Back in 1995, Kevin Garnett came out of high school straight to the NBA. Now, I know its hard to imagine a time when Kevin Garnett was but a young, 18-yr. old with hardly any racist taunts to his name, but so was the case. Strangely, despite no (written) rules to the contrary, no high schooler had gone straight to the NBA since 1975, when Darryl "Chocolate Thunder" Dawkins and Bill Willoughby, who apparently is a real person, did it. Nobody really wanted high schoolers, as they were at the oldest 18 and were generally considered immature, something that KG has obviously disproved in his NBA career.
Unbeknownst to the Timberwolves, by drafting Garnett they opened the floodgates of young, athletic men. In hindsight, I immediately regret that sentence. Regardless, going straight from high school to the NBA started to become popular not only for players who thought they were better than they were, but for GMs desperate for some incredible talent. This continued until 2005, when Amir Johnson became the last high schooler to be drafted before David Stern's now infamous one and done rule (figures that Amir Johnson would be the last one, doesn't it?)
Of course, Stern's rule hasn't exactly panned out the way he wanted it to. In short, it was designed to essentially force people to attend college, which is a somewhat noble goal despite the rather forceful methods. Many argued at the time that Stern was acting a bit like a dictator, which is a claim that has never been made before or since about anything he has done.
On the one hand, there has definitely been an increase in players going to college. With the exception of Brandon Jennings and Jeremy Tyler (his decision sure worked out well), who chose to play overseas, just about everyone with NBA talent has been forced into college. Of course, what good does college do if you only attend for one year? Stern's rule was put into place to hopefully force young men who otherwise couldn't get an education to follow through in higher ed. Instead, its made a laughingstock of the college basketball system, as more and more players have gone for just one year. For a bit of perspective, any player who knows beforehand that they will be leaving a school after one year can essentially stop attending class the final term of the school year, with little to no penalties. Even worse, more players are going the one and done route, which arguably provides no educational bonus, than were ever leaving high school.
From 1995 til 2005, 39 players went straight to the NBA from high school, or about 3.5 per year. 44 college freshmen have been drafted since then, which comes out to 7 a year. All in all, Stern's rule has essentially pushed more and more young kids who have made a commitment to a college to leave after a year, confident from one year against supposedly higher competition (Shawne Williams) or from their forever unfulfilled potenial (Anthony Randolph). Teams are making commitments to guys who come out of college with no more questions answered than if they had entered the NBA one year later, and it appears that all the one and done rule has done is create a climate where the educational climate of college is disintegrated.
Many players obviously have no interest whatsoever in higher education. Frankly, a lot of these players would still be in college basketball regardless of if high schoolers could go the NBA. Forcing the highest caliber talent to attend school, however, only adds fuel to the fire of recruiting battles, making it more and more likely that coaches will break the rules in hopes of landing that one big recruit, like Eric Gordon or every player at Kentucky.
On a quick side note, remember how awful it was that Terrence Jones decided to go to Kentucky rather than Washington? Well, two years later, Terrence Ross is outscoring, outrebounding, outpassing, and generally being better than Jones in every possible aspect, just without all the ridiculousness of thinking he's NBA caliber already. Funny how that works out (I'm not bitter at all, obviously).
In short, the one and done rule is a failure that has made college basketball's idea of "student athletes" even more laughable. Sadly, it has also created a lot more hype for the NBA draft, as people are able to see all these young talents on ESPN rather than have to scrounge the internet for high school highlights. As such, don't expect change soon from Stern, but hope for it. For the sake of college basketball's integrity, Stern needs to destroy the one and done rule. Of course, when has Stern ever looked out for others?
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
The Lou Piniella Problem
In 1993 the Seattle Mariners hired Lou Piniella to be the field manager for the team. During his time with Seattle Piniella found great success. In 1995 he led the team to there first playoff appearance. In 2001 his team tied the all-time single season win record. Basically, Lou was the skipper during the best (and maybe only) run in the franchises history. This success endeared Lou to Seattle fans.
