Jeff Green, We Hardly Knew You

After the depressing "Losing for Losing, Too" entry of a couple weeks ago, I figure that an NBA draft post is to be called for. Let's see how long THIS one gets!

The C's, in their insidious #5 slot . . . traded it!!! Along with Wally Szczerbiak and Delonte West to Seattle for Ray Allen. And while Boston seems to be recoiling in shock and horror, I'm just plumb tickled here in Kentucky. Here's why:

What we got: An aging but legitimate superstar. Allen's been a seven-time all star and ALWAYS averages well over 20 points a game. And while he IS aging, he averaged his career high last season! He can shoot, shoot, and shoot some more. He can combine with Paul Pierce to form an absolutely devastating two-headed monster. We used to think that Pierce and Walker were tough to handle -- this should be even better.

What we gave: The #5 pick, technically Jeff Green although Corey Brewer probably would have been a better pick for the Celtics. Either one (or any number of others) stands a chance to develop into a monster player. Or Todd Fuller. Let's be honest here -- the only sure thing about the draft is that you never know what you're really getting. The certainty is youth and uncertainty! We have TONS of youth (Jefferson, Perkins, Green, Allen, Gomes, Rondo, Telfair) and some uncertainty as it is, as well as just a few more years of Pierce as one of the upper-tier players in the league. Nobody since MJ's been able to do it ALL by themselves though, so now he has a legitimate stud take the team to the next level. Delonte West -- hey, I liked the guy. He's pretty good. But let's be serious -- he's not exactly irreplaceable and will probably always be a nice complimentary piece. You need guys like Delonte -- but you can GET guys like Delonte! Wally Szczerbiak -- here's my biggest regret about the trade -- I've *just* learned to spell this guy's name (seriously -- take a look at that bad boy!). Otherwise, we lose a really good spot-up shooter who's injured a lot and is a minus on d. I'm sure he's a great guy, but I've never been a fan of his in Boston. Addition by subtraction, in my book. Or in other words -- Allen's a HUGE upgrade compared to Sczc.

Here's the biggest gripe that I hear -- "Oh no, we sold away our future!" Here's the deal though -- nobody can ever keep all their potentially great young talent together until that magical moment where they all mature at the same time and win 12 straight championships. It just doesn't work -- you need a mix of players, and the C's were VERY heavy on the young and the hopeful. As mentioned, we STILL have our best young player who's on the verge of being a stud for real (Jefferson) as well as several other developing guys (see above). What we have now is a chance to seriously compete in the East right now. Celtics basketball and the NBA in general has been quickly moving toward irrelevance, and just this quickly we're relevant again. Should be in the playoffs for SURE, probably the 2nd round, and just maybe the Eastern Conference Championship. As for the future? Time will tell, but it strikes me that trading someone who you hope will be really good for somebody who already is really good is a deal worth making.

Oh yeah, and now there's talk that Garnett could be coming, too. . . .

Can You Report the Post Office to the BBB?

Every once in a while I think about stuff. Dangerous, I know, but sometimes funny, too. Here's my thought for this week.

When you mail a package at the post office, you have the opportunity to buy insurance at an additional charge. Has anybody ever thought about how, exactly, this is working? You pay to send the package, and then pay EXTRA to make certain that the package arrives, and in the same number of pieces. How did this ever come to be? Would we let this kind of thing go in any other business?

Let's consider some common business transactions that we all make. How about swinging through the drive through for a quick lunch. . . .

"I'll have the #4 with a Coke please."
"All right sir, the #4 with tax comes to $4.23, would you like to purchase insurance for that at an additional fee?"
"Huh? Why would I insure my quarter-third pounder?"
"Well sir, there are a lot of things that could go wrong between the grill and your car. The burger could get dropped on the floor and stepped on by the assistant manager. We'd still be sure to get it to you, but it wouldn't be edible. If you insure it, you'll get your $4.23 back! Even worse, your order could be lost completely. There are a lot of high school kids working here, and you've probably guessed that there's no drug test required for employment. It just might happen that they completely lose track of your order to the point where it may *never* get to you, and if you insure it, you'll get your $4.23 back! If not -- well, we just can't make any guarantees."

