So Pat Robertson has decided that the Denver Broncos treated Tim Tebow poorly. They cast him off when they signed Peyton Manning. They traded him for cash and fourth- and sixth-round draft picks. Honestly, the only reason Robertson even cares about this is because of Tebow's over-publicized Christianity. If this were any other player, let alone quarterback, in any sport, Robertson wouldn't have a clue. Looking at the deal, the Broncos let Tebow have a say in where he was traded. He chose the New York Jets. Most players, when they are traded can usually veto a trade if they don't like it, but don't get to choose where they go. The Broncos treated their sub-par quarterback better than most other players get treated in any sport.
Robertson also said that it would be fitting if Manning were to get injured. This from a religious leader. However, as with most religious leaders, they don't exactly practice any of the real tenets of Christ. At least Robertson is consistent.
Was it because they traded him to a team that they knew would put him on the bench? Tebow wouldn't start for any team in the league once Denver got Manning. He ranked last in completion percentage, the only quarterback with 200 or more attempts to complete less than half of them. His completion percentage last season was 46.5%. His QB rating was 72.9, good enough for 28th of the 34 qualifying quarterbacks. Yay, he went 7-4 in the regular season and 1-1 in the playoffs, which in and of itself is ridiculous. As for the 7-4 part, let's look at the games: Overtime against an as of yet winless Dolphins team; a win against a .500 Oakland team still orienting a new quarterback; a 7 point win over a Kansas City team that would lose a starting quarterback, lose to a winless Dolphins team, and fire their head coach by seasons end (Tebow would complete 2 passes that whole game); a .500 Jets team, a 4-7 Chargers team; the 2-10 Vikings by 3 points; and the only team in the regular season with a winning record to lose to Tebow, the Cutlerless Chicago Bears, who would also lose to the anemically scoring Chiefs. All of those victories except the win against Kansas City, the Broncos had to come from behind, scoring in the fourth quarter. Once teams looked at Tebow and realized that he was just running on them, not so much beating them with any sort of air game (Denver would finish 31st out of 32 teams in passing, but first in rushing), the Broncos were beatable. Even the quarterback who everyone called for Tebow to replace, Kyle Orton, got revenge when the Chiefs beat Denver in the regular season finale.
The Denver defense, inconsistent as it was, kept the Broncos close enough and stayed energized enough to lock down the fourth quarter. They'd make big plays after adjustments in the second half. In games where the Broncos lost, the defense didn't play well. New England just flat out exploited them. Detroit moved the ball at will, as did a late-season Buffalo team. The defense played poorly those games; Tebow played like Tebow in every game. In some games, the defense had kept them close enough to come back. They couldn't do that against strong teams like the Lions, Patriots, and, lesser extent, Bills. The Kansas City defense came alive for new coach Romeo Crennel and locked down on Denver for the entire four quarters. The key was when Tebow would get out in space, the linebackers would rush him and he'd pass over them. Once teams realized that Tebow couldn't throw, they'd let him run, get across the line of scrimmage, and then drill him for little or no gain. Once defenses started playing this way, and loading 7-8 men in the box, but not blitzing, Denver started losing. Pittsburgh's blitz wacky defense leads to some entertaining plays, but big blitzing also gives up big plays (like an 80 yd touchdown pass to open overtime).
Going back to why Robertson even cares. Tebow is Super-Christian. He wears his religion on his sleeve but we can't talk about it if it is negative. Charles P. Pierce does a good job looking at it for Grantland.com. Robertson is another Christian who likes to beat people over the head with his religion. Where was his outrage when Kurt Warner (a Christian who would tell you if you asked but not flaunt it) was let go by the St. Louis Rams? Or Emmit Smith being traded to the Arizona Cardinals with very little fanfare? Or Reverend Reggie White going to Green Bay? Or San Francisco firing Christian coach Mike Singletary?
The only reason that Robertson even cares was because it really was miracles that provided Denver with wins. Now they have a legitimate shot at real victories over teams with better records that .500. They don't need miracles to win; they have a quarterback with skill.
As a Chiefs fan, I was really disappointed that Manning chose Denver. KC now has to play him twice a season and compete with him for the division. I was kind of rooting for KC's young defense to get in and hit him around Denver's weaker defensive line. However, I despise Robertson more than I despise the Broncos. I don't want Manning to get injured. I'll actually find myself wanting to root for Denver (when they're not playing KC or going for the same playoff spot). And really, Manning is aging for an NFL quarterback. Chances are, unless he goes Favre on us, he's only got 3 years, tops left in him. With a surgically repaired neck/spine, combined with his age and weak offensive line, an injury isn't entirely out of the question. For Robertson to call for one, if it does actually happen, he'll chalk it up to God. Honestly, the God I worship doesn't work that way, Pat.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
So a Sports Guy Walks into an Anthropology Conference...
Wooo, spring break in Pendleton, Oregon. It didn't suck. I'm so glad I didn't have any money riding on the Final Four; my brackets look like the poor mangled wrecks that BigFoot used to run over. Seriously, two number 15 seeds into the round of 32?
Why was I at The Wild Horse Casino for spring break? Why, for the NorthWest Anthropological Conference of 2012, of course. The Sports Fiancee is an aspiring anthropologist who contributed research to one of the presentations at the aforementioned NWAC. I, being an aspiring linguist (among other things) tagged along and went to some of the presentations, especially those on linguistic anthropology.