However, Piniella was famous for more than just his teams success. During his tenure he built a reputation for his short fuse and expressive demonstrations of his frustration. His most famous explosion was probably when his literally took third base out of the ground and threw it. Fans would go crazy when Piniella erupted.
This brings us to the Lou Piniella problem. Lou's success with the Mariners has led to fans to believe that the only fiery managers with temper control problems can find success. People seem to forget about all the good decisions Lou made. This leads many fans to value lack emotional control over on field decisions.
Since Lou left the Mariners for Tampa Bay in 2003, the manager position has been a rotating cast of people. Doug Melvin, Mike Hargrove, Jon Mclaren, Don Wakamatsu and Eric Wedge have all filled the role to start a season. Before they were fired Melvin, Mclaren and Wakamatsu, were facing the wrath of large portions of the fan base. One of the biggest knocks against these managers was their lack of fire. They didnt show enough passion and emotion of the field. Often writers mentioned that Don Wakamatsu needed to get thrown out of a game to prove to his players that he cared.
This problem is exemplified in the Mariners current manager Eric Wedge. Most fans seem to love him. Additionally he is the media's golden boy. He appears to be able to do no wrong. Not surprisingly he shows a fire on the field. He often "holds players accountable" for their play (you know by making Chone Figgins the lead-off hitter after two terrible seasons). He does many of the things fans and the media grew to love about Lou Piniella. He reminds us of the good days.
The problem is Eric Wedge makes lots of questionable in game decisions. His use of the bullpen and decision of which player to give at-bats to are questionable at best. In fact, often his decision are down right poor. The guy started Carlos Peguero over Greg Halman and Mike Carp for a good part of the 2011 season. Peguero batted .196 and struck out almost 35% of the time. All the while Mike Carp was sitting on the bench doing nothing after tearing up AAA.
Mariner's fans and the media need to open their eyes and realize that there is more then one model for a successful manager. They need to starting judging their manager's based on their on field decisions not their theatrics. Wins matter more than ejections.
Sources: Baseball-Reference.com
However, Piniella was famous for more than just his teams success. During his tenure he built a reputation for his short fuse and expressive demonstrations of his frustration. His most famous explosion was probably when his literally took third base out of the ground and threw it. Fans would go crazy when Piniella erupted.
 |
| Take that hat!!! |
This brings us to the Lou Piniella problem. Lou's success with the Mariners has led to fans to believe that the only fiery managers with temper control problems can find success. People seem to forget about all the good decisions Lou made. This leads many fans to value lack emotional control over on field decisions.
Since Lou left the Mariners for Tampa Bay in 2003, the manager position has been a rotating cast of people. Doug Melvin, Mike Hargrove, Jon Mclaren, Don Wakamatsu and Eric Wedge have all filled the role to start a season. Before they were fired Melvin, Mclaren and Wakamatsu, were facing the wrath of large portions of the fan base. One of the biggest knocks against these managers was their lack of fire. They didnt show enough passion and emotion of the field. Often writers mentioned that Don Wakamatsu needed to get thrown out of a game to prove to his players that he cared.
This problem is exemplified in the Mariners current manager Eric Wedge. Most fans seem to love him. Additionally he is the media's golden boy. He appears to be able to do no wrong. Not surprisingly he shows a fire on the field. He often "holds players accountable" for their play (you know by making Chone Figgins the lead-off hitter after two terrible seasons). He does many of the things fans and the media grew to love about Lou Piniella. He reminds us of the good days.
The problem is Eric Wedge makes lots of questionable in game decisions. His use of the bullpen and decision of which player to give at-bats to are questionable at best. In fact, often his decision are down right poor. The guy started Carlos Peguero over Greg Halman and Mike Carp for a good part of the 2011 season. Peguero batted .196 and struck out almost 35% of the time. All the while Mike Carp was sitting on the bench doing nothing after tearing up AAA.