How about this one:

"All right Mr. Smith, your sofa is scheduled for delivery on Tuesday afternoon. Now would you like to insure that today? You never know what might happen, you know! Let's face facts -- our delivery guys are hired for their muscle, not their womanly touch. It's not unheard of for them to load one-piece sofas and un-load sectionals, if you know what I mean. Also, it could be delivered to your neighbor or your previous address, and without insurance, well, you'll be watching Ugly Betty from the Berber rather than the Broyhill!"

The point, obviously, is simple: if you pay for a service, it doesn't seem reasonable that you should have to pay *extra* to insure that the service is carried out, right? You know, maybe I should start a blog that you have to pay to read, and then I could sell insurance so that you get your money back if I never write anything. Sound like a scam? Hardly! How could it *possibly* be anything other than on the complete up-and-up if something similar is being carried out by a branch of our very own US government!

You'll Probably HATE this One!

All right -- so everywhere you look professional athletes are getting into trouble. They're inappropriately groping exotic dancers (as opposed to "appropriately" offering dollars to watch them dance and remove their clothing -- I'm so glad that we have determined what is and isn't "appropriate"!), involved in shootings outside gentleman's clubs, conducting disorderly, and generally engaging in all manner of decidedly un-gentlemanly behavior on any number of Minnesota's 10,000 or so lakes. They're violating substance abuse policy, firearm policy, under-age alcohol provision policy, animal rights policy, and even their own probation. Things just aren't going well personally for a lot of these cats (not supposed to be a Bengals jab, but take it however you like), and it's never a secret when the rap sheet repeats another unsightly refrain.

So what do we do? What should we think? If you listen to much sports talk radio (and if you don't -- good call!), people have pretty much had enough. "SO much talent, SO much money, SO much of whatever life could possibly offer, and look at 'em throw it all away!" they decry. Points granted, of course. Ever since the Tank Johnson incident before the Super Bowl, though, I've started to hear more and more people who want those whom trouble seems to find to be disallowed to play. The issue is, I think, really quite interesting.

Here's the deal: I have two jobs. I work part-time as a "Distribution Clerk" for a dvd by mail rental company. Essentially, I stick labels and stuff envelopes. I also work part-time on a church staff. There I help create environments and provide direction for people to take their next step spiritually. Now let's say I get into trouble with the law. Let's say it's something . . . not TOO bad, just because it's me that I'm talking about and the hypothetical is, indeed, hypothetical, but something . . . bad enough. What happens to me?

I lose my job at Life Pointe. Immediately and without apology or regret. Done.

I keep my job sticking labels. No discussion necessary. Doesn't matter.

What does this mean? I don't know, I just thought it was an interesting perspective -- "caught between two worlds!" (Only neither world has ANY of the money or groupies generally associated with professional sports.) An interesting double-take on the grace/judgement continuum. And a chance to touch a relevant topic without saying a thing. See, sometimes we CAN learn from those halftime coaches interviews!

Becoming the Metal Fan

Do you kids like the rock 'n' roll? I do. Yesterday one of my very, very favorite rock 'n' roll (or progressive death metal, whichever) bands was playing in some type of an un-air-conditioned machine shed/garage/burning-scalding-sweaty-fiery-furnace deal in the middle of the "city" park in the middle of nowhere *cough* I mean the middle of Scottsburg, Indiana. As you might expect, I have thoughts.

