"I am not a role model," Charles Barkley once said. "Just because I can dunk a basketball, doesn't mean I should raise your kids." True enough, although I'm sure that in Chuck's case this was a bit of a pre-emptive strike. Sir Charles was smart enough to know that he wasn't up to role model standards, what with his gambling, carousing, and drunk driving. So, that should be taken into consideration when thinking of his now famous (infamous?) quote.
You can probably guess where I'm headed with this. Yeah, I'm talking about Tiger Woods and what may likely have been the worst two weeks of his life. For those living in a cave, on November 27th, Tiger Woods was found bleeding from the mouth and face, prone, and barely conscious in his own driveway after backing over a fire hydrant and taking out his neighbor's tree. Suspicion surrounded the event from the outset. Why did his wife take a golf club to his vehicle in an effort to extract him? Why was there no blood in the vehicle if his injuries were suffered in the accident? Did his wife attack him after learning of an affair? Woods didn't help matters much by cancelling three separate interviews with the police. When he finally did discuss the incident, it was with a vague post on his web site referring to his "transgressions" and appealing for privacy. He has since made a second post regarding his infidelity to his wife and stating that he will be staying off the golf course for an indefinite period of time to deal with his family issues.
One wonders what Woods must be thinking with a new woman coming out of the woodwork everyday detailing her "relationship" with Tiger. This man who is adored by fans, has a beautiful wife and child, and has arguably taken over for Michael Jordan as the pre-eminent athlete of our time is now sinking like a stone. I mean seriously, what the hell was he thinking? It's not just the alleged affairs (he's hardly the first jock to misuse his, er, jock), it's the sloppiness and apparent rampant nature of them. Who knows if all these women are telling the truth or not, but there's certainly enough smoke there to send the media fire trucks and paparazzi dalmatians out of the station.
While this whole sordid ordeal is very disappointing (at least) for those who know and care for him, as well as his massive fan base, I think it points to the dangers of holding people you don't know in unreasonably high esteem. Not to say that the ubiquitous Woods hasn't contributed to this perception. He, along with his multitude of sponsors, have positioned him as the standard bearer of modern excellence. As a friend once said to me: "I'm tired of Tiger Woods telling me how to live." And although this same friend is a huge fan of Lance Armstrong--- therefore dripping his statement in irony---I get what he means. Tiger has certainly sought the pedestal that he has been placed on, and up until now, it's a position that he has clearly enjoyed.
However, the media and, yes, we the public have to take some responsibility for this too. How many times do we have to be burned by a public figure before we give up on these guys as models to live our lives by? I'm not suggesting that we can't admire any of these folks, and I'm definitely not saying that I haven't fallen prey to this level of affection myself. In fact, if Bono came out tomorrow as a womanizing man-whore who drowned puppies on the weekend, I would be crestfallen. So, as I write this, I am cleanly aware that this physician must also heal thine own self for I too am guilty.
As a child, I had no greater sports hero than Julius "Dr. J" Erving, the superstar pro basketball player for the Philadelphia 76ers. Hell, I'm still a Sixers fan to this day thanks to the gliding, acrobatics of the funky, claw-handed, militant afro'd small forward who was the very predecessor of such gravity defying players like Dominique Wilkins, Michael Jordan, and Lebron James. No one had ever seen anything like the good doctor when he came on the scene. And it wasn't just his high wire athletic endeavors that fascinated me. It was also his almost regal bearing, his thoughtful demeanor, and well-spoken intelligence. He seemed to exemplify class on and off the court. I know now that this was only a small part of the truth. Erving was also a terrible tramp who had a child out of wedlock whom he barely spoke to---let alone acknowledged---for over 20 years. He has only in the last year attempted to have a real relationship with his daughter. Absolutely shameful.
Now, does this mean he's no longer in any way a hero to me? Do his infidelities and absentee parenting take away from the wonder I experienced watching his athletic accomplishments? Of course not. It does however, put them into perspective.
I'm certainly not the first fan to suffer from the shock and disappointment of the sight of fallen idols. The list of loose, fifth limbed athletes reads like a who's who in sports for the last quarter century. Erving, Barkley, Jordan, Tom Brady, Muhammad Ali, and now Woods have all caused themselves and others great harm by their willingness to spread themselves around. Perhaps the most infamous example is that of former Seattle Supersonic star Shawn Kemp. At last count, Kemp had seven babies by seven different baby mamas. Revolting. Check that, I stand corrected. The most infamous example has to be OJ Simpson. The "Juice's" infidelities lead to divorce and eventually to body bags. I guess that makes him king of the assholes.
This sort of behaviour is hardly limited to athletes. Presidents Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Clinton all had a "little something" on the side. Even the greatest civil rights leader of the 20th century, Martin Luther King Jr. was known to copulate with someone other than his wife.
So why do they do it? Why do they put their income and image at risk for a little "strange," so to speak? Well, because they can. These individuals live a lifestyle that most of us can't possibly imagine. They are catered to wherever they go. They have agents who insist they are worth millions of dollars to their teams and advertisers. Consider the ego required to think that you're worth ten million dollars a year to put a ball in the hoop or on the fairway? Or how about living a life that constantly requires you to be away from your family? A lifestyle that has women throwing themselves at you every chance they get. Temptation, literally around every corner. Who wouldn't start to believe they were bulletproof? I once heard a quote that states, "fame doesn't change you, it just brings out who you already are." Ain't it the truth. I mean, you don't even have to be handsome. Look at Charles Barkley. If he weren't able to dunk that basketball, he would likely be a tubby, moon-faced UPS driver (not that there's anything wrong with that). A pretty hilarious one, but still.
So, does that mean these cads should get a pass for their lascivious behaviour? Hell no! It just means we should put their lives in context. A context far outside of our own. Someone once said that "the greatest mystery in life is someone else's marriage." Fair enough, but I think I can one up that statement. I would say that the greatest mystery in life is someone you think you know whom you've never met.
Now, I'm not suggesting that we can't admire their deeds and exploits. There are few things more enjoyable than watching someone do something that you, yourself can't. Whether it's sports, the arts, public speaking, whatever. It's also nice if the most talented among us are good people who do good things. Woods himself has a number of charities that he is involved in that benefit children and education. In fact, his Tiger Woods Learning Center is a model educational facility for children from grades 4-12. It's fair to say that Woods doesn't just give money, or lend his name to charities, he also give his time. Which I consider no small thing, and worth remembering while he's getting pilloried (and rightly so, more or less) by the media and the public.
I guess all I'm really trying to say is that we, and the media, play a pretty large role in the exalting of these public strangers. That there is a very real danger in falling in love from a distance (it's just a baby step from stalking, ya know). So yes, these are incredibly accomplished people and there is much to be admired about many of them. But, in the end, they are only people. And people are complicated, act accordingly.
Sumo-Pop
December 13, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The King Of New York
With all due respect to Joy Division, Peter Gabriel, and The Cure, there is no greater omission of an eligible artist in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame than Lou Reed. While this has been a long standing opinion of mine for over a decade (Lou's been eligible since 1995), it was brought back to the front of my mind during the broadcast of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 25th Anniversary Concert on HBO last Sunday. Along with such extraordinary artists as U2, Stevie Wonder, Bruce Springsteen, and Aretha Franklin, there was Lou Reed being backed up by--- of all people--- Metallica (who scored several thousand cool points with me). There they were, the five of them roaring through Lou's deathless rock anthem "Sweet Jane" in front of a packed crowd chanting "Lou" at Madison Square Garden in Lou's hometown of New York City.
So why isn't Lou Reed in the Hall of Fame? There are a few weak arguments in his disfavor.
First, many would argue that since he's already in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a member of the groundbreaking rock band, The Velvet Underground. However, this is a little like saying that Paul McCartney, John Lennon, and George Harrison needn't be inducted as solo artists since they are already in as a part of The Beatles. Hell, Eric Clapton has been inducted three separate times (as a member of the Yardbirds, Cream, and for his solo work)! I think the same standard should be applied to Lou. And yes, I did just compare Lou Reed to Eric Clapton, John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison.
Some might also say that Lou's best work was with The Velvets and therefore his solo recordings alone don't merit induction. This argument doesn't hold water either. Even if you prefer his V.U. work to his solo career, his own work merits inclusion. Don't believe me? Then go to allmusic.com (the critical bible of recordings) and you will find that 12 of his albums have been awarded 4 star ratings. A few years ago RollingStone Magazine released a list of the 500 greatest rock albums of all time. Lou was represented twice. Once for his glam rock, David Bowie produced masterpiece, Transformer, and again for his dark, doomed romantic song cycle, Berlin. His solo work has been covered by artists as varied as U2, John Doe of X, Duran Duran, Simple Minds, The Cure, and Perry Farrell of Jane's Addiction, just to name a few. He is revered by punk rockers (New York Dolls), glam rockers (David Bowie), industrial rockers (Nine Inch Nails), heavy metal rockers (Metallica), and just plain old regular rockers (pretty much everybody else). David Bowie---who needs to look up to no one--- worships Lou. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails considers Lou's 1975 album, Metal Machine Music, to be the foundation for industrial rock. So I'm not buying that Lou's solo stuff isn't good enough.
The last argument is that Lou simply never sold enough records. That his music never permeated the popular culture to a great enough degree that would warrant induction. I understand that Lou only had one top ten album (Sally Can't Dance), just three gold albums (Transformer, Rock and Roll Animal, and New York), and only a single top 40 hit (the wonderfully profane, bohemian, transvestite anthem "Walk On The Wild Side"), but I can tell you at least two artists in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that have none of those things: The Sex Pistols and Lou's own Velvet Underground. So, if you accept my argument that he was good enough, influential enough, and successful enough, then clearly Lou should be in.
I have to say that I take Lou's exclusion very personally. Other than U2, Prince, and David Bowie, no one's music has been as inspiring and influential to me. It was during my college years when I was running a record store that I truly discovered Lou Reed. I was performing an inventory of our stock early one morning when I popped in a used cd of Lou's classic 1989 album New York.
