If It Ain't Broke, Bud Will Fix It

As the ink dries on his brand new contract extension, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig is out to further cement his legacy as the guy who fixes everything except things that actually need fixing. Recall how the MLB turned a blind eye to steroid use for over a decade until the avalanche of evidence and decibel level of the whispers became impossible to ignore. Juxtapose that with the outcome of the MLB All-Star Game now being used to determine homefield advantage in the World Series, a move that was designed to increase interest in the midseason all-star contest by making it "meaningful" ("This Time It Counts!"). How did that move work out? In 2010, nearly a decade after the change, the All-Star Game had it's worst TV rating...ever. Then, in 2011...they repeated the feat by going *even lower*. Worst rating...ever. So, the game is garnering even *less* interest than prior to the change. (Channeling my inner Dr. Phil) So Bud, how's that tinkering working out for ya? This of course doesn't even touch upon the constant risk of gifting an unearned home-field advantage in the World Series to a low-seeded team...you know, kinda like what just happened 3 months ago in the 2011 Series. Increase the significance of one single exhibition game, while simultaneously reducing the value of the entire 162-game regular season. Brilliant Bud. Simply brilliant.

(For the record, this is by no means armchair quarterbacking on my part. I hated the meaningful-exhibition-game idea the moment it was introduced. And actually, I didn't much care for the alternating-league home-field advantage rule that it replaced. Playoff teams should be rewarded for having better records than their opponents. We do it that way in the other two playoff rounds. In any case, I simply knew everyone would yawn at the "it counts!" idea. I certainly did.)

Not one to rest on his laurels, Bud now has a new target for generating fan interest: the MLB playoffs themselves. Specifically, Bud is furthering the push to add another wildcard team to the playoff pool, an idea that has been bantering around for the past few years. However, it's not a real playoff team per se; this 2nd team will merely lock horns with the other wildcard team for a one-game playoff, the winner of which will go on to face the #1 team in the league. If that sounds eerily like the NCAA Basketball play-in game, then congratulations, you are paying complete attention. Now, when was the last time you rearranged your work and/or personal schedule so that you could catch that compelling all-important 64 vs. 65 matchup? Never? Like hell you say.

Simply put, this idea is dumb. It's not going to have any grand effect on fan interest...if it has any effect at all. The problem? There is simply no foolproof playoff scheme that can account for every possible playoff race scenario. If it's "boring" to have one team far ahead of the others in a wildcard race, it will be just as boring to have two teams far ahead of all the others in the race. Will these two teams break their necks down the stretch, jockeying for positioning to have that all-important play-in game at home? Maybe...but not as much as they'll be trying to set up their pitching rotation to make sure their ace is pitching that game. Ask any manager if he'd rather have his #4 pitcher starting at home, or his ace pitching on the road.

And what of the playoffs after the play-in game? Now you have a slightly-weary team, perhaps one that's flying all over the country in a span of days, unable to start their ace in game one of the divisional series, and unable to use the ace twice in the 5-game series, thereby eliminating one of the most exciting, most compelling and scariest prospects of the MLB playoffs. I cannot wait for some top-heavy-pitching team -- i.e. a team with one good starter and a bunch of also-rans filling out the rotation -- to finish 10 games in back of the first wildcard team in the standings, win the play-in game (due to their one superb pitcher), and then become chew-toy playoff fodder for their best-in-league divisional series opponent.

We see versions of this kind of one-trick pony team with some regularity; opening up the pool of teams only increases the chance of having such a team sneak into the divisional round, only to be overmatched and massacred by their league-leading foe, all because they've been forced to exhaust the one competitive advantage they could have used, the one chance they might've had to keep up with the bigger dog.

Naturally, this scenario of de-fanging a one-pitcher staff is but one specific risk. However, each and every one of these wildcard teams would undoubtedly be negatively affected by that one-game playoff. Okay, so maybe the rest of your rotation behind your ace isn't made up of single-A callups and home-run derby pitching coaches. But there's a reason why you consider one pitcher on your staff to be your ace. It's because he's the one guy you feel most confident turning to when you absolutely positively have to get a win. He's the one guy who you *will* turn to in that situation. Teams who have 2 or more of those guys? They don't end up as 5th and 6th seeds in the league. They win divisions.