First comes the biggest gripe -- why don't these things EVER start even remotely close to the times they advertise? Let's not even get into the fact that finding any kind of credible-looking info on the details of this one was a good chore, because even then I found three different start times! One source said 6, another 6:30, and a third 7. So, not knowing the venue or the promoter or how many bands are playing or just generally how things roll in Scottsburg Indiana (!), we swing through at about 6:30. When does the first band actually start? A little after 8. Cool! Hey fellas -- who wants to go sit in a park in Scottsburg? Er, I mean, not that cool. Besides, my friend Jeremy had to be at work at midnight . . . and we were in Scottsburg, Indiana! Becoming the Archetype (oh yeah -- that's the band we went to see) didn't get on until about 10:30, and Jeremy had to rush back to get to work on time. This IS a Sunday night, by the way. He may have been the only one to work that night, but I'm guessing I was NOT the only one who had to work on Monday morning. (On second thought, as about the only over-16 people there, if we hadn't shown up, maybe nobody would have had to work on Monday morning. I don't know -- when DOES the Scottsburg, Indiana McDonalds require their slacker punks to show up during the summer?)

That done, there were a lot of highlights, too. The fellas were a lot of fun, and a couple of them got introduced to a whole new world. One of them was my friend Kyle's seven year-old. Metal up, Jacob! Awesome. How cool was it to see him in the very front, bobbing his head up and down and grinning? Did I mention that he's seven? And maybe the best behaved seven year-old in the world (and for sure in Scottsburg, Indiana). He hung out with a crew of geriatric cats (and Damon) for like 4 hours and never made a deal out of anything. On the flip side, Jeremy was probably the oldest person there, but it was his first "real" metal show, too. He's not really a metalhead or a hardcore kid, he just likes to go to stuff and have fun, so we took him. He also really likes to make fun of people, and if you've never been to a metal/hardcore show -- ummm, how shall we say -- he had a lot of material to work with. A LOT of material. And his aim was true, friends. If you were at the show, Jeremy probably made fun of you. And thank you for taking the hit on that, because we never would have had as much fun without your a-symmetrical hair to rip on. -- Side note -- How did it ever become "cool" to have your hairline look like it was following the price of Enron stock? I know, I know, I just don't get it because I'm old and crap, but mark my words -- the "emo swoop" or whatever it's called will go down in pop-culture history alongside parachute pants, pet rocks, and glam rock. In ten years I'll bet you won't be able to find *anybody* who will admit that they did this, but we'll know better. -- End side note -- Also, you should know that this band in particular has one of the most phenomenally ridiculous metal guitarists that anybody could ever imagine, and after he ripped off his first phenomenally ridiculous (really) solo, the look on Jeremy's face was absolutely priceless. It was like . . . like the Lions WON a game. Seriously!

Anyway, in a "scene" where the word "amazing" gets thrown around for anybody who can chug an open drop-d, Becoming the Archetype truly are/were amazing. But even better (and a LOT longer!) was just hanging out and complaining about the heat with my bros Jeremy, Jason, Nick, Kyle, Damon, and Jacob. Oh yeah, and laughing at YOU, if you're the guy in the 95 degree heat who decided that taking off your hooded sweatshirt (that's "hoodie" to you, I believe) was a risk you just weren't willing to take. After all, you ARE hardcore!

When More Is NOT Better

As you may remember if you're my regular reader, I don't watch much tv. This afternoon I couldn't nap like normal, however, so I flipped it on. Now I don't have cable, so I get like six channels. What was on TWO of them? Golf.

Now a lot of you are thinking that I'm a hater right about now. Not so. I love golf! I'm terrible, but I have a great time out on the course. I don't like watching it, but there are a million things that I don't like watching, and I have no problem with golf being on tv, or even with you or anybody else watching it. If that's your deal, great. Knock yourself out.

But do we need golf on two broadcast channels simultaneously? Is there ANY kind of reasonable explanation for this? And while I admittedly didn't look closely, I believe that one channel was the "regular" tour or whatever, and the other was the senior tour. Really, how does this happen? What CBS network exec sat in a meeting and said, "Ok team, Fox has the PGA on Sunday afternoons, what can we do to compete with that?" and had somebody answer "I've got it! We'll show golf too, but only OUR golfers will be really old!" And who's flipping channels and says to themselves (or, if they're like me, to their dog), "Oh good, golf. If there's nothing else, that will hold my interest. Hmmm . . . Oh! Even better -- really OLD golfers! This is a REAL step up!"