On that day I learned that Lou Reed was a genius. The album, a poison penned love letter to the city that defines him and vice versa was a revelation to me. New York is a concept album about the seedy underbelly of his beloved New York City. Covering everything from the struggle of its immigrant population to the corrupt politicians at city hall, New York is a landmark album.
After that day, I had to get everything he ever released. Many of his albums were out of print at the time so I had them all imported from Germany a little at a time. If one of these great albums came into the store and there was a choice between buying lunch or purchasing the latest imported arrival, then I went hungry. These records changed the way I look at music. They are the reason why I love Leonard Cohen, Nick Cave, and Elvis Costello. Singers with imperfect but singular voices. Artists whose words were every bit as important as the way they delivered them. Lou Reed is the reason why I read the lyrics in the liner notes.
First and foremost, Lou Reed is a storyteller. There is no better illustration of this ability than my favorite Lou Reed song, the 11 minute title track from his 1978 album Street Hassle. A three movement tone poem that combines elements of classical music, opera, rock and roll, and even a spoken word performance from Bruce Springsteen, "Street Hassle" is Lou's "Stairway To Heaven" and one of my two or three favorite songs ever. "Hassle" tells the story of a drug addled couples' last night together. After the girl overdoses at a party and dies in the second movement of the song, these are the words sung from the point of view of the host of that fatal get together:
You know, I'm glad that we met man
It really was nice talking
And I really wish that there was a little more time to speak
But you know it could be a hassle
Trying to explain myself to a police officer
About how it was that your old lady got herself stiffed
And its not like we could help
But there was nothing no one could do
And if there was, man, you know I would have been the first
But when someone turns that blue
Well, its a universal truth
And then you just know that bitch will never fuck again
By the way, that's really some bad shit
That you came to our place with
But you ought to be more careful around the little girls
It's either the best or its the worst
And since I don't have to choose
I guess I won't and I know this ain't no way to treat a guest
But why don't you grab your old lady by the feet
And just lay her out on the darkened street
And by morning, shes just another hit and run
You know, some people got no choice
And they can't never find a voice
To talk with that they can even call their own
So the first thing that they see
That allows them the right to be
Why they follow it, you know, it's called bad luck
Simply staggering.
I had the good fortune to see Lou Reed in 1996 on his tour for his terrific album Set The Twilight Reeling. I don't mind telling you that when the house lights went down I was as giddy as a 13 year old girl at a New Kids On The Block concert circa 1990. And during the encore when me and my three buddies bum rushed the stage during "Satellite Of Love," the thought crossed my mind that if this night went on forever then that would be fine with me.
I will also share that when it came time to ask my girlfriend to marry me that Lou Reed was the soundtrack to my proposal. For this nerve-wracking moment in my life I chose Lou's "Think It Over" from his 1980 album, Growing Up In Public. It may be the most tender (although not sentimental---never that) song of Lou's career. "Think It Over" is about a guy who asks a girl that he knows he probably doesn't deserve to marry him. As Lou put it:
And so, he woke, he woke her with a start
to offer her his heart
for once and for all, forever to keep
And the words, that she first heard him speak
were really very sweet
he was asking her to marry him, and to
Think it over
baby, think it over
Think it over
baby, why don't you think it over
I was that guy. In fact, in a lot of ways I still am. Although Lou certainly didn't write that song for me, it sure felt like he did. Isn't this why we love music in the first place? Songs like this that seem to live inside you?
So, although my argument for Lou's induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is---I believe---a sound one, I am far from impartial. Maybe you've had the occasion to talk to one of those former hippy, age of Aquarius types from the sixties, and heard them wax poetic about Bob Dylan. Well, Lou Reed is my Bob Dylan. In fact, he's more than that. He's the bard of the city streets, Shakespeare in a leather jacket, the King of New York. Let him in Hall of Fame, let him in.
Sumo-Pop
December 6, 2009
P.S. The song worked, she said yes. :)
So why isn't Lou Reed in the Hall of Fame? There are a few weak arguments in his disfavor.
First, many would argue that since he's already in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a member of the groundbreaking rock band, The Velvet Underground. However, this is a little like saying that Paul McCartney, John Lennon, and George Harrison needn't be inducted as solo artists since they are already in as a part of The Beatles. Hell, Eric Clapton has been inducted three separate times (as a member of the Yardbirds, Cream, and for his solo work)! I think the same standard should be applied to Lou. And yes, I did just compare Lou Reed to Eric Clapton, John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison.
Some might also say that Lou's best work was with The Velvets and therefore his solo recordings alone don't merit induction. This argument doesn't hold water either. Even if you prefer his V.U. work to his solo career, his own work merits inclusion. Don't believe me? Then go to allmusic.com (the critical bible of recordings) and you will find that 12 of his albums have been awarded 4 star ratings. A few years ago RollingStone Magazine released a list of the 500 greatest rock albums of all time. Lou was represented twice. Once for his glam rock, David Bowie produced masterpiece, Transformer, and again for his dark, doomed romantic song cycle, Berlin. His solo work has been covered by artists as varied as U2, John Doe of X, Duran Duran, Simple Minds, The Cure, and Perry Farrell of Jane's Addiction, just to name a few. He is revered by punk rockers (New York Dolls), glam rockers (David Bowie), industrial rockers (Nine Inch Nails), heavy metal rockers (Metallica), and just plain old regular rockers (pretty much everybody else). David Bowie---who needs to look up to no one--- worships Lou. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails considers Lou's 1975 album, Metal Machine Music, to be the foundation for industrial rock. So I'm not buying that Lou's solo stuff isn't good enough.
The last argument is that Lou simply never sold enough records. That his music never permeated the popular culture to a great enough degree that would warrant induction. I understand that Lou only had one top ten album (Sally Can't Dance), just three gold albums (Transformer, Rock and Roll Animal, and New York), and only a single top 40 hit (the wonderfully profane, bohemian, transvestite anthem "Walk On The Wild Side"), but I can tell you at least two artists in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that have none of those things: The Sex Pistols and Lou's own Velvet Underground. So, if you accept my argument that he was good enough, influential enough, and successful enough, then clearly Lou should be in.
I have to say that I take Lou's exclusion very personally. Other than U2, Prince, and David Bowie, no one's music has been as inspiring and influential to me. It was during my college years when I was running a record store that I truly discovered Lou Reed. I was performing an inventory of our stock early one morning when I popped in a used cd of Lou's classic 1989 album New York.
On that day I learned that Lou Reed was a genius. The album, a poison penned love letter to the city that defines him and vice versa was a revelation to me. New York is a concept album about the seedy underbelly of his beloved New York City. Covering everything from the struggle of its immigrant population to the corrupt politicians at city hall, New York is a landmark album.
After that day, I had to get everything he ever released. Many of his albums were out of print at the time so I had them all imported from Germany a little at a time. If one of these great albums came into the store and there was a choice between buying lunch or purchasing the latest imported arrival, then I went hungry. These records changed the way I look at music. They are the reason why I love Leonard Cohen, Nick Cave, and Elvis Costello. Singers with imperfect but singular voices. Artists whose words were every bit as important as the way they delivered them. Lou Reed is the reason why I read the lyrics in the liner notes.
First and foremost, Lou Reed is a storyteller. There is no better illustration of this ability than my favorite Lou Reed song, the 11 minute title track from his 1978 album Street Hassle. A three movement tone poem that combines elements of classical music, opera, rock and roll, and even a spoken word performance from Bruce Springsteen, "Street Hassle" is Lou's "Stairway To Heaven" and one of my two or three favorite songs ever. "Hassle" tells the story of a drug addled couples' last night together. After the girl overdoses at a party and dies in the second movement of the song, these are the words sung from the point of view of the host of that fatal get together:
You know, I'm glad that we met man
It really was nice talking
And I really wish that there was a little more time to speak
But you know it could be a hassle
Trying to explain myself to a police officer
About how it was that your old lady got herself stiffed
And its not like we could help
But there was nothing no one could do
And if there was, man, you know I would have been the first
But when someone turns that blue
Well, its a universal truth
And then you just know that bitch will never fuck again
By the way, that's really some bad shit
That you came to our place with
But you ought to be more careful around the little girls
It's either the best or its the worst
And since I don't have to choose
I guess I won't and I know this ain't no way to treat a guest
But why don't you grab your old lady by the feet
And just lay her out on the darkened street
And by morning, shes just another hit and run
You know, some people got no choice
And they can't never find a voice
To talk with that they can even call their own
So the first thing that they see
That allows them the right to be
Why they follow it, you know, it's called bad luck
Simply staggering.
I had the good fortune to see Lou Reed in 1996 on his tour for his terrific album Set The Twilight Reeling. I don't mind telling you that when the house lights went down I was as giddy as a 13 year old girl at a New Kids On The Block concert circa 1990. And during the encore when me and my three buddies bum rushed the stage during "Satellite Of Love," the thought crossed my mind that if this night went on forever then that would be fine with me.
I will also share that when it came time to ask my girlfriend to marry me that Lou Reed was the soundtrack to my proposal. For this nerve-wracking moment in my life I chose Lou's "Think It Over" from his 1980 album, Growing Up In Public. It may be the most tender (although not sentimental---never that) song of Lou's career. "Think It Over" is about a guy who asks a girl that he knows he probably doesn't deserve to marry him. As Lou put it:
And so, he woke, he woke her with a start
to offer her his heart
for once and for all, forever to keep
And the words, that she first heard him speak
were really very sweet
he was asking her to marry him, and to
Think it over
baby, think it over
Think it over
baby, why don't you think it over
I was that guy. In fact, in a lot of ways I still am. Although Lou certainly didn't write that song for me, it sure felt like he did. Isn't this why we love music in the first place? Songs like this that seem to live inside you?
So, although my argument for Lou's induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is---I believe---a sound one, I am far from impartial. Maybe you've had the occasion to talk to one of those former hippy, age of Aquarius types from the sixties, and heard them wax poetic about Bob Dylan. Well, Lou Reed is my Bob Dylan. In fact, he's more than that. He's the bard of the city streets, Shakespeare in a leather jacket, the King of New York. Let him in Hall of Fame, let him in.
