*This is a re-post of a blog I wrote last year, with some slight revision -- the intro had references to Christmas, etc., so I just deleted it. I thought this one was a prime candidate for a re-post, right smack in the middle of the NBA finals.*
Could Pat Summitt coach in the NBA?
This is a question that's been batted around a bit in the last year or two, so I thought I'd toss it back out there. It's a good question, not only for a discussion on Pat Summitt herself, but the discussion it brings about the current NBA in general.
The wording of the question is important here. It's not "can she", but "could she?" I think it's already pretty fair to say that she "can", meaning that she has basketball knowledge, coaching experience, and leadership ability that is virtually unparalleled in the game of basketball. Ask any of the great coaches of all time (including Dean Smith, who she just surpassed on the all-time college win list), and they not only have great admiration for her accomplishments, but huge respect for her ability as a coach and as a great basketball mind. She's coached NCAA championship teams, Olympic teams, future WNBA stars, and has done so for decades. Her work ethic is unmatched -- she once took a helicopter on a recruiting trip to see a top prospect while in the first stages of labor. And she's even still trying to improve and learn and innovate, which she showed by meeting with Phil Jackson to "pick his brain" about the triangle offense. We could go on and on with her accolades, so suffice to say that almost anybody who knows the game would have a hard time arguing that she doesn't have the qualifications to coach at the highest level possible.
But could she? Would NBA players respect and respond to a woman as a head coach? Would she want to deal with all the attention it would garner, and could she be effective as a coach with that much off-the-court distraction and general hubbub? Does she understand the NBA well enough? Is the game of college basketball, particularly women's basketball, too different from the NBA to translate her style and schemes? Would she, at her age and tenure, even want to leave where she is for a risky new venture? And would she be willing to risk failure at the end of such a long and successful career?
As much as it pains me to say it, I would have to say that she most likely couldn't coach in the NBA. But not for any of the reasons listed above -- the real reason is much more basic: she would insist on coaching basketball.
She would insist on being in charge, and would demand respect at all times. In today's NBA, where players basically run the teams, stars are treated with celebrity kid gloves, fan attendance in paramount, and coaches are often an interchangeable afterthought, a coach that would demand responsibility, accountability, hard-nosed play, and fundamental soundness would be frowned upon by most players and organizations. The NBA is about selling tickets first, and basketball second. A decidedly un-Pat Summit way of doing things.
To answer my own questions posed above, I'd have to say first that I do think that, with a solid organization such as Detroit or San Antonio, she could win the respect and response of her players. In fact, I think being a woman, especially a woman as nails-tough as Pat Summitt, would actually help her in that regard. Players would have the natural response of a "don't wanna upset my Mama" mindset, coupled with the fear that if you disobey her she might tell you to "go out and pick yourself a switch for me to whup you with. And don't pick out no little puny one, either, or I'll go pick one myself." Pat Summitt is big, country as butter, tough, fair, and can lay a "stink eye" on a player or official that would make Bill Parcells proud. But it's a tough love, as she hands out hugs and high-fives for great play as easy and often as she hands out intimidation and verbal assaults for sloppy play.
Could she handle the attention and be an effective coach? Probably, but it would be incredibly tough and personally draining. Could she coach the modern NBA game? To a degree, but she would have to change to the run-and-gun NBA style, and shift focus away from rebounding and defense. I think she could, but wouldn't do it. Would she be willing to make such a huge professional change, and take such a monumental risk? I don't think so. Pat Summitt is a winner, and I don't think she would be willing to put herself in a situation that's virtually impossible to win.
Most of all, Pat Summitt is humble and believes in team play. I think she's happy with her status as a pioneer, innovator, and basketball Goddess. And it would be a very "Pat Summitt" ideology to leave that next step for the next generation, and to give other women coaches something to strive for, which is to be the first female coach in the NBA.