So, regardless of the makeup of the wildcard teams, you are fairly assured of having a lower-seeded divisional series opponent that will be starting on the road *and* unable to use their ace until game 3 or 4. Wait, what's that? There *is* no game 4 because your team got swept, so your ace *never* gets to pitch in the series at all? Poor you. How'd that play-in game win work out for ya? This is something that happens occasionally in the playoffs; having a mandatory play-in game ensures it will happen on a near-yearly basis -- twice.

Last season, September saw Tampa, Boston, and LA in the AL, and St. Louis, Atlanta and Milwaukee in the NL, engaging in two frantic "races" in the final weeks of the season for the single wildcard spot in each league (I use the term 'race' loosely, because you normally don't see a contestant in a race running in reverse the way the Red Sox and Braves were). But what if there were two wildcard spots? The final week of the Tampa/Boston American League race would've been wholly uninteresting. No amount of clubhouse chicken and beer would've made Boston get lapped by *two* teams. Once the Greater Los Angeles Anaheim Area Angels of Disneyland Incorporated fell too far behind both Boston and Tampa, the lure of the 'race' would've been over. Same with the National League race. The magical final weekend would've lost all significance and suspense. That final day I spent in my local sportsbar with my head on a swivel following four (or was it 6?) games? I wouldn't have bothered to leave the house. That absolutely magical (no histrionics here; it truly was) 3-minute stretch where Boston and Tampa swapped playoff positions one final time? Who would care? Hell, would it have even happened? A weekend, if not an entire week, of excitement and suspense, sacrificed for a single game. One which could very well end up being a blowout, further whittling down a week's worth of suspense into two or three innings.

Did I mention that this change would also likely completely kill the fantastical notion of the one-game playoff? Now, instead of having a handful of these games scattered throughout MLB history (Yankees/Red Sox in the 70s, Tigers/Twins a few seasons ago), you will have two, every single year. The uniqueness of the game, the lore of the phrase, will be completely lost. Hell, a decade from now, we may not even view those historical game-163's in the same nostalgic light.

So, from the final weeks of the regular season, to the divisional playofs, to the mystical history of past playoff games, there will be no end to the carnage Bud is about to unleash on us.

Attempting to create a false pretense of excitement at the end of the regular season, meanwhile simultaneously diluting one entire divisional playoff series...which naturally effects the league championship series and beyond. Brilliant Bud. Simply...brilliant.

The Pandemic of Lazy And Dumb Sportswriting

On the very remote chance you've taken the time to scan some of my other blog offerings, you may have noticed a unifying theme: I detest terrible writing. And in particular, I have a special hatred for poor sportwriting. Naturally, I don't mean those who cannot so much as form grammatically-correct passages or spell properly -- they deserve as much pity as they do ire -- but rather people who waste paragraph upon paragraph writing pointless bile and illogical tripe. Laziness also gets my goat in equal measure. So without further ado, I present to you:

Dumb Writer #1 and Dumb Writer #2.

Now, NY Daily News -- and NY Post -- are publications of which I loathe to read any section, so it took my boy Cook to point me to these lazy pieces of journalism. (Not that all of the major sports publications aren't saddled with their own shabby writing.) But, right after watching the NY Knicks defeat the Philadelphia 76ers at the Garden last night, Cook and I predicted there would be some dumbwriter that would draw for the easy "the Sixers were playing their third game in three nights and were tired" excuse. And right on cue...What is almost comical is the offhanded way in which the second dumbwriter constantly refers back to the Sixers 3-in-3 stretch and their supposedly-tired legs. "The Knicks could've pulled away, but didn't manage to against a team that must've had dead legs..."

Now, perhaps you're thinking that the 3-in-3 stretch was, in fact, a plausible excuse. Allow me to halt your thinking in its tracks. To start, Philly is a young team, among the youngest in the NBA. If there's anyone equipped to handle a brutal stretch, it's them, even taking into account the fast pace at which they play. However, was this stretch really brutal? The first two games were in Philly, and the third in NY. With the lack of travel, you might as well just call that three home games. Hell, with Philly players typically calling New Jersey their home, there's a very real chance there is a Sixer or two for whom the trip to the Garden was a shorter commute. But here's the real kicker: the second game, the one just prior to last night, was a blowout. A laugher. A brutal 27-point beatdown (of the Sacramento Kings). None of the Sixer starters even played the 4th quarter; all but one played under 30 minutes. Outside of Holliday and Turner (a sub), the top rotation guys logged 29, 25, 22, 22, and 21 minutes. THIS is the team you think is so worn out? Give me a freakin' break.