Sumo-Pop
December 6, 2009
P.S. The song worked, she said yes. :)
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The End Of An Ogre
Well this is how it all ends...with a whimper. The once flatulent bluster of Charlie Weis heads out of town to the sounds of silence. No press conference and no final words to the city of South Bend or to the University that overpaid him so well.
It's a far cry from his introduction over 5 years ago as the expected savior of the Notre Dame football program. I'm sure many remember Weis---in all his bluster---laying down the gauntlet and saying "6-5 isn't good enough." And for two seasons it seemed that he might actually be the guy to turn the Fighting Irish around. After consecutive BCS bowl appearances (although they were soundly beat in both), Weis entered his 3rd season with a 19-6 record and a whole mess of top 100 recruits. That's when the bottom fell out.
The 2007 version of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish suffered through the worst season in the school's history finishing 3-9. The crazy part is, they actually seemed worse than that. They couldn't block or tackle, they were completely disorganized on both sides of the ball, and star quarterback recruit Jimmy Claussen took one of the worst beatings in the history of beatings. Coming from the New England Patriots, where as offensive coordinator Weis lead one of the NFL's most potent scoring machines, made the paltry output of the ND offense absolutely stunning. They were shut out twice and only scored 80 points in their first 8 games. To top it off, they also lost to Navy for the first time in over 40 years.
It was supposed to get better after that, and I suppose it did...a little. In 2008 ND went 7-6 and won the Hawaii bowl (their only post season victory in the Weis era). But they followed that modest success by going 6-6 in 2009. 6-6, despite having four consecutive top ten rated recruiting classes and a soft schedule. On a better team Jimmy Claussen and Golden Tate would have been Heisman Trophy candidates. Both had fantastic seasons but were done in by a leaky defense and an inability to win close games.
So after 3 years of mediocrity or worse, Notre Dame fired Weis on November 30, 2009. How did it all go so wrong?
Well, maybe selecting a man who had never been a head coach above the High School level might have been a mistake (Gerry Faust anyone?). Hell, Weis hadn't even been on a college sideline since 1989 at the University of South Carolina where he was an assistant.
Some would argue that the poor recruiting of his predecessor, Tyrone Willingham was a contributing factor. However, its worth noting that Weis' two best seasons were with Willingham's junior and senior recruits. Not to mention that all the players on Weis' last two teams were recruited by him and him alone.
I would say, however, that Notre Dame's biggest mistake was not in hiring Weis, but in giving him a ten year extension after losing to USC in the seventh game of his first season. Never has anyone been given more credit for losing a game in the history of college sports. Certainly, the game was a classic and ND was the clear underdog against the powerful Trojans. But they still lost didn't they? It boggles the mind that then athletic director, Kevin White would tack a decade on to the back of a six year contract for a coach who's record stood at 5-2 after losing a home game! How White kept his job for so long is a complete mystery. During Weis' first season the University was still paying Bob Davie (whom White extended, then fired the very next year), George O'Leary (of the resume scandal), and Willingham (who had two years left on his deal), along with their newly minted coach. Its also worth remembering that in Willingham's first year the Irish won their first 8 games and he didn't even get to coach a fourth season at ND. Now, the University will also be paying off Weis for years to come thanks to White's not so steady hand.
So now Weis is gone and you couldn't find a single soul (outside of some of his players) who will miss him. Its not just that he lost 27 games in 5 years (although that's plenty for the alumni and fans), it's also because you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the community who had any personal contact with him that would say anything nice about the now former coach. I know several people who have had interactions with him and could not believe how they were treated by Weis. I'd love to be more specific, but the fear of a law suit from the very litigious (see his malpractice suit over his gastric bypass surgery) football coach gives me pause.
But I will share with you what I believe will be my most lasting memory of Coach Weis. In the fourth quarter of their 2009 heartbreaking loss against UCONN, Weis lifted his water bottle to his lips and took a sloppy swig leaving H2O running down a chin that he didn't bother to wipe. There he was, a coach who couldn't hit his own face or be troubled to clean up the mess. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, Shrek.
Sumo-Pop
December 5, 2009
It's a far cry from his introduction over 5 years ago as the expected savior of the Notre Dame football program. I'm sure many remember Weis---in all his bluster---laying down the gauntlet and saying "6-5 isn't good enough." And for two seasons it seemed that he might actually be the guy to turn the Fighting Irish around. After consecutive BCS bowl appearances (although they were soundly beat in both), Weis entered his 3rd season with a 19-6 record and a whole mess of top 100 recruits. That's when the bottom fell out.
The 2007 version of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish suffered through the worst season in the school's history finishing 3-9. The crazy part is, they actually seemed worse than that. They couldn't block or tackle, they were completely disorganized on both sides of the ball, and star quarterback recruit Jimmy Claussen took one of the worst beatings in the history of beatings. Coming from the New England Patriots, where as offensive coordinator Weis lead one of the NFL's most potent scoring machines, made the paltry output of the ND offense absolutely stunning. They were shut out twice and only scored 80 points in their first 8 games. To top it off, they also lost to Navy for the first time in over 40 years.
It was supposed to get better after that, and I suppose it did...a little. In 2008 ND went 7-6 and won the Hawaii bowl (their only post season victory in the Weis era). But they followed that modest success by going 6-6 in 2009. 6-6, despite having four consecutive top ten rated recruiting classes and a soft schedule. On a better team Jimmy Claussen and Golden Tate would have been Heisman Trophy candidates. Both had fantastic seasons but were done in by a leaky defense and an inability to win close games.
So after 3 years of mediocrity or worse, Notre Dame fired Weis on November 30, 2009. How did it all go so wrong?
Well, maybe selecting a man who had never been a head coach above the High School level might have been a mistake (Gerry Faust anyone?). Hell, Weis hadn't even been on a college sideline since 1989 at the University of South Carolina where he was an assistant.
Some would argue that the poor recruiting of his predecessor, Tyrone Willingham was a contributing factor. However, its worth noting that Weis' two best seasons were with Willingham's junior and senior recruits. Not to mention that all the players on Weis' last two teams were recruited by him and him alone.
I would say, however, that Notre Dame's biggest mistake was not in hiring Weis, but in giving him a ten year extension after losing to USC in the seventh game of his first season. Never has anyone been given more credit for losing a game in the history of college sports. Certainly, the game was a classic and ND was the clear underdog against the powerful Trojans. But they still lost didn't they? It boggles the mind that then athletic director, Kevin White would tack a decade on to the back of a six year contract for a coach who's record stood at 5-2 after losing a home game! How White kept his job for so long is a complete mystery. During Weis' first season the University was still paying Bob Davie (whom White extended, then fired the very next year), George O'Leary (of the resume scandal), and Willingham (who had two years left on his deal), along with their newly minted coach. Its also worth remembering that in Willingham's first year the Irish won their first 8 games and he didn't even get to coach a fourth season at ND. Now, the University will also be paying off Weis for years to come thanks to White's not so steady hand.
So now Weis is gone and you couldn't find a single soul (outside of some of his players) who will miss him. Its not just that he lost 27 games in 5 years (although that's plenty for the alumni and fans), it's also because you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the community who had any personal contact with him that would say anything nice about the now former coach. I know several people who have had interactions with him and could not believe how they were treated by Weis. I'd love to be more specific, but the fear of a law suit from the very litigious (see his malpractice suit over his gastric bypass surgery) football coach gives me pause.
But I will share with you what I believe will be my most lasting memory of Coach Weis. In the fourth quarter of their 2009 heartbreaking loss against UCONN, Weis lifted his water bottle to his lips and took a sloppy swig leaving H2O running down a chin that he didn't bother to wipe. There he was, a coach who couldn't hit his own face or be troubled to clean up the mess. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, Shrek.
Sumo-Pop
December 5, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
A Stranger In The Land Of Swoon
As my wife and I entered the movie theater last Monday, I was keenly aware that what we were about to see wasn't made for me. That being said, nothing could have prepared me for the loopy, loony, over the top experience that is New Moon.
I have probably seen over 1000 movies in my life but New Moon is one of a kind. Having already viewed Twilight, I thought I had some idea of what to expect from it's sequel. Was I ever wrong. New Moon takes the overwrought, Teen Beat romantic intensity and turns it up to 11. There are scenes in this movie that have to be seen to be believed. You could have at some point attached Bella to a flying bovine and charted a course for the moon and I wouldn't have been any more agog.
Let me describe three scenes in specific:
Early in the movie, our hero, Bella (Kristen Stewart) goes missing in the woods on a particularly chilly night. Her father (the town sheriff played by Billy Burke) issues an all out manhunt for his lost daughter. As the flashing lights of police cars surround his home, out of the woods steps Sam, shirtless and shoeless carrying Bella in his arms. Everyone else in this scene is wearing a jacket except Sam and no one says a thing. I assume, at this point in the movie no one knows that Sam's a werewolf. So I would think that if my daughter went missing and a half naked man came strolling out of the woods with the unconscious fruit of my loins in tow that I would have some questions to ask. Not in the world of New Moon apparently.
In another logic defying moment, Bella is in her bedroom pining away for her long lost vampire, kinda-sorta lover Edward, when the occasional werewolf and romantic challenger to said vamp, Jacob gets her attention with a couple of well placed stones against her window. What darkness through yonder window breaks? It is Bella for I am...oh well, whatever, never mind. Anyway, Bella opens the window and Jacob tells her he's coming up. He then proceeds to literally Spider-Man his way up a tree and into her room. Since she doesn't yet know that Jacob is a werewolf, this display of physical prowess should be of some surprise. But does she ask Jacob how he could climb up the side of her house without being bitten by a radioactive spider? Nope.
And lastly, there is a scene late in the movie with the vampire royalty called "The Volturi." Residing in Italy, the Volturi are the vampire law makers or something. They bring forth Bella, Edward, and his sister Alice. The Volturi decides that Bella "has seen too much" and must die. However, Alice--who has the seemingly random yet convenient ability to see the future-- tells the Volturi that one day Bella will be a vampire too. Then stunningly, the Volturi let them go. If that were true, why wouldn't the Volturi force Edward to change Bella into a vampire right then and there. Wouldn't that solve the problem? I guess you're not supposed to ask.