Jumpin' Jehosefah, holy canoli, and Aunt Fanny's granny panties! Or, as they say in cyber-world, OMFG!!! I just realized I haven't written anything on baseball yet.
I claim to be a "baseball guy". I love football, and I love the game of basketball, but I always get all a-twitter when it's baseball season. And here I am with no baseball blog since _______! I'll try (probably unsuccessfully) to be brief for now, and just go with a general American League divisional overview.
AL WEST
Rangers -- Being one of the few people in Austin who pulls for the Rangers over the Astros, I'll readily admit my leaning toward Arlington in the Al West. They tried their best to get some pitching in the offseason with Millwood, Eaton, and Padilla. Millwood's doing OK, but certainly not putting up ace numbers (3-3, 5.13 ERA, 31K), which is why they got him. Ideally, Millwood's a #2 or #3 starter at best, not an ace. The Rangers still have to find that elusive ace before they can really expect to contend, not to mention the need to find a solid, consistent leadoff hitter. Despite their shortcomings, they have the best hitting infield in the AL, streaky power in Mench and Wilkerson in the outfield, and once Francisco Cordero comes to his senses and stops throwing cantaloupes across the middle of the plate, they'll have a solid bullpen. Otsuka's still a dependable closer, regardless of the walk-off homer he gave up on Tuesday night in the Bronx. I expect the Rangers to be battling the A's for the wildcard slot in late September.
Angels -- They have the deepest roster, and are my prediction to win the West. They've had a mediocre start, but Anaheimians needn't fret -- they'll be fine. From Vlad to Figgins to K-Rod, they have solid talent up and down the lineup, both offensively and defensively. Their starting pitching is their albatross, but it's deep enough to get them where they need to be.
A's -- I just don't think there's any way the trade rumors around Barry Zito can be true, especially the way the rest of the staff is throwing right now. If (now DL-ed) Harden and Loaiza, Danny Haren, and Joe Blanton can't pitch up to their potential, the A's are going to be hurting badly. The A's have a rock-solid bullpen with Calero, currently ailing Duchscherer, and formerly ailing closer Huston Street. If Street (a former Longhorn, I might add) can stay healthy and consistent, he's going to be one of the best closers in the majors for many years to come. And, hey, was I hallucinating, or did I actually hear several people mention Bobby Crosby as a potential MVP this year? What??
Mariners -- I really can't predict anything more than more of the same for the hapless ol' Mariners. Ichiro's been struggling, but he'll be fine. Sexson will hit his 40, but will strike out too much to be effective. Adrian Beltre will underachieve. Jamie Moyer will overachieve. Eddie Guardado will be blamed. And they'll end up trailing the AL West once again.
AL CENTRAL
White Sox -- The Southsiders are getting it done again this year, and I have to admit I'm surprised. They seemed like a "heart" team last year, one that had success through hard-nosed play and team cohesiveness rather than sheer talent. Teams like that can often prove to be a beneficiary of good timing and luck, and fizzle out as fast as they lit up the scene. But the addition of Jim Thome in the offseason has turned out to be the brilliant move everybody thought it might be, and the rest of the team seems to be taking care of business as usual, picking right up where they left off. A deep rotation, a serviceable bullpen, power bats living up to potential, and smart, aggressive baserunning. Sounds like a division champ to me, at the very least.
Twins -- After Santana's WBC-hangover and rocky start, he seems to be back on track now, which has got to be making 'em breath easier in the Land Of A Thousand Lakes. The Twins' biggest problem is depth; Santana's their only consistently solid starter, Joe Nathan's their only consistent bullpen member. They've got decent talent in their bats with guys like Hunter and Stewart, but there's not a single pitcher in the AL that's remotely scared of anybody in their lineup. They need at least one "beast" around the 4-slot, as well as some young organizational talent to step up and bring the team some depth, before the Twins can really be considered as any sort of danger.