Last weekend, Oklahoma City had a 3-in-3 swing where they had to fly to Houston, then back home, in between the games. Then, after an off-day, they had another back-to-back (so, 5 games in 6 nights). That is a brutal stretch. A 3-game stretch with 2 home games, the 2nd a blowout, and a 90 mile trip on New Jersey Transit? Boo hoo cry me a river.

Now, if these writers were angling for excuses, for mitigating factors to devalue the Knicks win, they might have noticed that the Sixers starting center, Spencer Hawes, got injured in that second game and didn't play the Knicks. Hawes has been getting print all over sports websites for his surprising early-season play. Scan both articles above; neither of the words "Spencer" nor "Hawes" even appear once! Two writers and neither of them noticed the opponent was without their starting center? One of the most improved players in the entire league so far? What the hell do they pay these sportswriters for?

Hawes being out had much more to do with last night's game than some cookie-cutter lazy notion of tired legs. Anybody who watched that game and surmised the Sixers were tired needs to visit their optometrist. Hawes being out obviously altered the Sixers rotation, disrupting their bench which, as the writers pointless trotted out, is among the league leaders in scoring. Well, lo and behold, late in the 1st and 3rd quarters -- when the bench came in -- the Knicks went on big runs, 14-2 to end the first. Those two runs effectively decided the game, forcing Philly to play uphill all night long. Hmm, an offensive eruption against a bench playing their first game with an altered rotation. Gee, who would'a thunk it. Seriously, this really is not rocket science, people.

For comparison purposes, let's look at a passage from the Associated Press coverage of the game:

...the Sixers, who played without starting center Spencer Hawes, who strained his lower back Tuesday night. They shot just 39.5 percent from the field.

"We really missed a guy like Spencer in a game tonight because he's our best passing guy and we like to play out of the post and do some of that stuff. So I was really just trying to work on the fly," Philadelphia coach Doug Collins said.

Local sportswriters and sportscasters are damn-near legendary for their myopia. These two clearly know little to nothing about the league outside of the guys donning blue and orange. It is unforgivable that they would draw for this cookie-cutter "tired" excuse and NOT EVEN MENTION the Spencer Hawes injury. Ridiculous. And I'm sure by tomorrow they will have the nerve to criticize players who just go through the motions.

Mitch Lawrence, and Tim Smith, take a bow. The sports fans of the City of New York just grew a little bit dumber today.

When Senility Attacks

Disclaimer: I don't write this entry to make fun of anyone's mental state, but the mind-boggling nature of two articles I just read leaves me at a loss for any other explanation.

ESPN's John Clayton put forth two articles today -- one for the NFC, one for AFC -- giving a grade to every NFL team as we bid adieu to the 2011 regular season. Among a litany of curious grades, and reasonings for them, came the following two gems:

"Green Bay Packers: Grade: A+
The Packers almost had a perfect season, but there was no question they had the perfect quarterback in Aaron Rodgers. Even though he didn't throw for 5,000 yards, he still had 45 touchdown passes. (b)Rodgers' performances covered for a defense that gave up 411.6 yards a game.(b)"

"New England Patriots: Grade: B
The offense gets an A. Tom Brady threw for 5,235 yards and 39 touchdowns and tight end Rob Gronkowski developed into an offensive superstar. (b)The defense pulled down the grade because it gave up 411.1 yards a game and 26 touchdown passes.(b)"

Excuse me? Wow. A mind truly is a terrible thing to waste. I'm not sure what else to say here. Or if anything else needs to be said.

In case you were wondering, or holding out some hope that there might be some sort of justification for giving one team a pass on a horrific flaw, then knocking another team down a full grade for the exact same flaw......the Packers gave up *29* touchdown passes (to the Foxboronians' 26). And the two teams gave up an identical 39 TDs to opposing offenses.

