Sports notes

The NBA and its buffoon commissioner David Stern seem to believe that people can’t live without NBA basketball (don’t get me started with the WNBA). I suspect that a majority sports fans might note a temporary “hole” in the professional sports schedule, but otherwise after a year or two will go on to other things. Professional basketball has been gone from Seattle for several years now, and given the lack of public support for replacing Key Arena, I think that most people couldn’t have cared less if the Sonics stayed or not. Some people (whites mostly) have this idea that the NBA has become a “thug” league, with players they can’t identify with, and question why they should pay them billions in guaranteed money. If people need a basketball “fix,” the college game more than satisfies; the NCAA Tournament has a built-in drama that the NBA playoffs can’t match.

So at first I find the current NBA lockout difficult to fathom from the owners’ standpoint. The players want to maintain a 50-50 split in the revenues, and the owners won’t talk unless players agree to this. Now, the players’ have a point, although I doubt they see what it is. As in all sports, but the NBA in particular, the product is the players. The players are the goods and services being sold. Owners are paying players to entertain the masses, and they get a profit on the side. Of course it isn’t that simple; the cost of uniforms can’t be as exorbitant as say football, but establishing the framework in which players operate costs a lot of money, like leases on playing venues, training, travel and medical costs, although frankly I find it hard to believe that the total cost exceeds that of a team’s highest paid player. The only explanation for the owners stand is if revenues cannot keep-up with player salaries, which seems to be the case; thus the players stance suggests that they want to keep the split in flux, and make the revenue issue the owners’ problem, not their problem.

But it is the players’ problem as well, if they lose the “casual” fan who views an NBA game as a social event with a high ticket price. Seattle proved it can live without professional basketball (that includes the WNBA’s Storm, which the Sonics new owners cast off for their own lack of interest), and it would be a mistake to assume that other communities—once they experience the lack of activity—will find they are missing something vital.

*********************************************************

When I was growing up in Wisconsin, major league baseball was the sport I derived the most pleasure from a fan’s perspective. When I was in school in would go straight to the library to the get a hold of the morning newspaper first, so that I could pore over box scores. Sunday was my favorite day during baseball season, because that was the day the sports page printed the complete team and individual statistical lists. But I really became a fan at in bed when I was supposed to be sleeping. I would turn on my transistor radio, low enough that only I could hear it, listening to the Milwaukee Brewer broadcasts. Bob Uecker and Merle Harmon were my best “friends.” Back in the day, especially when the Brewers were third division, Uecker would make the game interesting by occasionally interjecting humorous anecdotes from his brief playing days. One that still sticks in my memory concerned the Milwaukee Braves’ Hall of Fame slugger Eddie Mathews and his cherished bats, and how a practical joke that went awry ended with Mathews looking at his charred bats in a hotel fireplace. Uecker related this story over several innings, and after awhile you were more interested in how this “cliffhanger” would end than in the game.

Beginning in 1978, with the addition of Paul Molitor, and power hitters like Cecil Cooper and Gorman Thomas, the Brewers started to score runs and win games, although there pitching was always suspect. The fabled 1982 World Series team had four players with at least 100 RBIs, and former St. Louis All-Star catcher Ted Simmons was three short of becoming the fifth. But the Brewers suffered a blow late in the season that would come back to haunt them in the Series against the Cardinals: Relief pitcher Rollie Fingers, the Cy Young Award winner the previous year, was injured and did not return for the playoffs. The Brewers continued to play competitive ball until 1992, when the team made a late run for the division title, falling four games short.

But my interest in football supplanted that of baseball. Back then, players tended to stay on the same team throughout most of their careers, especially the best players. You could keep track of how they grew and developed, and if they were really good, it was a joy to see a Hall of Fame career develop on your team, especially if it wasn’t one of the perennial powerhouses. In 1974, an 18-year-old shortstop phenom named Robin Yount was called up, and the rest was “history.” Although initially light-hitting and never a true homerun threat, he eventually developed into the most consistent hitter the team ever had up top that point, and he was the first twenty-year presence on the team. A “franchise” baseball player like Yount was is like a franchise quarterback on an NFL team: He is the “face” of the team that fans can find some vicarious connection to, part of your life with its ups and downs—he is a constant in an uncertain world, and his consistency is reassuring in a game where players shine brightly for a few years, only to flame-out.