Mariner's fans and the media need to open their eyes and realize that there is more then one model for a successful manager. They need to starting judging their manager's based on their on field decisions not their theatrics. Wins matter more than ejections.
Sources: Baseball-Reference.com
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
A Few Tidbits from Around the Web
I dont want my current streak of blog content quantity to come to an end. So, it is time for me to take credit for another successful blog post while putting in minimal effort. Here are a few tidbits from around the web.
- You might have heard about the massive trade the Mariners and Yankees pulled off this MLB off-season. It was the kind of trade that fans love to talk about because there is no clear cut winner. Both teams took a gamble. Anyways, here is John McGrath's take on Jesus Monetro, the guy the Mariners got
- The Seattle Sounders season opener is fast approaching and fan favorite Mauro Rosales looks lead the team to another strong season
- Ever wondered why the Mariners have sucked for so long? It's definitely got something to do with our draft results over the last decade
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
He's Back! Carlos Guillen Returns to the M's
Last week the Mariners re-signed Carlos Guillen to a minor league contract. By doing so Zduriencik brought back a player who never should have left. Unfortunately, at this point in his career Guillen is just barely above replacement level. His production has been hurt be a series of injuries suffered over the last several seasons. He will most likely no be a major contributor to the team. The move was probably made to fill a need for a backup infielder.
However, to the over analyzing eye it might appear that Zduriencik was continuing his quest to right the wrongs of his predecessor. He has completely cleaned house of failed Bavasi players. Former high draft picks like Jeff Clement and Phillippe Aumont were traded away. High paid and underperforming free agents like Carlos Silva were cut or traded. All this got me thinking, about all the bad moves Bavasi made during his tenure and the moves Zduriencik has subsequently had to make to try and undo the damage. I think the worst was probably the Carlos Guillen trade.
However, to the over analyzing eye it might appear that Zduriencik was continuing his quest to right the wrongs of his predecessor. He has completely cleaned house of failed Bavasi players. Former high draft picks like Jeff Clement and Phillippe Aumont were traded away. High paid and underperforming free agents like Carlos Silva were cut or traded. All this got me thinking, about all the bad moves Bavasi made during his tenure and the moves Zduriencik has subsequently had to make to try and undo the damage. I think the worst was probably the Carlos Guillen trade.
In 2003, the Mariners first year GM Bill Bavasi traded up and coming SS Carlos Guillen to the Detroit Tigers for replacement level SS Ramon Santiago and “Not” Juan Gonzalez (thanks to the Seattle Times Larry Stone for the nickname). As you might remember, Carlos Guillen went on to excel in Detroit. He played in three All-Star games. While Ramon Santiago bounced around the Mariners minor leagues for two years before being cut and then re-signed by the Tigers. “Not” Juan Gonzalez remained exactly that. This traded essentially amounted to the Mariners giving the Tigers an All-star SS for nothing.
The only other move that I think might even compare to the Carlos Guillen trade for terribleness is the Erik Bedard trade. That bad trade basically drained the Mariners farm system to acquire a pitcher, who admittedly was lights out when healthy, but spent way too much time on the DL. However, at the time lots of people thought it was a gutsy move and would pay off big for the M’s. I remember thinking that they were close to the playoff and the addition of another ace pitcher would push them over the hump. I that this general optimism at the time of the deal makes it better than the Guillen trade.
In 2003, the Mariners first year GM Bill Bavasi traded up and coming SS Carlos Guillen to the Detroit Tigers for replacement level SS Ramon Santiago and “Not” Juan Gonzalez (thanks to the Seattle Times Larry Stone for the nickname). As you might remember, Carlos Guillen went on to excel in Detroit. He played in three All-Star games. While Ramon Santiago bounced around the Mariners minor leagues for two years before being cut and then re-signed by the Tigers. “Not” Juan Gonzalez remained exactly that. This traded essentially amounted to the Mariners giving the Tigers an All-star SS for nothing.