Aside from the hilariously and perfectly contradictory entries, there really is no sound reasoning available in this universe to give a team with such a porous defense a perfect grade. A perfect grade implies, well, perfection; implies that there is nothing that can be improved upon for this team. Anyone who so much as thinks (much less writes) that there is nothing that can be improved upon for a team that ranked deal last in defense should spend the next two weeks in Lambeau Field as a tackling dummy for the Packers to (s)practice(s) learn on. If the Packers had a defense like the Ravens, Steelers, or 49ers, and awesome special teams to boot, the postseason would've been cancelled already; there'd be no point in playing the games. They'd be winning games 70-7. *That* would earn a team a perfect grade. Besides, if this team gets an A+, what about a team that has a upper-echelon defense to boot? A++? A+ squared? A+ times infinity? Pfff.

John Clayton: Grade: F.

I'll keep this one short and get into other happenings in sports in another entry; reasoning as patently ridiculous as his deserves space all to itself.

The Tale of The City's Two Teams

Living in New York, I can't help but become somewhat absorbed by the constant soap operas that surround the two NFL teams that bear the city's name. Watching Jersey/A and Jersey/B fight each other, not only for headlines, but sometimes even on the field for actual playoff spots, is truly entertaining in a place like New York.

Aside: I must apologize to the Jersey/A squad (Giants). I believe I suggested they lay down and let the Jets have a shot at reaching the playoffs, not realizing that a win would've put the Gints in control of their own destiny. Especially when that control involves beating the Cowpokes. Especially when the Jets are so obviously in a complete mess and can't be trusted with control of...anything. But in my defense, my only mistake was that I didn't credit the Cowpokes with enough ineptitude to lose to the Eagles -- and lose in utterly convincing fashion no less -- with the division on the line. My bad. I will never not doubt the Romo-ans again.
 
In any case, I naturally don't watch Jersey/B play all that often, but when I do, I can see the reason for Jet fan consternation over their "franchise" QB. You're never too far from -- or, if you're a receiver, never too far for -- the next wildly overthrown pass. Aside from that, he just seems to have a penchant for trying to do way too much. Staying too long in the pocket. Not getting rid of the ball in time. Forcing passes to covered receivers. Knowing this, I don't know why the Jets continue to let the guy face situations where he has shown time and time again that he will do the wrong thing. (Yes, we know, cut him, trade him, put him on a spaceship and send him to live on Mars -- the guy's there in NY at the present moment, so work with me here. And him) Long ago they should've installed a count in his mind. 3 seconds -- either pass the ball, throw it away, or run for your life. Quick drops. Short ball-control passes. Put a chain and a leash around the guy to protect him from himself. Make him the dreaded "game manager". That's clearly all he can handle at the moment. And if he can't handle that -- hell, forget that; lesser quarterbacks have been able to. Don't know why the Jets staff doesn't see this.

Of course, that would assume they're a well-coached team, something that doesn't appear to be the case. I read an interesting article that outlined some of the ridiculous follies of Jersey/B's coach Ryan. Things like passing the buck and declining to take responsibility for the offense's playcalling. Either claiming or feigning ignorance of the reasons a star receiver (Holmes) was benched. This guy is a head coach? Really? A head coach is supposed to know about, and guide (without micromanaging) if necessary, every decision and step the team makes. A head coach takes responsibility for all facets of the team. Shields his assistant coaches from criticism -- yet this guy sees fit to throw them under the bus! "Why does our playcalling suck? Mmm I dunno, ask that guy." I'm sorry, but this is not the behavior of any competent group leader. I'm not sure Rex Ryan even understands -- much less performs -- the duties of leadership that his job entails. People focus on his hubris, bold predictions, and so on, when criticizing him, when apparently there are bigger issues of concern.

* The 49ers once again played a game that was much closer than it needed to be. For once though, it wasn't their aversion to the endzone that kept their opponent in the game. Rather, it was some fourth-quarter, let-up-on-the-gas, both-sides-of-the-ball miscuing (yes, that is a word), the kind of play that allowed them to snatch defeat from the paws of victory against the Cowgirls early in the season. The game turned from a 34-13 laugher to a 34-27 nailbiter in what seemed like seconds. I can only hope they were looking towards the impending first-round bye a little early. That it was the kind of let up where you get tired of repeatedly smacking your younger sibling around, but he just won't give up until you lock him in the closet.

Anyways, by all appearances, the 49ers will be hosting the Saints in two weekends, unless the Lions can summon some kind of magic and mount what seems would be an incredible upset. Guess there's plenty of time to mull over how the Niners will slow down the big Breesy later on.