As you can tell, I just don't get it. There may be a good explanation, but nobody's let me in on the secret. Maybe it's just that the 30 year-old golfers generate too much excitement, so they have to get the geriatric cats to keep people with blood pressure problems healthy longer. A little bit like decaf coffee. If so, that's noble. If it's something else . . . ah, who am I kidding? I don't even want to know -- it's WAY more fun to make up ridiculous hypothetical CBS network programmer dialogs.

Blogging? NOT a Sport!

The sport/not a sport debate is one that has both enthralled and infuriated, solidified and divided, clarified and perplexed. To date, however, I have not been privy to a satisfactorily lucid, comprehensive criteria with which sports fans may distinguish sports from leisure activities, performance art, and simple athletic competitions.

Let’s start with a disclaimer or two – I’ve made a real and honest effort to keep my preferences from getting in the way. Some sports that I really despise will, indeed, be determined to qualify as sports. Some activities that I love won’t make the cut. To be dubbed a “sport”, then, is not necessarily to be judged qualitatively “better” than something that doesn’t make the cut, it’s simply the proper application of the criteria. You can disagree, but don’t be offended. In other words, I ain’t hatin’. Also, I’m aware that anybody can look up “sport” wherever they want and find a definition. Fine. What I’m trying to do is NOT conform to what something else says – dictionary, opinion, or otherwise. I AM trying to crystallize MY OWN understanding of what SHOULD constitute a good definition of a sport, and then impose it upon you! Again, however, feel free to disagree.

But before we dive into the criteria, let’s also debunk a couple of common but completely bogus arguments that are often heard when somebody’ favorite activity is determined to not be a sport:

1) “Those participants are athletes!” and the common variation “You have to be in shape to do that!” Ok, good, but that doesn’t necessarily qualify their activity as a sport. Maybe road construction workers, astronauts, or corn de-tasselers (that’s “corn jerkers” to our friends in Hoopeston Illinois) are as athletic as the participants in the activity for which our hypothetical arguer is lobbying.

2) “It’s really hard!” and its equally logically challenged sister, “Well then I’d like to see you do it!” Let’s see here . . . reading Chinese, performing calculus, and having babies all meet this criteria. Who wants to argue that they’re sports?

That out of the way, here we go. There are two sets of criteria: positive and negative. The positive criteria must be met . . . all of them. Conversely, meeting even a single one of the negative criteria is grounds for failure. Again, it doesn’t mean that activity X isn’t noble and enjoyable and wholesome, it just won’t qualify as a sport. So let’s get on with it already, eh?

Positive Criteria: There Must Be. . . .

1) Objective Scoring. If there are judges who assign a point value based on how good something looked or how well something was done, you’re looking at an art form, not a sport. Here’s what I mean – if William Perry takes a hand-off from the 1, trips over his own ankle, and falls forward into the end zone crushing his own left guard in the process, his team is awarded six points. If Peyton Manning executes a picture-perfect play-action fake, rolls right, and delivers a strike to the back of the end zone, their team is awarded the same six points. Beauty makes no difference because the scoring is objective – bringing the football into the opponents end zone is worth exactly six points every time. There are no style points. Style points – or “deductions” for lacking style or otherwise not looking pretty – will disqualify an activity from being a sport. It’s performance art, which is fantastic if you dig it, just call it what it is. Also disqualified would be anything that doesn’t have scoring at all, such as rock climbing. Examples of disqualified pseudo-sports: slam-dunk competitions, diving, cheer-leading, rock climbing, most “x-treme sports” (bad grammar would NOT engender style points, even if they did count).