Tigers -- Jim Leyland's tirade in April was an absolute thing of beauty! It does my heart good to see a manager in today's sports world be able to berate his team when they are playing like girls in a blacktop kickball game, with the only repercussion being his team stepping up BIG TIME and starting to gain some respect. Chris Shelton's lumber freakery in April was ridiculous, but as soon as it cooled down, their pitching heated up. Nate Robertson is 3-2 with a 3.27 ERA?? Mike "21 Losses In 2003" Maroth is 5-2 with a 2.18?? Darned impressive. I look forward to seeing them try to hang onto it. The gamble on The Gambler seems to have paid off, as well.
Indians -- Already 7.5 games out of first in the division, the high hopes of the Tribe faithful aren't looking too bright these days. Their three offensive bright spots, Hafner, Martinez, and Sizemore, are producing, but until they either acquire another solid power hitter or guys like Blake and Boone are able to sustain huge numbers, they're going to be scrabbling for third in the Central. You have to like their solid (but aging) rotation, though, and Sabathia's return could be a big spark. Bob Wickman seems to be on track to repeating last year's stellar closing performance, but somehow I just don't trust that he can keep it up for two solid seasons. They could surprise everybody and contend for the wildcard, but I don't see it happening.
Royals -- They're the Royals. I hear George Brett and Rickey Henderson are looking for work. They might want to give them a jingle.
AL EAST
Red Sox -- It's all clicking right now for the Sox, which is great to watch. However, they're still trailing the Yankees for first, which is troublesome. I know it's only May, but if the Sox are hitting on all cylinders, and the Yanks have Sheffield, Matsui, and Giambi hurt, and the Sox still aren't in first, then that's a problem. Papelbon's been a treat to watch close games, and it's been a pleasant surprise to see Schilling and Beckett live up to expectations so far. Papi's still poppin', and Manny will start caring again soon, and the Spaldings will light up the Boston skyline once again. Lowell and Youkalis have been solid on the corners, and their outfield has been a nice C+ so far. Should be a barnburner in September again this year.
Yankees -- First Sheffield, then Matsui, and now Giambi?? Ouch! With the exception of Randy Johnson and Johnny Damon, the Yankees have been performing up to potential. A-Rod's mashing, Rivera's stopping, and Jeter's chewing gum and looking as indifferent as ever. And even though Damon's not hitting, he's playing hard and smashing that pie-face of his into the center field wall with consistency. I really can't predict a winner in the East. Although I'm no true-blue Yankee-hater, I am rooting for the Sox, because my Dad was a childhood Sox fan, my girlfriend is a lifelong Chowderhead, and I just dig Francona and the heart of the team and their fans.
Blue Jays -- The AL version of the Mets, the Jays spent some big money in the offseason with the hopes of catching the Yanks and Sox. The acquisitions of B.J. Ryan, Troy Glaus, Lyle Overbay have paid off well thus far, while it looks they're going to take a beating on the A.J. Burnett gamble. They have some promising youth in Rios and Chacin, and Halladay is in his usual Cy Young-worthy form, but none of it will be enough to catch the two big dogs this year.
Orioles -- Brian Roberts is killing me. I have him in two fantasy leagues, and his propensity for injury is maddening. Do I drop him? No, he's too good! There's no more frustrating phrase in all of sports than the words, "when he's healthy". Sorry, I digress. Miguel Tejada was right in the offseason; the O's just aren't doing enough to contend in the East. They have a solid offense, especially when Roberts and Lopez are healthy (see? there's that phrase again!), but they just don't have the pitching. Another tried but true baseball cliche is "Pitching wins championships." Erik Bedard is something special, but that's about all they've got. Getting Leo Mazzone to come over was a brilliant move, but they might want to try using actual pitchers to get it done, not just coaches.