Then there's the dialogue in this movie. In one unintentionally hilarious moment, Bella confronts Jacob about his lupine ways by saying "I guess you're a werewolf, huh." Jacob says "I guess so." To which Bella replies "Have you ever tried not being a werewolf?" Jacob's retort? "It's not a lifestyle choice Bella." I shit you not.
A lot of the acting in New Moon is pretty dreadful as well. Taylor Lautner as Jacob is very much at sea. Looking like he fell off the cover of an Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue, the boy strikes quite a pose. Unfortunately, he is not mute, which would have really helped his performance. His stilted, wooden line readings make you thankful for the moment he turns into the worst CGI animal this side of the lion Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia. And how about Ashley Greene as Edward's sooth-saying sister Alice? Greene is supposed to be playing a 100+ year old vampire but comes off every bit as flighty and giddy as Bella's human teen aged friends. She has to be the least imposing vampire in the history of vampire movies. And yes, I am counting the tanned, fey Dracula that George Hamilton played in the otherwise forgettable vampire comedy, Love at First Bite. The bronzed California man was way creepier than Ashley Greene. But, both of those performances take a major backseat to that of the eye-rolling, howl inducing performance of Michael Sheen as the head Volturi. Sheen, the very fine English actor who has been well regarded in such high tone flicks as Frost/Nixon and The Queen, comes off like Liberace with fangs. Ok, vampires in the Twilight Saga don't have fangs but you get the idea. Sheen is absolutely camptastic in New Moon. With florid gestures and an excrement eating grin that seems to say "I can't believe they're paying me for this shit," Sheen is a scream. This is the best "knowing" performance in a bad movie since Sam Elliott in Road House. Sheen, like Elliott, is surrounded by "thespians" who treat their material like Shakespeare, all ponderous and self-important. However, Sheen appears to be in on the joke. And boy was I grateful.
I do have to say that I am consistently amazed by Kristen Stewart as Bella. I honestly believe that she deserves some sort of honorary Oscar for the degree of difficulty of her work in New Moon. How she can possibly recite the words of this screenplay with such conviction--let alone a straight face-- is some kind of minor miracle. I think one day she'll look back on the Twilight Saga the same way Natalie Portman must view the three Star Wars travesties she was involved with. They will raise her profile and lead to other, better roles, but not necessarily be what she wants to be remembered for. In fact, I think Portman should take young Stewart under her wing and show her how you can recover from being stuck in overheated nonsense. After all, Portman acted for George Lucas and had to look longingly at Hayden Christensen and say "Hold me like you did on Naboo." Seriously, they should start a support group. And for those out there who think that Stewart can't act because their only experience with her is the Twilight movies, I would suggest you rent Sean Penn's Into The Wild or the indie flick The Cake Eaters for evidence to the contrary. You will thank me for it.
So you're probably thinking right about now that I hated New Moon. Au contraire. To my own surprise, I actually enjoyed it. I think it's the second best "bad" movie I have ever seen. Runner up only to the aforementioned Patrick Swayze TNT mainstay Road House (which if you haven't seen, do yourself a favor and throw away 2 hours of your life. Again, you'll thank me), New Moon is actually a lot of fun. There is something truly admirable about a movie that takes every single swoony second and heightens the drama to telenovela levels. I would go as far to say that New Moon is like one of David Lynch's absurdist fantasies, only without the female nudity, foul language, midgets, and well, artistry. New Moon is absolutely committed to delivering itself to its target audience of 13 year old girls. And no amount of logic gaps, plot holes, bad acting, or common sense is going to get in its way. I think there's something to be said for that type of Ed Wood level drive. Because, regardless of what you may think of it critically, you are not likely to see anything else like it until it's sequel Eclipse comes out in 2010. So sign me up for the next round because the upset of my experience is that while I may have been a stranger in Swoonland, I actually enjoyed my stay. Who'd a thunk?
Sumo-Pop
January 29, 2009
I have probably seen over 1000 movies in my life but New Moon is one of a kind. Having already viewed Twilight, I thought I had some idea of what to expect from it's sequel. Was I ever wrong. New Moon takes the overwrought, Teen Beat romantic intensity and turns it up to 11. There are scenes in this movie that have to be seen to be believed. You could have at some point attached Bella to a flying bovine and charted a course for the moon and I wouldn't have been any more agog.
Let me describe three scenes in specific:
Early in the movie, our hero, Bella (Kristen Stewart) goes missing in the woods on a particularly chilly night. Her father (the town sheriff played by Billy Burke) issues an all out manhunt for his lost daughter. As the flashing lights of police cars surround his home, out of the woods steps Sam, shirtless and shoeless carrying Bella in his arms. Everyone else in this scene is wearing a jacket except Sam and no one says a thing. I assume, at this point in the movie no one knows that Sam's a werewolf. So I would think that if my daughter went missing and a half naked man came strolling out of the woods with the unconscious fruit of my loins in tow that I would have some questions to ask. Not in the world of New Moon apparently.
In another logic defying moment, Bella is in her bedroom pining away for her long lost vampire, kinda-sorta lover Edward, when the occasional werewolf and romantic challenger to said vamp, Jacob gets her attention with a couple of well placed stones against her window. What darkness through yonder window breaks? It is Bella for I am...oh well, whatever, never mind. Anyway, Bella opens the window and Jacob tells her he's coming up. He then proceeds to literally Spider-Man his way up a tree and into her room. Since she doesn't yet know that Jacob is a werewolf, this display of physical prowess should be of some surprise. But does she ask Jacob how he could climb up the side of her house without being bitten by a radioactive spider? Nope.
And lastly, there is a scene late in the movie with the vampire royalty called "The Volturi." Residing in Italy, the Volturi are the vampire law makers or something. They bring forth Bella, Edward, and his sister Alice. The Volturi decides that Bella "has seen too much" and must die. However, Alice--who has the seemingly random yet convenient ability to see the future-- tells the Volturi that one day Bella will be a vampire too. Then stunningly, the Volturi let them go. If that were true, why wouldn't the Volturi force Edward to change Bella into a vampire right then and there. Wouldn't that solve the problem? I guess you're not supposed to ask.
Then there's the dialogue in this movie. In one unintentionally hilarious moment, Bella confronts Jacob about his lupine ways by saying "I guess you're a werewolf, huh." Jacob says "I guess so." To which Bella replies "Have you ever tried not being a werewolf?" Jacob's retort? "It's not a lifestyle choice Bella." I shit you not.
A lot of the acting in New Moon is pretty dreadful as well. Taylor Lautner as Jacob is very much at sea. Looking like he fell off the cover of an Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue, the boy strikes quite a pose. Unfortunately, he is not mute, which would have really helped his performance. His stilted, wooden line readings make you thankful for the moment he turns into the worst CGI animal this side of the lion Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia. And how about Ashley Greene as Edward's sooth-saying sister Alice? Greene is supposed to be playing a 100+ year old vampire but comes off every bit as flighty and giddy as Bella's human teen aged friends. She has to be the least imposing vampire in the history of vampire movies. And yes, I am counting the tanned, fey Dracula that George Hamilton played in the otherwise forgettable vampire comedy, Love at First Bite. The bronzed California man was way creepier than Ashley Greene. But, both of those performances take a major backseat to that of the eye-rolling, howl inducing performance of Michael Sheen as the head Volturi. Sheen, the very fine English actor who has been well regarded in such high tone flicks as Frost/Nixon and The Queen, comes off like Liberace with fangs. Ok, vampires in the Twilight Saga don't have fangs but you get the idea. Sheen is absolutely camptastic in New Moon. With florid gestures and an excrement eating grin that seems to say "I can't believe they're paying me for this shit," Sheen is a scream. This is the best "knowing" performance in a bad movie since Sam Elliott in Road House. Sheen, like Elliott, is surrounded by "thespians" who treat their material like Shakespeare, all ponderous and self-important. However, Sheen appears to be in on the joke. And boy was I grateful.
I do have to say that I am consistently amazed by Kristen Stewart as Bella. I honestly believe that she deserves some sort of honorary Oscar for the degree of difficulty of her work in New Moon. How she can possibly recite the words of this screenplay with such conviction--let alone a straight face-- is some kind of minor miracle. I think one day she'll look back on the Twilight Saga the same way Natalie Portman must view the three Star Wars travesties she was involved with. They will raise her profile and lead to other, better roles, but not necessarily be what she wants to be remembered for. In fact, I think Portman should take young Stewart under her wing and show her how you can recover from being stuck in overheated nonsense. After all, Portman acted for George Lucas and had to look longingly at Hayden Christensen and say "Hold me like you did on Naboo." Seriously, they should start a support group. And for those out there who think that Stewart can't act because their only experience with her is the Twilight movies, I would suggest you rent Sean Penn's Into The Wild or the indie flick The Cake Eaters for evidence to the contrary. You will thank me for it.
So you're probably thinking right about now that I hated New Moon. Au contraire. To my own surprise, I actually enjoyed it. I think it's the second best "bad" movie I have ever seen. Runner up only to the aforementioned Patrick Swayze TNT mainstay Road House (which if you haven't seen, do yourself a favor and throw away 2 hours of your life. Again, you'll thank me), New Moon is actually a lot of fun. There is something truly admirable about a movie that takes every single swoony second and heightens the drama to telenovela levels. I would go as far to say that New Moon is like one of David Lynch's absurdist fantasies, only without the female nudity, foul language, midgets, and well, artistry. New Moon is absolutely committed to delivering itself to its target audience of 13 year old girls. And no amount of logic gaps, plot holes, bad acting, or common sense is going to get in its way. I think there's something to be said for that type of Ed Wood level drive. Because, regardless of what you may think of it critically, you are not likely to see anything else like it until it's sequel Eclipse comes out in 2010. So sign me up for the next round because the upset of my experience is that while I may have been a stranger in Swoonland, I actually enjoyed my stay. Who'd a thunk?
Sumo-Pop
January 29, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Debaser
On November 10th, 2009 John Allen Muhammad was carried to the death chamber and executed by lethal injection at the Greenville Correctional Facility in Jarratt, Virginia. Muhammad was better known as the "DC Sniper," who with the help of his accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo, was responsible for a reign of terror that resulted in at least ten deaths in and around the nation's capitol. Muhammad and Malvo would stake out a distant position and wait for some innocent victim to cross their rifle sights, whom they would then fire upon. Their actions were vile, cowardly, and disgusting. After they were caught on October 24, 2002 they were convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced. Malvo received life in prison, and Muhammad was sentenced to death.