Streak-busters, End-zone Allergies, and other short points

* Green Bay loses, and the 1972 Dolphins alumni host another champagne-popping party. Or at least, I suppose they did. Do they still do that anymore? Haven't heard. I know I certainly wine-toasted the Chiefs on Sunday. That's not hyperbole, by the way; I did, literally. Yes, I consider the Packers a rival (a nice yet completely disingenuous way of saying I am a hater. But, knowing that I'm a 49er fan, if you followed the NFL in the mid-to-late 1990s, you should know why I don't harbour warm fuzzy feelings for the Packers. And if you don't know, you'll just have to look it up; I make it a point to avoid recounting painful memories.) So what to make of their loss? Are the Packers *now* suddenly vulnerable? Will teams dissect the Chiefs gameplan and find the crack in the Cheesehead armour? Who knows. Doubtful at best. Not that I think they're a lock to repeat. I personally can't trust that a team whose defense is as porous as the Packers' has an easy or direct path to the Lombardi Trophy...But what a win for the Chiefs and their newly-installed interim head coach. Imagine, your team is riding a 6-game losing streak, you get suddenly installed as the new head coach, and your first task is to prepare for a 13-0 team in under a week. Talk about defying the odds.

* The Indianapolis Colts win! Off with paper bags! So, in the past 5 or so years, we've had two teams with a real shot to run the 19-0 table (Packers and New England Patriots), and two teams seriously threaten to go 0-fer (Detroit Lions "succeeded" where the Colts "failed"). Remind me: isn't this supposed to be the era of parity?

* I'm not sure what to make of the 49ers man-handling of the Steelers on Monday night. It certainly was impressive on the scoreboard, but Pittsburgh did out-gain them in yardage, and it would've been a much different game were it not for two early interceptions deep in 49er territory. But they played more than well enough to beat a very good team handily, particularly after they came out of the locker room in the second half. Alex Smith especially; he was throwing every which way but accurate to wide open receivers in the first half, then was suddenly dead-eye on-target in the second half. If he was able to hit the side of the barn in the first 2 quarters, the game might've been over at halftime. So, again, what to make of the 49ers win? I dunno. It was certainly nice to see them get over their season-long allergy to the end-zone. They did much better in that regard in 30 minutes against a good Steeler defense than they did in 60 against the Cardinals. (Speaking of which, that game, in a word: yuck).

* Shouldn't the Giants display some New York/New Jersey camaraderie and just fall down on Saturday so that at least one Jersey A/B team has a shot at the playoffs? Give the NYC area something to look forward to in January? C'mon Giants, show your NY pride!......OK, I'm just poking fun at my Jersey/A fans here. Every year their team ruins Christmas (shopping) for them. Poor things.

Switching sports...

* Chris Paul says NBA teams will now be gunning for the new-look Los Angeles Clippers. Mars to CP3: "gunning" is reserved for defending champions and good-but-despised teams. No one is "gunning" for you, because you have no status or notoriety that a team can obtain by defeating you. Teams will certainly be *gearing* up for you, knowing that you're no longer a pushover, and that they need to be on their A-game to keep "Lob City" from giving the scoreboard operator a repetitive-stress injury. But that is vastly, vastly different than "gunning" for you.

* DeAndre Jordan -- one of CP3's Lob City targets -- is really a monster. I'll be very interested to see how good he becomes. And enjoy the rim-abusing highlights along the way. (Incidentally, I can say all this freely, without looking longingly at what-could-have-been, only because of the Knicks' signing of Tyson Chandler. I cringe at the thought of how much wailing I might've subjected myself to had the Knicks not filled their doughnut hole this offseason. Welcome Tyson, welcome.)

* With his unique God-given natural footwork and body movement, I can foresee Blake Griffin benefiting from one of those summer-camp low-post sessions with Hakeem Olajuwon. As much as Kobe did, and probably way more so than LeBron, who, for all his gifts, doesn't seem quite as naturally fluid as the other aforementioned players. (Sidebar: do players pay Hakeem for his time? And if so, how much? Or is this Hakeem's generous give-back to the game of basketball? You'd have to imagine he'd get some kind of reimbursement for his time and effort, though I've yet to hear or read anything specific on this. I'm just curious). Anyways, I'm likely jumping the gun a little -- Wicked Blake probably should take a few years in the league to grow and become acclimated to everything going on in the paint before focusing a whole summer on that aspect -- but I can foresee the second coming of the "Dream Shake" with this kid. (The Blake Shake? Hmm ok, forget I said that...unless of course people actually start using it, at which point I maintain all rights, ownership and pride therein).