2) Contingent Competition. What I mean by this is that there must be two or more competitors or teams simultaneously pursuing a common goal in a fluid action-reaction manner. In basketball, there is one ball that both teams are simultaneously trying to get through their basket while preventing their opponent from doing the same. In football there is one ball that each team is attempting to move toward their opponent’s goal line. In baseball they take turns batting, but the hitter is trying to hit the ball that the pitcher is throwing, and then the fielders will chase that same ball. Fluid action-reaction. There is a certain action-reaction in turn-taking activities such as golf, bowling, or curling, but my contention is that anything “you go, and then I’ll go” is a leisure activity or athletic competition. Examples of disqualified pseudo-sports: golf, bowling, curling, jumping rope, most “field” (as in “track and field”) activities.

3) The Practice/Train Co-Existence. To achieve a high level in a sport, one should have to both practice and train. In other words, there should be a competitive advantage in achieving higher levels of both skill and athleticism. A great athlete might be able to take over a pick-up football game against a bunch of weekend warriors based purely on speed, but he could be much better if he were to practice the disciplines of throwing, catching, covering, and tackling. Similarly, a skilled shooter may be the best basketball player at the park, but she could be much better if she was able to run up and down the court quickly and repeatedly. To excel at a high level there must be substantial levels of skill and athleticism; you must have to both practice and train. A special note here is in order in the case of baseball. John Kruk was once quoted something to the effect of “Look lady, I’m not an athlete, I’m a baseball player.” While it’s true that he (and others) were not great athletes, it remains that he would have been even better had he been more athletic. Imagine Kruk legging out infield singles, scoring from first on doubles, and leaping to snag rising line-drives! Sure, he was able to get by on skill alone, and the athletic element in baseball is admittedly downplayed in comparison to football, basketball, or hockey. Nonetheless, higher levels of athleticism in baseball players should result in greater effectiveness. Now although I love it, ping-pong is an example of a game of skill where athleticism simply does not produce a significant competitive advantage, and must be disqualified. Running, regardless of distance, is an example of an athletic contest where skill does not produce a competitive advantage. (Yes, I realize there is technique etc., but maintaining proper form etc. isn’t the same as practicing a jump-shot or hitting a curve ball. I have completed a marathon personally – and loved it – but while I trained like mad, I didn’t “practice.” Make sense?) Examples of disqualified pseudo-sports: Ping-pong, billiards, running, power lifting, competitive eating, quarter-bouncing.

4) A “Ball Object”. I say “ball object” rather than just “ball” because, for instance, hockey revolves around a puck and badminton a shuttle-cock, but the concept is the same.

Negative Criteria: An Activity Is Not a Sport If:

1) Operating a Machine Is the Chief Activity. Hey – no disrespect to race car drivers, archers (yes, a bow is a simple machine), or skeet shoot people. What they do is difficult, yada yada yada, but there’s no objective, qualitative difference between what they do and operating a brake press. If you’re pushing a button or a pedal, turning a wheel, pulling a trigger, or probably any of several other activities in which a mechanical advantage of any kind is employed, it’s just something other than a sport. I know this is a really, really tough one for a lot of you. I’m ok with that. Examples of disqualified pseudo-sports: any kind of driving, cycling, shooting, etc.

2) There Is Nothing More Than a Race. Racing, in any number of forms, is an honorable and challenging task, but it seems that to truly have what I would call a “sport” there should be something in addition to just being fast. Being fast can be an advantage in a sport, but there should be another element there somewhere -- you "play" a sport, but nobody "plays" a race, right? So whether on foot, ski, cycle, or vehicle, whether pushing, pulling, rowing, or anything else, arriving first makes you the winner of the competition. Congratulations! But it doesn’t make what you did a sport. I know, you’re hating this one, too. Guess what? I’m still ok with that.

3) It’s a Fight. A fight is a fight, not a sport. Boxing, UFC, martial arts, whatever – they’re all well and good, but they’re fights. The object of a sport is to defeat the competition – sometimes with violent elements present to be sure – but the object is not to bring your opponent to a point of literal physical submission. We have another category for that, and we call it fighting. I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m just saying that it’s something different.

4) The Athlete Isn’t Human. In yachting the athlete is the wind. In polo the athlete is the horse. In auto racing, the athlete is the car. You get the idea.