For someone like myself--who believes the death penalty should be abolished--Muhammad is the absolute worst case scenario when it comes to defending my opinion. A deranged, unrepentant killer like Muhammad tests my position like few others could. Like I said, he's the worst. And while I am very sensitive to the desires of the victim's family members, I will continue to take the stand that capital punishment has no place in modern society.
First, the adjudication of the death penalty disproportionately disfavors minorities and the poor. In a country where 74% of the population is white, 1768 of the 3572 inmates on death row are non-white. Nearly 50%. It's not hard to ascertain why. Minorities are still economically disadvantaged in the USA compared to the white majority. Often, the difference between life and death is whether the accused can afford to hire a decent attorney or not. Public defenders are much like probation officers: Overworked, underpaid, and with far too many clients to serve effectively. Does anyone seriously think that OJ Simpson would have beat the double murder charges he faced in California had he not been able to buy his "dream team" of lawyers? Former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once said, "There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has." Ain't it the truth.
Many would argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to others. However, there is literally no accepted scientific evidence to support this. Murder--whether it be of the cold-blooded variety or a crime of passion--is not a rational act. For one to be deterred by the fear of being put to death, one would have to be in their right mind. I think it's fair to say that sociopaths, psychos, and those in a blind rage do not qualify as rational. Therefore, how could it be a deterrent?
It is also irrevocable. Once the punishment has been handed out it cannot be reversed. This is particularly unfortunate for those who may later be proven innocent. As just about anyone can tell you, our justice system is not perfect. Since 1992 DNA evidence has exonerated at least 15 death row inmates. And DNA evidence is available in only a fraction of capital cases. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if there were 15 innocent people awaiting execution then there are certainly more on death row now who simply lack the appropriate scientific evidence to set them free. I would submit that if there is only one person who fits that description then there are far too many.
Some might also say that it's not fair to ask for tax payer dollars to go towards the health and housing of murderers and rapists. While I certainly understand that point of view, I wonder if those that hold that opinion know that it typically costs more to put someone to death than it does to keep them alive. This is due in large part to the lengthy appeals process that our justice system provides for the convicted. Maybe those same people think we should further limit the appeals process to make it a less expensive process. However, I can think of at least 15 people since 1992 who would probably disagree.
As I said before, Muhammad is the most difficult argument to make for someone like me. His was the very definition of an open and shut case. There is no doubt that he committed these awful, heinous murders, and that he is indeed deserving of severe punishment. So how can I advocate for his right to live (although not to live as he might choose)? Well, because for me, it really isn't about him, it's about us. In the end I believe a policy of capital punishment debases us as a people. I know many Christians point to "An eye for an eye" as it is written in the Old Testament. I would counter that Jesus himself was a victim of a wrongfully adjudicated death sentence (remember he was both poor and a minority). Not to mention, after Jesus came, the Old Testament became just that...old. You see, I always view Jesus as a rather forgiving sort and I find it hard to believe that he would want us to take away some one's opportunity for ultimate forgiveness by executing them. Who's to say that an inmate couldn't find redemption after twenty years in prison? Should they not be afforded the opportunity?
Now, I know that if God forbid, someone that I love were to be murdered that I might feel differently. While I would hope not, I think it's quite possible that if the authorities apprehended the guilty party and the court sentenced the offender to death, I would be more than willing to pull the switch myself. But then what would that say about me? That I would be willing to trade my own humanity for a hollow serving of revenge? And in turn, what then does the continuing existence of the death penalty say about us? The answer isn't pretty.
Sumo-Pop
November 22, 2009
For someone like myself--who believes the death penalty should be abolished--Muhammad is the absolute worst case scenario when it comes to defending my opinion. A deranged, unrepentant killer like Muhammad tests my position like few others could. Like I said, he's the worst. And while I am very sensitive to the desires of the victim's family members, I will continue to take the stand that capital punishment has no place in modern society.
First, the adjudication of the death penalty disproportionately disfavors minorities and the poor. In a country where 74% of the population is white, 1768 of the 3572 inmates on death row are non-white. Nearly 50%. It's not hard to ascertain why. Minorities are still economically disadvantaged in the USA compared to the white majority. Often, the difference between life and death is whether the accused can afford to hire a decent attorney or not. Public defenders are much like probation officers: Overworked, underpaid, and with far too many clients to serve effectively. Does anyone seriously think that OJ Simpson would have beat the double murder charges he faced in California had he not been able to buy his "dream team" of lawyers? Former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once said, "There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has." Ain't it the truth.
Many would argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to others. However, there is literally no accepted scientific evidence to support this. Murder--whether it be of the cold-blooded variety or a crime of passion--is not a rational act. For one to be deterred by the fear of being put to death, one would have to be in their right mind. I think it's fair to say that sociopaths, psychos, and those in a blind rage do not qualify as rational. Therefore, how could it be a deterrent?
It is also irrevocable. Once the punishment has been handed out it cannot be reversed. This is particularly unfortunate for those who may later be proven innocent. As just about anyone can tell you, our justice system is not perfect. Since 1992 DNA evidence has exonerated at least 15 death row inmates. And DNA evidence is available in only a fraction of capital cases. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if there were 15 innocent people awaiting execution then there are certainly more on death row now who simply lack the appropriate scientific evidence to set them free. I would submit that if there is only one person who fits that description then there are far too many.
Some might also say that it's not fair to ask for tax payer dollars to go towards the health and housing of murderers and rapists. While I certainly understand that point of view, I wonder if those that hold that opinion know that it typically costs more to put someone to death than it does to keep them alive. This is due in large part to the lengthy appeals process that our justice system provides for the convicted. Maybe those same people think we should further limit the appeals process to make it a less expensive process. However, I can think of at least 15 people since 1992 who would probably disagree.
As I said before, Muhammad is the most difficult argument to make for someone like me. His was the very definition of an open and shut case. There is no doubt that he committed these awful, heinous murders, and that he is indeed deserving of severe punishment. So how can I advocate for his right to live (although not to live as he might choose)? Well, because for me, it really isn't about him, it's about us. In the end I believe a policy of capital punishment debases us as a people. I know many Christians point to "An eye for an eye" as it is written in the Old Testament. I would counter that Jesus himself was a victim of a wrongfully adjudicated death sentence (remember he was both poor and a minority). Not to mention, after Jesus came, the Old Testament became just that...old. You see, I always view Jesus as a rather forgiving sort and I find it hard to believe that he would want us to take away some one's opportunity for ultimate forgiveness by executing them. Who's to say that an inmate couldn't find redemption after twenty years in prison? Should they not be afforded the opportunity?
Now, I know that if God forbid, someone that I love were to be murdered that I might feel differently. While I would hope not, I think it's quite possible that if the authorities apprehended the guilty party and the court sentenced the offender to death, I would be more than willing to pull the switch myself. But then what would that say about me? That I would be willing to trade my own humanity for a hollow serving of revenge? And in turn, what then does the continuing existence of the death penalty say about us? The answer isn't pretty.
Sumo-Pop
November 22, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Game, Set, Match
I've always had an abiding affection for Andre Agassi. In a lot of ways I feel like we grew up together. Before you laugh, consider the parallels: We were both born in 1970. We both grew up with unhealthy father figure relationships. Neither of us got our shit together until our mid to late twenties. I married my wife at 30, he married his current wife at 31. He funds and operates a K-12 college preparatory charter school, and I work for a college prep company. Hell, we even went bald around the same time. We are now charter members of the bullet head society, although I never wore a wig (more on that later).
I'm sure that anyone who pays any attention to sports has heard about Agassi's new autobiography, Open. Aside from hitting the late night shows, 60 Minutes and such, the book has received widespread notice for one particular revelation: Andre's admission that he used crystal meth during 1997 and his subsequent failure of an ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) drug test. To make matters worse, when confronted by tennis' governing body, Andre lied and said that someone slipped something into his drink. Incredibly, the ATP accepted his explanation and did not suspend him. This new information has brought a fountain of criticism down on Agassi's head.
The two best men's players on tour, Roger Federer and Radael Nadal were particularly chagrined by this bit of news. Their complaints--while relatively respectful--were pointed. In fact Nadal was said to be privately furious. While I'm sure they take issue with the drug use and dishonesty about the failed test, I have a sneaky suspicion that their real complaint is that Agassi admitted his drug use at all. That in doing so, he may have harmed the game itself. Well, I say that's booty. Certainly, Andre must take his share of responsibility for doing meth and then compounding the issue with a falsehood--- what about the ATP? Can you imagine the NFL, NBA, or MLB accepting what amounts to "the dog ate my homework as an excuse? Okay, maybe I shouldn't have included Bud Selig and Major League Baseball. But can anyone seriously imagine the NFL's Roger Goodell or the NBA's David Stern making an allowance for "someone put something in my drink?" Astounding. My guess is the ATP didn't want one of its more marketable names implicated in a positive drug test. Agassi did what a lot of people would have done when they are scared and ashamed. While that may not make it right, it does make it understandable. However, there is no acceptable explanation for the ATP's inaction.
It should be said, though, that the criticism of Federer and Nadal pales in comparison to the harsh words of two time grand slam champion Marat Safin and all-time great Martina Navratilova. Safin went as far to say that Agassi should give back all his titles and winnings to the ATP, while Navratilova compared Andre to Roger Clemens. Few things annoy me more than when a player says that some one's titles should be nullified. It irritates the shit out of me when you hear some former baseball player say that the statistics of steroid users should be wiped from the record books. Look, I don't like it either, but if something happened, then it happened. Someone got all those base hits, home runs, strike outs, and wins. If you want to unring a bell, I suggest you build a time machine. As for Navratilova's comments, they don't even make sense. Roger Clemens lied about steroid use, true enough. Last I checked, steroids are performance enhancing drugs. Have you ever met someone who has a meth habit? Well, I have. I once encountered a 35 year old woman with a meth addiction who looked like she was 55 going on 206. She was as thin as a gnarled sinew and her skin looked like over-stressed leather. The only thing meth physically enhances is your ability to lose a frightening amount of weight and to scratch yourself raw. Nice job of mixing your metaphors Miss Navratilova. Here's a tip: If you're going to criticize someone else, use a comparison that makes sense. You'll find it enhances your argument. Sheesh.