Devil Rays -- Always at the bottom, but always better than people think, and this year is no exception. Johnny Gomes has been a sleeper surprise so far, and even Ty Wigginton has showed some power. And with Aubrey Huff back (even though he's been pretty paltry when he's been in), and Crawford due to heat up, they should have even more pop soon. Youngster Scott Kazmir is really starting to shine, but the rest of their staff is virtually non-existent. Even with their struggling pitching, any team that thinks they can take a day off when they play the D-Rays is in for a surprise. They're not the Royals.
OK, fine, I wasn't brief. But what you may call "three long pages", I call "not 10 pages", which is what it would have been if I'd done both leagues like I originally intended. Like I said, I'm a "baseball guy", and when I get started flappin' my gums (or fingers, as it were) on baseball, I just can't shut up. I realize that for hard-core baseball fans, I probably didn't tell you too much you didn't already know. But for anyone else that might be curious where the American League stands as of May 16, 2006, hopefully that gave you something to chew on for a bit.
** This is a re-post of a piece I did on December 17 of last year. There are some slight revisions, because parts of it kinda stunk, and some of the comments made were helpful. In light of the current controversy on the defiition of an "athlete", I thought this one would be a good one to bat around again.**
Tell me, what is a sport? Many people subscribe to, "Well, if it's on sports TV (Fox, ESPN XII, whatever), then I guess it's a sport." Still others go with, "It's a competition that I like. Therefore it is a sport." I have to disagree on both points. While this seems ultimately to be an issue of semantics, we still need to determine a basic, more narrow definition of "sport" before we go around calling every competition we enjoy a "sport". Frankly, I'm sick to death of seeing Scrabble tournaments, spelling bees, dog shows, and -- first and foremost -- poker on my sports TV. These are not sports. At best, they are highly skilled games, competitions, or hobbies.
To make that assertion, we (meaning me -- it's my bleepin' blog, for cryin' out loud) have to define what a "sport" is. Since the NGS bible "Sportwriter 101" explicitly forbids giving Webster definitions (and I agree, it is very 7th grade), I'll forego that, and just say that different sources give very broad definitions of "sport". I think we also all understand that everybody has their own definition, which can cause controversy, and even downright venom on occasion. So, I'll take a poke at the proverbial cobra with my own defintion: A sport is any physical, athletic competition, where one participant's ability to perform is physically, directly affected by an opposing participant, in real-time. If your activity doesn't fit those criteria, well, then, friend... you got yourself a hobby.
I think we can all agree that poker, cheerleading championships, and the rock-paper-scissors finals aren't sports. We can probably also agree that non-"Big Three" games like hockey, soccer, tennis, and (only technically) NASCAR still do qualify as sports, although I really would still be just dandy if I never saw another score or highlight reel of them for the rst of my life. Don't get me wrong, most of those guys could run me down & beat me senseless, then make me play their sport, and beat me senseless at that (wait, not a soccer player... I think I could take a soccer player). But anyway, what the heck fun is agreeing on things? Here's a list of a few of those highly skilled non-sports for you to evaluate and opine on:
1) Golf -- Again, don't get me wrong; I like golf. Granted, it is the most perfect nap material in the history of broadcasting, and is the worst spectator "sport" on television. But I do respect those who play it well (my boomerang slice is a catalyst there), and I have great respect for the history of the game as well as the skill and dedication it takes to become even a decent player. But the fact is, it's not a sport. What Tiger shoots in a given round has virtually nothing to do with what Vijay shoots. The mental effects are there, sure. A good player has to have an innate drive to win and be able to withstand incredible amounts of pressure. But if you think those are adequate criteria to make it a "sport", then life itself is a "sport" too! No, golf is a solo game. If players were allowed to, say, box other players out of the green, or lay a shoulder check on a guy shooting out of the rough, or even holler "Boogedyboogedyermama!" during shots, then maybe it would qualify as a sport. And it would be infinitely more fun to watch. But, alas, Tiger shoots what Tiger shoots, and what John Daly is doing two holes back (even if it's gobbling down Hot Pockets and pounding PBR's) has absolutely no bearing. I'll venture to say that if you can slam beers and dogs while doing "it", then "it" is not a sport.
