure, but everyone will have a foot in the former - you'll have to
That's where mobile comes in
MC: I think I may have said this, but I think Twitter's popularity is 90% due to being first mobile social network.
Brian: Sitting at a desk working at a traditional computer will be for people who need that type of hardcore hardware and processing power
(had discussion on American vs. European/Japanese innovation and tools, omitted)
I'm talking like ten years from now - you might be having a party in your house, and you've got essentially a massive screen on your entire wall
Brian: You hop on Twitter2020, and want to find a party in Tokyo to "party-connect" with - their party is on your wall and vice versa
MC: And I've seen some of this already in the blogtv communities
Brian: You can do some Minority Report action, call up the profile on the hot blond in the dress, and see her name, what she does, etc
MC: capabilities are there. But people are holding back.
Brian: and you talk to her. And she'll need for that profile - her personal brand well established
Brian: If I had to sum up the entire thing of what I'm trying to say, it's that social networks are the beginning of "The ability to easily and genuinely connect with real people worldwide".
Brian: How you use that ability is the same as how you use the ability to connect with your immediate world right now.
MC: I agree with easily. I strongly disagree with genuinely and worldwide to this point, given my previous experiences.
But perhaps I should stop being such a cynic--I mean, I just came back from NYC where I did a sports blogger meetup
Brian: That's why it's a paradigm shift - we're only just beginning.
MC: and I've been doing stuff like that easily in 2009, where it never would work well pre-2009.
Brian: Right - I mean the stigma of "meeting someone online" has only begun to wear off in the last 2 years or so!
MC: Hmm...I'll keep paying attention to social networks. They fit my skills well. The last thing I want to do is climb off the bandwagon just as my work is about to pay off
exactly!
Brian: Soon there will be no difference - the online world will just be a different platform of the real world.
MC: But, I don't have the "this will turn water to wine" look in my eyes I first had
Brian: And there will be dangers, just like in the real world.
MC: when I went through my first two Internet community experiences
Yes, and perhaps personal branding and more transparency is the answer to those dangers...or at least a start.
I guess, count me as a doubtful fan of social networks. Maybe my excitement about them was just premature, and the world will catch up.
I still think that people will be surprised just how hard it is to match real and on-line worlds, though.

Social Networks: Paradigm Shift, or Overhyped Fad?

Recently I decided to argue with, err, talk to Brian of MadPropstoBakedPotatoes about his enduring enthusiasm for social networks. While I've had lots of fun playing around on various forumboards, blogs, and social networks, I don't think that social networks will truly transform our world. I thought it would be a good time to discuss this, as Twitter/Facebook's recent popularity may represent the moment where social networks truly become mainstream. Part 1 of our edited chat is here.

Brian: I'm here - hit the wrong window and nav'd away
MC: See, problem #1 with social networks, ha
when someone doesn't reply, you don't know if they hate you or if its tech problems
But ok, explain to me how social networks represent a paradigm shift.
Brian: What's the best way to get more business, attention, connections?
IN the real world?
MC: What I do is look for powerful people I can relate to and have some sort of possible in with
or just befriend as many people who are slightly higher on the ladder than me
and hope it pays off.
If you're a company, you search for a snazzy marketing campaign.
MC: How does the world of social networking change this?
Brian: Well, I would answer my own question differently.
Brian: OKay, best ways to get business:
In order of importance:
1) Word of mouth, personal referral
2) Personal connection or attachment to product or service
3) Advertising
Would you agree with this?
MC: I would say that yes, 1) is the best place to start early on, but pretty soon you run out of new fans and word of mouth runs out
it's like telephone, eventually the message starts getting misheard as it's being transferred
But I definitely agree with the order for new companies/starting out.
Brian: Well that's my entire point - you now have the ability to connect on a personal level with as many people as you want to - there's no reason word of mouth has to ever run out
I'm surprised you don't see this frankly
MC: Ah, but see, to keep up those relationships requires quite a bit of effort
once you cross the 500 fan mark
it's very difficult to continue growing and adding to your network
Brian: OMG you mean it's not EASY lol
MC: LOL yes, sometimes I have to write the pretty girls first before they write me back
this makes me sad
But the ads make it seem so easy!
err, never mind
Brian: We are about the same age, right?
MC: close-ish, I'm 29
Brian: I don't know about you, but I can't be sold to
As soon as I feel you're trying to sell me something I'm tuning you out
MC: true
Brian: But be my friend, and I'll do anything for you (without reason har har)
Best Buy is a great example - I would read up on what they're doing
You don't need to be best friends with everyone
MC: But see, all of this is only succeeding because social networks are new. Let me give a quick example
First blogger to write a book? I rush to buy his book, go to two of his signings
Second blogger? I pick it up when I next go to the bookstore
Third? I skim it at the bookstore, decide he sucks, ha
I mean, do you really think we're talking about lasting value here? The novelty factor is high.
Brian: I don't understand the correlation - you're talking about a product, I'm talking about a platform of interaction
This isn't new - none of it. On a conceptual level it's not any different from how things have always been.
MC: Ok, good, at least we agree there.
Brian: Since the beginning of time, one of the primary rules of marketing is to make a personal connection between product and consumer
You quite literally have an ability to do that on a massive and real scale
The tools are one part. The other part is the transparency that social networks are giving us.
The days of "hotbabe453" are leaving.
MC: I feel that social networks have two advantages: (1) speed and (2) rapid search capabilities for the exact type of person you're looking for.
Thank goodness, hotbabe453 would never return my messages anyway.
Err, I mean...
Brian: Let me give you some examples:
MC: But what I'm not seeing is true follow-through from social networks.
Brian: 1) Joe writes a book with a very narrow target audience. Let's say only 10,000 people on earth would like Joe's book. Joe now has the capability to go find those 10,000 people, connect with them on a real level, and eventually they may read his book.
Does this make sense?
MC: Yes, Wired went crazy about this--saying that this enables people to design products for the long tail
Brian: So scale that concept out 50 different ways - it makes sense.
MC: But my counter-argument is, are those people really going to rush to buy Joe's book in the real world? They may think Joe is cool, and makes funny jokes.
But when push comes to shove, will they break out their wallets? open their homes? etc.
I have real doubts about this. Any time actual dollars are stated, and people seriously want commitment from their social network, I see no follow-through.
And I'd love to hear your experience on this--perhaps you have mastered it.

Part 2, including Brian's response and an interesting discussion of personal branding, will be posted tomorrow.