Okay, at this point I'm sure I'm coming off as a bit of an apologist. So let me say this, Andre Agassi is a little like Bobby Knight. Of whom John Feinstein once said, "All the good things you've heard about Bobby Knight are true, unfortunately, so are all the bad things." Did Agassi often take his fitness and talent for granted? Yes. Did he "tank" matches just to get off the court? Yes. Was he a pretty boy who was far too often concerned with image over substance? Yes again. But here's the difference between Knight and Agassi...Agassi changed.
Andre was born unto a classic "Tennis Father." Andre's dad pushed him into the sport and turned his son into his meal ticket. He had little use for his son's education. And at his father's insistence, Andre dropped out in the 9th grade to focus entirely on tennis. Andre grew up hating the game that would make him so rich and famous. It's hard to blame him. When Andre was six years old his father rigged a ball machine with a souped up engine that fired fuzzy, yellow, 110mph missiles at his kid. Like I said, hard to blame him.
Still, the preternaturally talented Agassi became a terrific player. A gifted ball striker, Andre ascended into the top ten in 1988 while still a teen. Many in the tennis world forcasted Agassi as a future grand slam champion. However, in his first three chances to win a slam, Andre choked. One tasty piece of information in Agassi's new book tells the story of his first grand slam final loss to the solid but unspectacular Andres Gomes at the 1990 French Open. Unbeknownst to all but his closest family members, was the fact that Andre's famous mane was not real. The weave he wore to hide his premature hair loss began to come apart the night before the final. Desperate to avoid humiliation, Andre and his brother used scores of bobby pins to hold the hair "system" in place. Agassi played the entire match in mortal fear that his faux mullet would fall off if he moved too much. Of course, moving around is a real necessity in a tennis match and Andre got waxed in straight sets. He did manage to keep his wig on.
Agassi finally broke through at Wimbledon in 1992, defeating the hard serving Croat, Goran Ivanesivic in a 5 set thriller. Andre added two more slams and ended 1995 as the top ranked player in the world. Then things began to come apart. His ranking slumped after a nagging wrist injury affected his serve and ground strokes. By 1997 Agassi was in an unwanted marriage to starlet Brooke Shields and sneaking hits of meth. His ranking had dropped in two years from #1 to 141. He was in free fall. After losing in the first round of a lower tier tournament to a no name player, Agassi's coach challenged him to either quit tennis altogether or start over from scratch. Having earned plenty of money from his on court success as well as endorsement contracts, Agassi--for the first time in his life--chose tennis. He got fit, shaved his head, dropped the jewelry and loud outfits and decided to become a tennis player.
That was when the test positive for crystal meth came down from the ATP. And so Andre lied. He was wrong, dead wrong. Certainly, one could say that "coming clean" now as opposed to when he was still an active player is more than a little "convenient." Maybe so. But how many of us can look back on our lives and not think of something we got away with that we never "came clean" on? Have you ever cheated on a test? Driven drunk and somehow made it home without incident? Or simply told a lie to save your own ass? Who among us would want to be judged solely on our worst moment? Maybe he told the truth to clear his conscience, or maybe it was just to sell books. Only he knows for sure.
What I do know is this: I would prefer to be judged for who I am now as opposed to who I was in my early twenties. And if I apply that same standard to Agassi, I find that there's a lot to admire.
Agassi is one of the few players to peak in the back half of his career. Most tennis greats are running on fumes after they turn 26. Well, Agassi won 5 of his 8 grand slam titles after the age of 27. He is one of six players in the history of the sport to have won all four slams (Wimbledon, the French, Australian, and US opens). He is the only player ever to take all four slams and an Olympic gold medal in singles. Agassi wasn't the best player of his era, that honor goes to Pete Sampras. But he was easily the most unique and dynamic. His transformation from a (mostly) all style to all substance athlete was extraordinary. However, I would say that doesn't hold a candle to the kind of person he became.
After his amicable divorce from Shields, Agassi began dating German tennis great Steffi Graf. This seemingly odd couple proved to be a good match, marrying in 2001. Their relationship seemed to suit Agassi well. Long considered one of the more compassionate players behind the scenes, I think it's no accident that Agassi's greatest achievement came in the same year he was wedded to Graf. I'm referring to the creation of the K-12 charter school for at-risk children, the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy. The school celebrated their first graduating class in 2009. The grad rate came in at 100%, and all of the students will be attending college. This school came from the imagination and commitment of a high school drop out and former crystal meth user. Yes Fitzgerald, American lives do have second acts. Agassi has often been noted as one of the most charitable athletes on the planet. His only competition coming from fellow fringe sports star Lance Armstrong.
So that's who Andre Agassi is now. A former athlete and current philanthropist. I'm willing to bet he's most proud of the latter. Misters Federer, Nadal, Safin, along with miss Navratilova can bitch and bemoan his crystal meth confession all they want. They can gripe that the man who wrote a book called "Open" should dare to be exactly that. Maybe one day one of them will open their own charter school and cut the ribbon at the grand opening astride a "high horse."
Of course, I know that judging them against Agassi's greatest achievement is not fair to them, but neither is judging Agassi by his worst. Game, set, match.
I'm sure that anyone who pays any attention to sports has heard about Agassi's new autobiography, Open. Aside from hitting the late night shows, 60 Minutes and such, the book has received widespread notice for one particular revelation: Andre's admission that he used crystal meth during 1997 and his subsequent failure of an ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) drug test. To make matters worse, when confronted by tennis' governing body, Andre lied and said that someone slipped something into his drink. Incredibly, the ATP accepted his explanation and did not suspend him. This new information has brought a fountain of criticism down on Agassi's head.
The two best men's players on tour, Roger Federer and Radael Nadal were particularly chagrined by this bit of news. Their complaints--while relatively respectful--were pointed. In fact Nadal was said to be privately furious. While I'm sure they take issue with the drug use and dishonesty about the failed test, I have a sneaky suspicion that their real complaint is that Agassi admitted his drug use at all. That in doing so, he may have harmed the game itself. Well, I say that's booty. Certainly, Andre must take his share of responsibility for doing meth and then compounding the issue with a falsehood--- what about the ATP? Can you imagine the NFL, NBA, or MLB accepting what amounts to "the dog ate my homework as an excuse? Okay, maybe I shouldn't have included Bud Selig and Major League Baseball. But can anyone seriously imagine the NFL's Roger Goodell or the NBA's David Stern making an allowance for "someone put something in my drink?" Astounding. My guess is the ATP didn't want one of its more marketable names implicated in a positive drug test. Agassi did what a lot of people would have done when they are scared and ashamed. While that may not make it right, it does make it understandable. However, there is no acceptable explanation for the ATP's inaction.
It should be said, though, that the criticism of Federer and Nadal pales in comparison to the harsh words of two time grand slam champion Marat Safin and all-time great Martina Navratilova. Safin went as far to say that Agassi should give back all his titles and winnings to the ATP, while Navratilova compared Andre to Roger Clemens. Few things annoy me more than when a player says that some one's titles should be nullified. It irritates the shit out of me when you hear some former baseball player say that the statistics of steroid users should be wiped from the record books. Look, I don't like it either, but if something happened, then it happened. Someone got all those base hits, home runs, strike outs, and wins. If you want to unring a bell, I suggest you build a time machine. As for Navratilova's comments, they don't even make sense. Roger Clemens lied about steroid use, true enough. Last I checked, steroids are performance enhancing drugs. Have you ever met someone who has a meth habit? Well, I have. I once encountered a 35 year old woman with a meth addiction who looked like she was 55 going on 206. She was as thin as a gnarled sinew and her skin looked like over-stressed leather. The only thing meth physically enhances is your ability to lose a frightening amount of weight and to scratch yourself raw. Nice job of mixing your metaphors Miss Navratilova. Here's a tip: If you're going to criticize someone else, use a comparison that makes sense. You'll find it enhances your argument. Sheesh.
Okay, at this point I'm sure I'm coming off as a bit of an apologist. So let me say this, Andre Agassi is a little like Bobby Knight. Of whom John Feinstein once said, "All the good things you've heard about Bobby Knight are true, unfortunately, so are all the bad things." Did Agassi often take his fitness and talent for granted? Yes. Did he "tank" matches just to get off the court? Yes. Was he a pretty boy who was far too often concerned with image over substance? Yes again. But here's the difference between Knight and Agassi...Agassi changed.
Andre was born unto a classic "Tennis Father." Andre's dad pushed him into the sport and turned his son into his meal ticket. He had little use for his son's education. And at his father's insistence, Andre dropped out in the 9th grade to focus entirely on tennis. Andre grew up hating the game that would make him so rich and famous. It's hard to blame him. When Andre was six years old his father rigged a ball machine with a souped up engine that fired fuzzy, yellow, 110mph missiles at his kid. Like I said, hard to blame him.
Still, the preternaturally talented Agassi became a terrific player. A gifted ball striker, Andre ascended into the top ten in 1988 while still a teen. Many in the tennis world forcasted Agassi as a future grand slam champion. However, in his first three chances to win a slam, Andre choked. One tasty piece of information in Agassi's new book tells the story of his first grand slam final loss to the solid but unspectacular Andres Gomes at the 1990 French Open. Unbeknownst to all but his closest family members, was the fact that Andre's famous mane was not real. The weave he wore to hide his premature hair loss began to come apart the night before the final. Desperate to avoid humiliation, Andre and his brother used scores of bobby pins to hold the hair "system" in place. Agassi played the entire match in mortal fear that his faux mullet would fall off if he moved too much. Of course, moving around is a real necessity in a tennis match and Andre got waxed in straight sets. He did manage to keep his wig on.