* Silly, dumb notion from ESPN's Larry Coon that the "Derrick Rose Rule" should be re-nicknamed after Kevin Durant, since he is now the first player to benefit from it. Ummm...no. What's next, renaming the Larry O'Brien trophy the "Boston Celtic Championship Award" because they've won it the most? The rules are nicknamed for the players whose unique circumstances first made people realize the rule was needed. Allan Houston's overblown contract made people want to give teams a do-over on bad contracts. Derrick Rose made people want to reward young rookie-contract franchise players. It is much more telling and interesting from a historical perspective to remember that the Knicks languished for years under the weight of Houston's contract than it is to recall the minor benefits that San Antonio got from amnestying Michael Finley. It is equally more interesting to know that Derrick Rose was sorely underpaid given all his talent and contributions because of his rookie contract than it is to know that Kevin Durant is duly compensated. The nicknames are completely apropos. The season's about to start Mr. Coon; couldn't you have found something even remotely valid to write to waste our time reading about? If you were looking for a clever way to discuss Durant's extension...that wasn't it.

Maybe one day sports publications will create an amnesty provision for weak sportswriters...

Ramblings Of A Stat Geek

No, I'm not referring to myself. Some stat geek over at ESPN took a numbers-based approach to outlining a supposed decline in Chris Paul's game, citing drops in both his assist totals and his usage rate. He looked at statistics over the last four seasons, and, upon seeing lower numbers in the seasons between '09-'11 than from '07-'09, he immediately concluded that CP3 is in decline. Honestly, I don't know why ESPN subjects us to this driv...actually, I do. They know subjects like this get the internets talking, and generating web clicks; and look at me, all the way out in Mars, discussing it just the same. I feel baited. But, I'll keep clamping down on the hook in my mouth...

This stat-based analysis is so bereft of logic that to resist slicing it to shreds is unbearable. If you're doing a study, you have to make sure that outside factors aren't influencing your conclusions in ways your study doesn't address. There are a myriad of reasons why a point guard's assists and usage may drop. Hell, the drop in usage rate alone would affect the decline in assists! (Hmm, let's see, a guy handles the ball less, and his assists drop. Wow! Gee, I wonder if a decline in minutes played may also miraculously affect his assists.)

There are two incredibly-obvious factors that could explain a drop in assists or in usage rate: personnel and coaching. In the case of the Hornets, both changed over the years in question. Who sound like better recipients of alley-oop passes: Tyson Chandler and Chris Andersen, or Emeka Okafur? Andersen left after the 2007 season; Chandler was swapped for Okafur prior to the 2009 season...the first season of the assist-numbers decline. Gee, what a wild random coincidence. We should just end the discussion right here. Okafur is no slouch -- far from it -- but he is not nearly the athletic flyer around the rim that Chandler and Birdman Andersen are. Those roster moves are good for one-two assists less per game all by their lonesome. But there's more. In the "up" two years, the Hornets top 3-pt shooters were a sharp-shooting Peja Stojakovich, Morris Peterson, Rasual Butler, and James Posey. Last year, that list had devolved to Marco Bellinelli and...Trevor Ariza. Ouch. Trevor thus far has proven he can't hit the side of a barn more than once a game, no matter how many tries he gets. If you're a slashing PG looking for someone to kick out to, and he's your top option, call a masonry and kiss your assists good-bye. David West remains the one constant for the Hornets as a scorer over the entire 4 years, but guess what? Dumping the ball into the post and watching a guy make a myriad of moves gets you 2 points on the board and zero in your assist column. So, with two sets of roster changes, you have drastically reduced the most effective ways a guy like Paul gets assists, and increased his dependence on prospects that do not. Are we still wondering why his assists have taken a hit?

As for usage rate, the Hornets also underwent a coaching change, before the 2010 season, bringing in Monty Williams. Now, this is admittedly just conjecture, but is it not more than possible that Coach Monty runs an offense that spreads the ball around a bit more? And also, with the roster changes, are you not more reliant on Paul to be a recipient of passes while spotting up for three than ever before? Which, again, means you're putting the ball in other players' hands, lowering Paul's usage? Didn't Darren Collison -- a point guard -- play huge minutes the entire 2009 season, so much so to cause a mild NFL-like quarterbacking controversy for a period of time?