What are we left with? Still a good bit, actually. Of course there’s the obvious: baseball, football, basketball, and hockey. We have racket sports like tennis, racquetball, and badminton. There’s field hockey, water polo, and soccer (even though I can’t stand it, there’s no question that it qualifies). Probably cricket (like I know anything about cricket!). And an insanely long blog. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful and respectful hate mail, I’ll be doing one of my favorite non-sports . . . sleeping.

Can you spell "R - I - O - T - O - U - S"?

It doesn't happen much to me anymore, but last night I flipped on the tv during prime time. The even bigger upset, though, is that I found . . . real entertainment! That's right, there's nothing like dragging 14 year-olds into "real" reality television by way of the national spelling bee. The number of levels in which the broadcast was endlessly entertaining was nearly endless itself, and since I truly am "that guy," let us count the ways.

First of all, those kids are nails -- N - A - I - L - S -- nails. Unbelievable. Before last night, I considered myself a bit of a "word guy," but not anymore. Those cats blasted out words that I would have just stared blankly at, and even the words they fumbled, their educated guesses were more educated than my guesses would have been -- and I have a freaking master's degree! (Do you capitalize that? I don't know . . . but I'll bet that they do!)

Second -- after a few words it struck me that it wasn't just me who had never heard these words before -- the kids hadn't, either. THAT was why they kept asking for the language of origin (the kid who came in second would actually ask for the "etymology" -- I learned that word like last week!!!), the definition, and whether it came from the Greek root word "Parakletos" for "Scandinavian black metal band". At that point they'd piece together the different parts of the word with their understanding of the mechanics of whatever random language the word came from, and spell this completely foreign word. I mean this stuff was nuts -- N - U - T - S -- nuts.

Third -- the commentators. Oh my goodness the commentators. "You can see the time remaining." Yes, yes we can see the time remaining. It's ticking away in the upper left hand corner of our screen. Even better was Stuart Scott (yes, THAT Stuart Scott) interviewing the contestants after they were eliminated. "Now that's two years in a row going out on French words for you, what is it about French?" Great stuff. The best was after talking with the eventual winner for a couple minutes, he ended with something like "His favorite food is spaghetti and his favorite movie is Jumanji -- after all he's just a kid!" and then thrusting the microphone back in the kid's face. You could see the little guy's confusion -- "Ok, the mic's back in my face, so there must have been a question there somewhere . . . hmmm . . . I'm really smart, so I'm SURE I can figure it out . . . no -- N - O -- no, there really was no question. What am I supposed to say five minutes after the biggest moment of my entire life (at least until I make my first million next month) when I'm live on national network tv and Stuart Scott tosses me the mic but without a question? Seriously, shouldn't somebody have prepared me for this? Don't they know that there could be girls watching!" So he just stared blankly at the camera. Perfect.

Side note -- when will members of the media begin to actually ask athletes, spellers, and race car drivers real questions? "So that was a big game last night, huh?" does NOT qualify as a question, and if the guy you're "interviewing" gives any kind of respectable reply, it's HIM bailing YOU out, big guy. Just once I'd like to hear an athlete bang on a radio show host the same way the hosts bang on the athletes when they're not talking to them. "So athlete, you're team took a real shot when Joe went down with that torn rotator cuff, huh?" "Wow radio show host, you really fumbled that one. I mean you had plenty of time to write real questions, there was no pressure on you, and you went to school for this? I think it may be time to go back to the college studio for you, bro. Boom goes the dynamite!" End side note.

Four -- the competitor's interests were displayed for us under their name and home. How fun -- F - U - N -- fun is that? I mean really, what point is there in watching a spelling bee if you don't learn that the fun Canadian kid with the slightly shaggy hair really DOES dig curling? If they hadn't told me, I'd never have known!

Fifth, and finally, if you weren't paying close attention to number four then I'll ask the question for you: I love our frosty, mullet-sporting neighbors to the north and mean no disrespect, but how the heck -- H - E - DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS -- heck does a kid from *Canada* get in the *national* spelling bee? Good thing there was no geography, eh?