2) Bowling -- see "golf"
3) Track and Field -- These are some of the most amazing athletes in the world. They can run faster and jump higher than most of us could ever dream of. They can throw pointy things and heavy things really far. They train relentlessly their entire lives for a 5-10 second shot at perfection and glory. The difference between a track foot race and a NASCAR race or a horse race is minute, but important: track has lanes. In most track events, you must stay in your lane and not interfere with other runners. Besides mental competitiveness, a given runner's time is not affected by another runner's time. Hammer throwers aren't allowed to come up and give other hammer throwers an atomic wedgie or wet willie while they're spinning 'round and 'round. Thus, not a sport.
4) Virtually all Winter Olympic games -- OK, Tonya Harding maybe fudged on this one a bit. But usually, olympic ice dancers aren't allowed to break the kneecaps of other ice dancers. Downhill skiers aren't allowed to reach out and poke their opponents eyeballs with their bendy poles. Cross-country skiers aren't allowed to use ACME paint to draw fake paths on the sides of giant boulders, and make their opponents crash into them. So until I hear a cross-country skier say, "So long, Bambino! See ya in Torino!", it's not a sport. What a maroon.
5) Hunting and fishing -- This one's a more tenuous line. It is directly man vs. beast. But unless said beast is directly trying to avoid or run away from you -- not just standing there munching berries, or swimming around a pond, or saying, "Is that the Vice President? Everybody duck!!" -- it's not direct competition, and therefore not a sport. Hunting and fishing championships could be considered sports, I suppose, if hunters were allowed to set bear traps for other hunters, or fishermen could throw spinner lures or dead fish at their competition. Hmmm, now that I think of it, I think I might try that this weekend. My nutty neighbor has been throwing his leaves in my yard, the big jerk.
So there you have it. These are highly skilled hobbies, not sports. Hopefully some of you can step away from your little orange-juicer putting practice dealie (if you can practice inside your office, is it really a sport?) for just a moment, and give me your concurrence or arguments to the contrary.
I was just watching Woody and Skip yammer on about Donovon McNabb's new, T.O.-less Eagles, and a thought struck me. 'One thing you can say about T.O., he sure leaves a team different than he found it.' Then I realized that if you said that to Owens, he would take that as a 100% compliment. In reality, that's not necessarily true -- "different" doesn't mean better or worse, it just means you had an affect. But to T.O., that's all that really matters! He doesn't care what he leaves in his wake -- all that matters to him is making a big splash. If you were to discuss this idea with T.O. in an interview, he'd come up with something like, "Hey, y'know whut? When I come to a team, I'm an impact player, and I give it 110%. Nobody can dispute that."
As I'm going over this imaginary interview in my head, I finally had a stark realization. All these years, T.O. has reminded me of somebody. His accent, vocal inflections, and facial expressions always seemed familiar, but I just couldn't put my finger on it -- until today.
Terrell Owens is Pvt. 'Bubba' Blue from Forrest Gump!! You know, Forrest's best friend in the army, who he co-owned Bubba Gump Shrimp with?? "You knuw, they's all kind of shrimps. Let's see, they's boiled shrimp... fried shrimp...barbecue shrimp...lemon shrimp...coconut shrimp..." I can totally hear Terrell Owens drawling, "You knuw, Drew, they's all kinds of passes. Let's see, they's deep passes..... short passes... mid-range passes.... crossin' passes....uh... deep passes.."
You know, the Tuna always said, "Life's like an offensive pass scheme. You never know what you're gonna get." One thing B.O. won't get is 100 catches this year. But it will be a treat to imagine Pvt. Bubba under the helmet, trying to pretend he & Forrest Bledsoe are like peas 'n carrots.
Send Message
Add Friend
Block User
Invite to Group
Report User