Agassi finally broke through at Wimbledon in 1992, defeating the hard serving Croat, Goran Ivanesivic in a 5 set thriller. Andre added two more slams and ended 1995 as the top ranked player in the world. Then things began to come apart. His ranking slumped after a nagging wrist injury affected his serve and ground strokes. By 1997 Agassi was in an unwanted marriage to starlet Brooke Shields and sneaking hits of meth. His ranking had dropped in two years from #1 to 141. He was in free fall. After losing in the first round of a lower tier tournament to a no name player, Agassi's coach challenged him to either quit tennis altogether or start over from scratch. Having earned plenty of money from his on court success as well as endorsement contracts, Agassi--for the first time in his life--chose tennis. He got fit, shaved his head, dropped the jewelry and loud outfits and decided to become a tennis player.
That was when the test positive for crystal meth came down from the ATP. And so Andre lied. He was wrong, dead wrong. Certainly, one could say that "coming clean" now as opposed to when he was still an active player is more than a little "convenient." Maybe so. But how many of us can look back on our lives and not think of something we got away with that we never "came clean" on? Have you ever cheated on a test? Driven drunk and somehow made it home without incident? Or simply told a lie to save your own ass? Who among us would want to be judged solely on our worst moment? Maybe he told the truth to clear his conscience, or maybe it was just to sell books. Only he knows for sure.
What I do know is this: I would prefer to be judged for who I am now as opposed to who I was in my early twenties. And if I apply that same standard to Agassi, I find that there's a lot to admire.
Agassi is one of the few players to peak in the back half of his career. Most tennis greats are running on fumes after they turn 26. Well, Agassi won 5 of his 8 grand slam titles after the age of 27. He is one of six players in the history of the sport to have won all four slams (Wimbledon, the French, Australian, and US opens). He is the only player ever to take all four slams and an Olympic gold medal in singles. Agassi wasn't the best player of his era, that honor goes to Pete Sampras. But he was easily the most unique and dynamic. His transformation from a (mostly) all style to all substance athlete was extraordinary. However, I would say that doesn't hold a candle to the kind of person he became.
After his amicable divorce from Shields, Agassi began dating German tennis great Steffi Graf. This seemingly odd couple proved to be a good match, marrying in 2001. Their relationship seemed to suit Agassi well. Long considered one of the more compassionate players behind the scenes, I think it's no accident that Agassi's greatest achievement came in the same year he was wedded to Graf. I'm referring to the creation of the K-12 charter school for at-risk children, the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy. The school celebrated their first graduating class in 2009. The grad rate came in at 100%, and all of the students will be attending college. This school came from the imagination and commitment of a high school drop out and former crystal meth user. Yes Fitzgerald, American lives do have second acts. Agassi has often been noted as one of the most charitable athletes on the planet. His only competition coming from fellow fringe sports star Lance Armstrong.
So that's who Andre Agassi is now. A former athlete and current philanthropist. I'm willing to bet he's most proud of the latter. Misters Federer, Nadal, Safin, along with miss Navratilova can bitch and bemoan his crystal meth confession all they want. They can gripe that the man who wrote a book called "Open" should dare to be exactly that. Maybe one day one of them will open their own charter school and cut the ribbon at the grand opening astride a "high horse."
Of course, I know that judging them against Agassi's greatest achievement is not fair to them, but neither is judging Agassi by his worst. Game, set, match.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
D.J.
Derek Jeter is the best player in baseball. Yeah, you heard that right, but I'll say it again: Derek Jeter is the best player in baseball. Now, before you think me insane, I know A-Rod, Joe Mauer, and Albert Pujols are currently active major leaguers. That being said, I'll take Jeter.
Before I get to the meat of my argument, I suppose I should say that I'm neither a Yankees lover or hater. I do admire their excellence, and while I certainly recognize the part their financial superiority plays in the maintenance of that success, it's nothing any other team wouldn't do if they could. Now, onto the protein.
I came to this conclusion last week when the Yankees won their fifth world series in the Jeter era. Of course, I know that the Yankees can buy pretty much any player they want, and that Jeter is fortunate to play in New York instead of say, Kansas City. However, those are ifs, buts, and maybes. He does play in New York. Deal with it. Besides, Jeter would have been great anywhere. Upon coming out of Central High in Kalamazoo, Michigan, a Yankees scout was asked if he thought Jeter would go pro right away or to the University of Michigan. The scout replied: "The only place he's going for sure is to the Hall of Fame." I hope the Yankees gave that guy a raise.
It's also worth noting that while the Yankees have had a ton of great players go through their organization since Jeter's rookie year in 1996, there have been only four constants on their five championship teams (1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2009). They are catcher Jorge Posada, pitchers Andy Pettite and Mariano Rivera, and Jeter. All those other guys---as great as they may have been--- were just passing through. Of those four "core" guys, I think it's hard to argue that any of them are more valuable than Jeter. Posada has been a terrific catcher, but he is superior to Jeter neither in the field or at the plate. Pettite hasn't even always been the Yankees best starting pitcher (see Clemens, Cone, or Sabathia). And Rivera? Well, the only argument I have against Rivera is that he doesn't play everyday. He's the greatest relief pitcher ever and it isn't even close. It's like comparing Jerry Rice to any other wide receiver. What's the point? But since Mo doesn't play everyday, I'm going with the Yankee Captain.
For many years now it's been clear that Jeter is the inarguable leader of the most dominant franchise in all of sports. For one, he's durable. In the last 14 years he's only played fewer than 148 games in a season once (119 in 2003). He is renowned for playing with injuries, but never using them as an excuse. Hell, he doesn't even acknowledge them. And who plays harder? He grinds out every at bat, runs hard to first base on routine ground balls and pop ups, and never takes a play off in the field.
While there has been serious criticism of Jeter's play at shortstop in recent years, this season he proved the naysayers wrong. Those baseball nerds who sit around and create metrics that evaluate a player's defensive performance, have stated that Jeter has been better this year than in any of his three gold glove seasons. Of course, these metrics aren't the only way to judge his performance at shortstop. How about that play against the Red Sox a few years ago (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgPPR5SkUdE)ago when Jeter---at full speed-- chased a foul ball into the stands, face planted into the seats and came up looking like he had gone 12 rounds with Manny Pacquiao? Or maybe you remember "The Flip" against Oakland in the 2001 Playoffs (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq_kcKHBCcA), where on a base hit to right field, Jeter ran in between home plate and first base to corral an errant cut off through and performed a backhand "flip" to Posada to nail Jeremy Giambi on a bang-bang play. He goes all out, all the time and is seemingly always in the right place at the right time.
He's also a model of consistency with the bat. His numbers may not be that sexy in the steroid era, but upon a closer look his production is pretty extraordinary. From his first full season in 1996 to now, Jeter has hit less than .300 only three times. And what did he hit in those three years? Well, .291 (1997), .297 (2002) and .292 (2004). Pretty good "off" years I'd say. He's finished in the top ten in batting average nine times, including second twice in 1999 and 2006. His lowest on base percentage was a far better than league average .352 in 2002. While he certainly isn't considered a power hitter, he has made it to double figures in home runs in every one of his full seasons with a career high of 24 in 1999. In 12 of 14 seasons he has scored 100 runs or more, and never less than 87 (2003). However, there is one statistical category where Jeter's numbers are truly eye popping. That would be his extraordinary accumulation of base hits. In 14 full seasons he has 2735 base knocks. He has breached 200 hits seven times and landed between 190-199 three other times. Of his peers, only Ichiro Suzuki hits safely with more regularity. Because Jeter doesn't hit 40 homers or knock in 120 runs, his stats have a tendency to sneak up on you. But take a look at his career numbers: 1574 runs, 2747 hits (total), 438 doubles, 224 home runs, 1068 runs batted in, 305 stolen bases, a .317 career batting average, .388 on base percentage, and a .459 slugging percentage. How many middle infielders in the history of the game are even close? And he's not done yet. Not by a damn sight.
There were some baseball analysts who argued that Jeter was beginning to show signs of decline after a sub-par (for him anyway) 2008 season. They said he had become a liability on defense and was not the same hitter anymore either. Some even went as far to say that he had been "overrated." So, how did Jeter respond? Well, aside from having his best season on defense in many a year ---if not ever---all he did was hit .334 with a .406 OBP, 18 home runs, 30 stolen bases, 107 runs, and a whopping 212 hits. It's a foregone conclusion that he will be in the top 5 in MVP voting for 2009. But did you know that it will be the seventh time in his career that he has finished in the top ten? It's confounding to me that we live in a world where middle infielders Dustin Pedroia of the Boston Red Sox, and Jimmy Rollins of the Philadelphia Phillies (fine payers both) have MVP trophies and Jeter does not. I'm still sore over Jeter coming in second to the Twins' Justin Morneau in 2006. Morneau wasn't even the best player on his team that year, Joe Mauer was.
It's not as if Jeter only performs well in the regular season either. In 138 playoff games, Jeter has hit .313 with a .383 OBP, 20 home runs, 99 runs, and 175 hits. And who can ever remember him costing his team a game in the post season whether with the bat or with the glove? All he did in the 2009 world series was hit .407 with a .429 OBP, .519 SLG, and collect 11 hits in 6 games. Ho-hum, business as usual. And maybe that's why we don't appreciate Jeter as much as we should. He makes excellence seem so...ordinary.
It's worth mentioning that he's a pretty great teammate as well. Has anyone who's ever played with him had a negative thing to say about him (and no A-Rod doesn't count)? I think I know why. Prior to the 2002 season, the Yankees were in hot pursuit of Oakland A's slugging first baseman Jason Giambi. The incumbent Yankees first baseman, Tino Martinez was coming off a down year and the Yankees were looking to upgrade the position. Several Yankees reached out to Giambi in an effort to convince him to sign a free agent pact with the Bronx Bombers. Jeter was not one of them. When asked why, Jeter replied that he had nothing against Giambi but "Tino's my friend." That's class boys and girls. Here's another anecdote: Before the 2009 world series Jeter was asked to assess his stellar career, Jeter replied without a hint of false modesty, "I've had four great seasons." I suppose now he would say he's had five.