The Brewers did not develop a “franchise” player after Yount retired, and I gradually lost interest in the team with its subsequent downward spiral. Every time a player seemed promising, the Brewers would trade or let him off on the free agent market because they didn’t want to pay him. That may be changing, however. The Brewers recently saw fit to sign homegrown talent Ryan Braun to five-year, $105 million extension through 2020 with an option for 2021, which would be 15 years with the team. Braun has said he wants to spend his entire career in Milwaukee, and he certainly has the credibility to be the “face” of the team; he has put-up impressive numbers since his rookie season, the kind that make it fascinating to note his statistical progression. Amazingly, Yount’s 258 career homeruns continues to be a team record, but Braun should easily pass that mark in a few years. If the Brewers can keep a core nucleus of productive players (like the Yount-Molitor-Gantner triumvirate which lasted 15 years), the team could be competitive for many years. I would also like to note that I despise St. Louis manager Tony LaRussa, so I’m hoping that the Brewers can take care of business in the NLCS.

***********************************************************

Having grown-up a Packer fan, and having memories of the bad old days, I continue to be irritated by Brett Favre-haters. Favre recently received some heat for comments he made to an Atlanta radio station in regard to Aaron Rodgers, in which he pointed out that Rodgers stepped into an ideal situation, and given all the hype Rodgers received, Favre was rightly “baffled” why he took a 13-3 team that was supposedly a non-Favre quarterback from the Super Bowl to a 6-10 record. Favre, on the other hand, was traded to a team that he didn’t want to go to, and whose system he knew nothing about, and had he not injured his shoulder, would have led the Jets to at least a division title. We know what happened in Minnesota in 2009, and Rodgers was still the second banana in the division, on a team that was tailor-made for his superior talents. After three seasons, Rodgers was still a less than elite 27-20 in the regular season, and had the Packers not squeaked into the playoffs and played against—let’s be honest—over-hyped NFC opponents, Rodger’s only memorable playoff moment would be that shocking fumble on the first play of overtime against Arizona. What people still be calling Rodgers the greatest quarterback in the present universe?

I have to admit that I was impressed by Rodgers’ recent two-score comeback against the Falcons—but I’m only being ironic. The Falcons failed to score after the 12:30 mark of the second quarter, and if the Packers couldn’t score at least 15 points in three quarters (let alone a whole game), then the Rodgers-hype is exposed for what it is; the fact is that Rodgers doesn’t have a single fourth quarter comeback to his credit, which explains why his regular season won/loss record coming into this season is so “modest.” I’ve also been greatly amused by the fact that some commentators have pointed out that Rodgers was a Super Bowl MVP and Favre wasn’t, so that “proves” he is “better.” The fact is that Favre, who threw TD passes of 52 and 81 yards, and ran for a third, should have been the MVP of his Super Bowl win, except that some people thought it would be “cool” to select the first and likely only special teams player.

It disturbs me that Favre-haters force me to engage in fault-finding in regard to Rodgers, but all this man-crush stuff makes me ill. I think Favre is such a lightning rod of emotion, that everything he did (or does) was magnified to umpteenth degree; the highs were very high, the lows very low. Rodgers certainly doesn’t excite that kind of emotion, which makes it easy for him to be a vessel to rationalize Favre-hate, which explains why Fox puts up graphics comparing Rodgers to Favre that puts the former in a more positive light. Frankly, I think it is an unfair comparison because Rodgers is benefiting from new pass-friendly rules that Favre never knew until he was too old to take advantage of them. Everyone talks about Favre’s INTs. Sure his INT percentage of 3.3 is higher than Rodgers 1.9 (for now), it was in line with other players of his era; Aikman, Marino, Bledsoe and Elway all had INT percentages of 3 or higher. The further you go back in time, the higher the INT percentage. Sammy Baugh, the “founder” of the passing game, had an INT pct. of 6.8; Y.A. Tittle’s was 5.6, and Johnny Unitas—the greatest quarterback through his time—had 4.9 career INT pct., while Bart Starr’s was 4.4. Other quarterbacks: Joe Namath, 5.8; Bob Griese, 5.0; Terry Bradshaw, 5.4; Jim Zorn, 4.5; Dan Fouts, 4.3; Fran Tarkenton; 4.1; Roger Staubach, and Jim Kelly, 3.7. According to Pro Football Reference, eight of the top 12 lowest INT percentages are by quarterbacks who have played their entire careers in the 2000—and it also shows that having a low INT pct does not necessarily equate to “greatness.” Only Joe Montana and Steve Young, with INT pcts of 2.6, can be said to have bucked the historical trend for quarterbacks with enough pass attempts to justify a comparison, although combined they did not throw as many passes as Favre.

Well, Eli Manning can be said to buck the “trend” as well; his INT pct of 3.4 is higher than Favre’s.