Now, there is also the fact that Chris Paul spent half of that 2009-2010 season on the bench injured, and the other half playing on one leg while recovering from injury; naturally, that could also explain a drop in his numbers. I mention this here instead of earlier, not to bury it beneath factors that are external to the player and thus help prove my point, but merely because I am responding to an article whose focus was solely the play of Paul himself. While his knee injury definitely needs to be noted as a possible cause for the decline in numbers, the point of this blog entry is that you can't just roll out a barrel of stats, like assists and usage rate, that are infinitely affected by the personnel and staff around a player, and blindly conclude that any and all changes reflect solely on the player in question.

As far as numbers go, I can't even give one vis-a-vis a grade to ESPN's stat geek; his column gets a solid "I-incomplete".

Death Of A Conspiracy

Now that Chris Paul has indeed been traded to the LA Clippers (for Eric Gordon, Aminu, Chris Kaman, and a first-round draft pick), we see there was no grand scheme or conspiracy to keep him languishing in New Orleans. No block of owners yanking David Stern by the marionet strings to prove that small markets could keep their stars, or that the lockout wasn't all for naught (yes, Bill Simmons, you can kindly go face the corner and be quiet now). No grand hatred of the Lakers or collusion to keep them from gaining another star player. No lawsuit to be filed over rejected trades (yes, Mitch Lawrence of the NY Daily News, you can ever so kindly shut up now).

After nearly a week of weeping and wailing and gnashing of keyboards over the supposedly-horrible supposed-precedent supposedly set by killing the original Laker-Rocket deal, suddenly writers and commenters are coming out of the woodwork to actually credit Stern for making the right deal. Huh? Where were they all before? It's as if we just returned from the other side of the looking glass.

I said it before -- repeatedly for a week now -- this was strictly about the long-term health of the Hornets franchise. Setting yourself up to barely make the playoffs for the next two years, and then inevitably go into rebuilding mode because Lamar Odom and Luis Scola hit 35-years old would've been sheer and utter stupidity. The Laker-Rocket trade would've forced the Hornets to increase salary to bring in players on the downsides of their careers. There are still people arguing for this trade. What do they teach you Earthlings down there that you can't see past one move ahead of yourselves? Perhaps Chess should be mandatory for all grade-school children.

The person who truly deserves blame in this public-relations mess is the Hornets GM. He should've taken one look at the principles they were getting in the first deal, turned it down himself and not waste Stern's or anyone else's time. Was he not properly briefed on his role, on the state of the franchise and their mission going forward? Shouldn't he have had enough sense to figure that out for himself? You'd think he would be infinitely more privy to the relevant financials and statistics to realize the silliness of a deal that looks dumb even from all the way out here on Mars. To paraphrase Tom Haberstroh of ESPN.com: "When Kevin Martin is 'The Young Guy' in a deal, umm Houston, that's gonna be a problem."

Negotiating For Dummies
One last tidbit on the Paul trade: the hyper-reactive crying that was heard from all corners over the Hornets (the NBA) asking the Clippers for all of Gordon, Eric Bledsoe, Aminu, Kaman and the first-round pick. Was that too much for the Clips to give up? Absolutely. So does that mean the Hornets were wrong to ask for all that? No! Does anyone on Earth understand how a negotiation works? You don't start off by making fair offers. That is a guaranteed path to ending up with less than your fair shake. That is not how you broker a trade. One side is supposed to offer too little; the other requests too much. You go thru a round or more of trying to meet in the middle, then stare each other down until one side relents. We just went thru this dance with the labor agreement, and still no one gets it. The trade was never dead or even on hold. We were simply in the stare-down stage, and the Clippers held their steely glare until the Hornets blinked and relented on Bledsoe. While most people were crying foul over the league supposedly blocking another trade (have you ever heard a more gross mis-characterization?), I was saying that the trade will go thru when (note: not if; when) the Hornets lose the stare-down and give up on either Gordon, Bledsoe, or the Minnesota pick. Well, as it turns out, Bledsoe remains a Clipper, and the deal goes thru. Simple. I had absolutely no insider sources to lead me to this prophetic prediction. Just the plain common sense God gave me...that, and I'm not saddled with the type of petulant emotional state that cripples common sense and renders it null and void.

Don't hold your breath expecting the same of the bulk of these sportswriters.