Now I'm sure that anyone who may read this could still wonder how I could choose Jeter over A-Rod, Mauer or Pujols. First off, A-Rod's a juicer and a jerk. I have no interest in putting a cheater ahead of Jeter. As far as the jerk part goes, did you know that A-Rod has not one, not two, but three paintings in his home that depict him as a centaur? And that one of them hangs over his bed (insert stud joke here)? Besides, did anyone believe his tearful steroid confession earlier this year? Oh, please. As for Mauer, he hasn't done it for long enough yet. I stress the word "yet." He's one hell of a player. That leaves me with my thorniest argument to make. The case of Jeter over Pujols. There is no doubt that Pujols is the most dominant offensive force in the game and a good first baseman to boot. Here's my problem with Pujols, and let me preface this by saying I know this may not be fair but, I simply don't trust anyone who puts up Super Nintendo numbers during the steroid era. I'm not accusing Pujols of anything and I would be more than happy to have my suspicions disproved, but like you, I've been burnt too many times before (see Bonds, Ramirez, A-Rod, Clemens, McGwire, etc...).
There's a method I employ when I'm watching a close boxing match. When at the end of the bout, if I'm not sure who I would pick as the winner of the fight, I ask myself: "of the two combatants, who would I rather be?" Well, at the end of this debate over who's the best player in baseball, I ask you "who would you rather be than Derek Jeter?" Take your time building an argument, you'll need it.
Sumo-Pop
November 8, 2009
Full disclosure:
In 1999 My buddy Barry and I went to a Tigers-Yankees game in Detroit. We arrived there early and were standing near the visiting player's entrance when Derek Jeter came out to take the field. He ran past us and we called out "Hey Derek (as if we were on a first name basis--embarrassing), can you sign a ball?" Derek slowed his roll, u-turned and signed two balls, one for each of us. It was only his second season, but it was clear he already "got it." Yes, I still have the ball and no, I'm not telling you where I keep it.
Before I get to the meat of my argument, I suppose I should say that I'm neither a Yankees lover or hater. I do admire their excellence, and while I certainly recognize the part their financial superiority plays in the maintenance of that success, it's nothing any other team wouldn't do if they could. Now, onto the protein.
I came to this conclusion last week when the Yankees won their fifth world series in the Jeter era. Of course, I know that the Yankees can buy pretty much any player they want, and that Jeter is fortunate to play in New York instead of say, Kansas City. However, those are ifs, buts, and maybes. He does play in New York. Deal with it. Besides, Jeter would have been great anywhere. Upon coming out of Central High in Kalamazoo, Michigan, a Yankees scout was asked if he thought Jeter would go pro right away or to the University of Michigan. The scout replied: "The only place he's going for sure is to the Hall of Fame." I hope the Yankees gave that guy a raise.
It's also worth noting that while the Yankees have had a ton of great players go through their organization since Jeter's rookie year in 1996, there have been only four constants on their five championship teams (1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2009). They are catcher Jorge Posada, pitchers Andy Pettite and Mariano Rivera, and Jeter. All those other guys---as great as they may have been--- were just passing through. Of those four "core" guys, I think it's hard to argue that any of them are more valuable than Jeter. Posada has been a terrific catcher, but he is superior to Jeter neither in the field or at the plate. Pettite hasn't even always been the Yankees best starting pitcher (see Clemens, Cone, or Sabathia). And Rivera? Well, the only argument I have against Rivera is that he doesn't play everyday. He's the greatest relief pitcher ever and it isn't even close. It's like comparing Jerry Rice to any other wide receiver. What's the point? But since Mo doesn't play everyday, I'm going with the Yankee Captain.
For many years now it's been clear that Jeter is the inarguable leader of the most dominant franchise in all of sports. For one, he's durable. In the last 14 years he's only played fewer than 148 games in a season once (119 in 2003). He is renowned for playing with injuries, but never using them as an excuse. Hell, he doesn't even acknowledge them. And who plays harder? He grinds out every at bat, runs hard to first base on routine ground balls and pop ups, and never takes a play off in the field.
While there has been serious criticism of Jeter's play at shortstop in recent years, this season he proved the naysayers wrong. Those baseball nerds who sit around and create metrics that evaluate a player's defensive performance, have stated that Jeter has been better this year than in any of his three gold glove seasons. Of course, these metrics aren't the only way to judge his performance at shortstop. How about that play against the Red Sox a few years ago (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgPPR5SkUdE)ago when Jeter---at full speed-- chased a foul ball into the stands, face planted into the seats and came up looking like he had gone 12 rounds with Manny Pacquiao? Or maybe you remember "The Flip" against Oakland in the 2001 Playoffs (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq_kcKHBCcA), where on a base hit to right field, Jeter ran in between home plate and first base to corral an errant cut off through and performed a backhand "flip" to Posada to nail Jeremy Giambi on a bang-bang play. He goes all out, all the time and is seemingly always in the right place at the right time.
He's also a model of consistency with the bat. His numbers may not be that sexy in the steroid era, but upon a closer look his production is pretty extraordinary. From his first full season in 1996 to now, Jeter has hit less than .300 only three times. And what did he hit in those three years? Well, .291 (1997), .297 (2002) and .292 (2004). Pretty good "off" years I'd say. He's finished in the top ten in batting average nine times, including second twice in 1999 and 2006. His lowest on base percentage was a far better than league average .352 in 2002. While he certainly isn't considered a power hitter, he has made it to double figures in home runs in every one of his full seasons with a career high of 24 in 1999. In 12 of 14 seasons he has scored 100 runs or more, and never less than 87 (2003). However, there is one statistical category where Jeter's numbers are truly eye popping. That would be his extraordinary accumulation of base hits. In 14 full seasons he has 2735 base knocks. He has breached 200 hits seven times and landed between 190-199 three other times. Of his peers, only Ichiro Suzuki hits safely with more regularity. Because Jeter doesn't hit 40 homers or knock in 120 runs, his stats have a tendency to sneak up on you. But take a look at his career numbers: 1574 runs, 2747 hits (total), 438 doubles, 224 home runs, 1068 runs batted in, 305 stolen bases, a .317 career batting average, .388 on base percentage, and a .459 slugging percentage. How many middle infielders in the history of the game are even close? And he's not done yet. Not by a damn sight.
There were some baseball analysts who argued that Jeter was beginning to show signs of decline after a sub-par (for him anyway) 2008 season. They said he had become a liability on defense and was not the same hitter anymore either. Some even went as far to say that he had been "overrated." So, how did Jeter respond? Well, aside from having his best season on defense in many a year ---if not ever---all he did was hit .334 with a .406 OBP, 18 home runs, 30 stolen bases, 107 runs, and a whopping 212 hits. It's a foregone conclusion that he will be in the top 5 in MVP voting for 2009. But did you know that it will be the seventh time in his career that he has finished in the top ten? It's confounding to me that we live in a world where middle infielders Dustin Pedroia of the Boston Red Sox, and Jimmy Rollins of the Philadelphia Phillies (fine payers both) have MVP trophies and Jeter does not. I'm still sore over Jeter coming in second to the Twins' Justin Morneau in 2006. Morneau wasn't even the best player on his team that year, Joe Mauer was.
It's not as if Jeter only performs well in the regular season either. In 138 playoff games, Jeter has hit .313 with a .383 OBP, 20 home runs, 99 runs, and 175 hits. And who can ever remember him costing his team a game in the post season whether with the bat or with the glove? All he did in the 2009 world series was hit .407 with a .429 OBP, .519 SLG, and collect 11 hits in 6 games. Ho-hum, business as usual. And maybe that's why we don't appreciate Jeter as much as we should. He makes excellence seem so...ordinary.
It's worth mentioning that he's a pretty great teammate as well. Has anyone who's ever played with him had a negative thing to say about him (and no A-Rod doesn't count)? I think I know why. Prior to the 2002 season, the Yankees were in hot pursuit of Oakland A's slugging first baseman Jason Giambi. The incumbent Yankees first baseman, Tino Martinez was coming off a down year and the Yankees were looking to upgrade the position. Several Yankees reached out to Giambi in an effort to convince him to sign a free agent pact with the Bronx Bombers. Jeter was not one of them. When asked why, Jeter replied that he had nothing against Giambi but "Tino's my friend." That's class boys and girls. Here's another anecdote: Before the 2009 world series Jeter was asked to assess his stellar career, Jeter replied without a hint of false modesty, "I've had four great seasons." I suppose now he would say he's had five.
Now I'm sure that anyone who may read this could still wonder how I could choose Jeter over A-Rod, Mauer or Pujols. First off, A-Rod's a juicer and a jerk. I have no interest in putting a cheater ahead of Jeter. As far as the jerk part goes, did you know that A-Rod has not one, not two, but three paintings in his home that depict him as a centaur? And that one of them hangs over his bed (insert stud joke here)? Besides, did anyone believe his tearful steroid confession earlier this year? Oh, please. As for Mauer, he hasn't done it for long enough yet. I stress the word "yet." He's one hell of a player. That leaves me with my thorniest argument to make. The case of Jeter over Pujols. There is no doubt that Pujols is the most dominant offensive force in the game and a good first baseman to boot. Here's my problem with Pujols, and let me preface this by saying I know this may not be fair but, I simply don't trust anyone who puts up Super Nintendo numbers during the steroid era. I'm not accusing Pujols of anything and I would be more than happy to have my suspicions disproved, but like you, I've been burnt too many times before (see Bonds, Ramirez, A-Rod, Clemens, McGwire, etc...).
There's a method I employ when I'm watching a close boxing match. When at the end of the bout, if I'm not sure who I would pick as the winner of the fight, I ask myself: "of the two combatants, who would I rather be?" Well, at the end of this debate over who's the best player in baseball, I ask you "who would you rather be than Derek Jeter?" Take your time building an argument, you'll need it.
Sumo-Pop
November 8, 2009
Full disclosure:
In 1999 My buddy Barry and I went to a Tigers-Yankees game in Detroit. We arrived there early and were standing near the visiting player's entrance when Derek Jeter came out to take the field. He ran past us and we called out "Hey Derek (as if we were on a first name basis--embarrassing), can you sign a ball?" Derek slowed his roll, u-turned and signed two balls, one for each of us. It was only his second season, but it was clear he already "got it." Yes, I still have the ball and no, I'm not telling you where I keep it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)