The only other move that I think might even compare to the Carlos Guillen trade for terribleness is the Erik Bedard trade. That bad trade basically drained the Mariners farm system to acquire a pitcher, who admittedly was lights out when healthy, but spent way too much time on the DL. However, at the time lots of people thought it was a gutsy move and would pay off big for the M’s. I remember thinking that they were close to the playoff and the addition of another ace pitcher would push them over the hump. I that this general optimism at the time of the deal makes it better than the Guillen trade.
 |
| The Horror! |
Sources: Baseball-Refernce.com, SeattleTimes.com
Monday, February 6, 2012
Eli Manning Gets the MVP
On Sunday the forty sixth Super Bowl took place with the New York Giants facing off against the New England Patriots. This was a much hyped game (like all Super Bowls) featuring two star QB from two of the biggest sports crazed cities in the United States. After four quarters of play Giants ended up prevailing 21-17 in a hard fought and closely contested game. The game MVP Award was given to Giants QB Eli Manning. However, I feel like this was basically by default. No one player stood out during the game and somebody had to win the award.
The game featured several great players (Eli Manning, Justin Tuck, Tom Brady, Rob Gronkowski, Wes Welker, etc). Because of this there was a potential for someone explode on a national stage, but no one played a stand out game. There were definitely stand out moments, like Mario Manningham's 38 yard catch in the fourth quarter, but no one player did something amazing more than once. If anything you could probably give the MVP to the Giants defense. They did manage to keep the electric Patriots offense to just 17 points. However, they were definitely helped by drops and penalties by the Patriots and most importantly an injury to Rob Gronkowski. This general lack of spectacular individual performances, left MVP voters with no clear choice. So, they fell back on the default and just gave the award to the winning QB.
This isn't to say Manning played poorly. In fact he played very well. He threw for 296 yd and a TD and completed 75% of his passes, which any team would take from their QB. It is just that he didn't really stand out while compiling these stats. None of his passes were spectacular and he didn't make me feel like his performance was what made the team win. His play did make much of an impression on me at all. He didnt provide any of the amazing pin point accuracy passes where the QB threads the needle and hits a streaking receiver for big yards. He never had to scramble around and buy time until coverage broke down and he could bomb one down field. He just played passably.
This lack of a stand out player detracted from the game's ability to stand next to the all time great games No clear cut MVP left me wanting more from my NFL Championship experience. Eli Manning winning the MVP with a solid but not great performance felt boring.
The game featured several great players (Eli Manning, Justin Tuck, Tom Brady, Rob Gronkowski, Wes Welker, etc). Because of this there was a potential for someone explode on a national stage, but no one played a stand out game. There were definitely stand out moments, like Mario Manningham's 38 yard catch in the fourth quarter, but no one player did something amazing more than once. If anything you could probably give the MVP to the Giants defense. They did manage to keep the electric Patriots offense to just 17 points. However, they were definitely helped by drops and penalties by the Patriots and most importantly an injury to Rob Gronkowski. This general lack of spectacular individual performances, left MVP voters with no clear choice. So, they fell back on the default and just gave the award to the winning QB.
This isn't to say Manning played poorly. In fact he played very well. He threw for 296 yd and a TD and completed 75% of his passes, which any team would take from their QB. It is just that he didn't really stand out while compiling these stats. None of his passes were spectacular and he didn't make me feel like his performance was what made the team win. His play did make much of an impression on me at all. He didnt provide any of the amazing pin point accuracy passes where the QB threads the needle and hits a streaking receiver for big yards. He never had to scramble around and buy time until coverage broke down and he could bomb one down field. He just played passably.
This lack of a stand out player detracted from the game's ability to stand next to the all time great games No clear cut MVP left me wanting more from my NFL Championship experience. Eli Manning winning the MVP with a solid but not great performance felt boring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)