What the hell does this have to do with sports? Well, one of the great things about English and anthropology is that we can study/write about just about anything. I went to a talk on the Bacon Phenomenon. I also went to a talk about Sportscasters' language in sports. I found the title interesting and decided that this would be more fun than losing money at the slots or crying in my beer at the sports bar as my brackets were taken out behind the woodshed and put down like a rabid chihuahua.
One of the points of said paper/presentation was to lament the use of language by sportscasters to describe role players in college and professional basketball. Looking at how much the announcers would talk about the stars on the teams vs. said role players, how much playing time one would get vs. the others, and how the players were talked about. The presenter used Marxist theory to point out that the sportscasters are using language to keep this lower/working class of basketball player down.
This also piqued my interest. Are we keeping these "noble savages," to use a phrase now frowned upon in anthropological as well as literary circles, from achieving their full potential by not talking about them as much as the Kobe Bryants, LeBron Jameses, or Derrick Roses of the basketball world? Are we infringing on their rights as people and basketball players to be treated with dignity and respect? Are we hindering their eventual earning potential by not highlighting them and giving them as much playing time as the previously mentioned stars? Are we $^&#ing stupid?!
Do the NBA and NCAA need more reasons for us not to really care about watching? Yes, there is a discrepancy between your mega stars and bench players. Commentators talk about the stars more because they play more. They play more because they are better players. Go fig, teams that want to win keep their stars in until the game is far enough out of reach that they are no longer needed. Kobe is averaging 38.8 minutes per game this season, LeBron is averaging 37.6 minutes, and Rose is averaging 35.6. Note that I didn't really have to use their full names because if you have even a passing knowledge of NBA basketball you know Kobe and LeBron. A regulation (non-overtime game is 48 minutes). This means that, not surprisingly, these three players play a bulk of their teams minutes at their position. Would we want to watch the Lakers with Andrew Goudelock playing at shooting guard? Do you think he scores as much as Kobe? Do you even know who the hell he is? What about Shane Battier, LeBron's back up. He, at least, is the foil to the "they don't talk about role players" argument. Battier has been written about quite a bit. Rose's bad back and toe have led to his replacement, C.J. Watson, having more playing time to a point we've also heard of him beyond passing (if you pay attention to the NBA).
We watch to watch stars. Arguably, that's the whole reason we have All-Star games. The NBA suffered a HUGE drop in popularity after Michael Jordan's three retirements. The championship runs of the San Antonio Spurs led to drops in NBA Finals ratings. It wasn't because the Spurs were a bad team. The fact they have multiple championships illustrates quite the opposite. But they aren't flashy. Tim Duncan, their star center during the duration is a fundamental player. He will kill you and he will kill you by the book. Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker make great plays, but they don't do it with flash. They don't rock the boat (Kobe, LeBron) they get out and do their jobs. Like it or not, Kobe, LeBron, Kevin Durrant, Rose, the Chris Paul/Blake Griffin duo are the faces of the NBA. They are the stars. They have their own highlights nightly on SportsCenter or YouTube. And we tune in to watch.
Are we going to watch highlights of Adam Morrison (deep bench warmer who has 2 more rings than you or I do) for the Lakers when he averaged a whopping 7.8 minutes per game in 2010? Is anyone outside of the Spokane area going to care that Morrison even made it to the NBA? It isn't some Machiavellian plot to keep Morrison down. It is because he didn't really play an NBA caliber game. Announcers talking about an Adam Morrison either don't use his name ("Lakers emptying the bench now") because most fans won't know it anyway or they don't use it because then they'd have to stop and tell you who the hell he is.
One of the complaints the anthropological presentation made was that role players are reduced to their roles. The particular phrase "the coach is putting in a couple of big bodies" irked the presenter. He thought that these players were being reduced to their limited role in the defense (maybe offense) to take up space, get rebounds, and hinder close shots. I have to ask if the speaker would have been offended if the statement was "the coach is putting in Purdue and Worthington for a couple of big bodies." Does that make the statement any less offensive because we know the names of the two individuals we've never heard of? What if the statement was "the coach is putting Shaquille O'Neal and David Robinson, for a couple of big bodies?" Does it make a difference if we know their names when they are Hall-Of-Famers? We've actually heard of them. Viewers who had a working knowledge of the NBA at the time would recognize the two. So why wouldn't it be offensive to call them a couple of big bodies?
Why are announcers going to spend time talking about a guy who's on the bench all but 7 minutes of the game unless he just tripped someone or got a technical for storming the court or some other boneheaded play? Describing why these players are coming in (couple of big bodies, 3-point specialist, defensive specialist) lets us know what the role is of these players who we've never seen. Most of the announcers actually do use players names when they are talking about them. They don't simply say "New Jersey's Center" (I have no idea who he is starter or otherwise, New Jersey isn't nationally broadcast and isn't really a very good team anymore, either) they say (pause to look it up) "Shelden Williams is checking in," or "heading to the bench" or "shooting an ill-advised three."
The speaker also complained about these poor players being pigeonholed into their positions. Seriously, are we going to have a debate as to why a 7 footer shouldn't play point guard? Or why Jeremy Lin shouldn't try his hand at power forward? Sometimes your body actually does define your job. Watching Shaquille O'Neal try to dribble down the court was amusing from the side but terrifying from the view in front. As evidenced here...note the bench finding it hilarious. Imagine Shaq bringing the ball down the court in a set play. If an actual point guard moved up to guard him, Shaq would either have to pick up the dribble and pass or the point guard (some of whom could stand under Shaq's dribble) would easily steal the ball and be off to the races the other way.
Bottom line newsflash: Players are not equal. You don't treat a pawn like a queen in chess; you don't treat a role player like a star in basketball; you don't treat a center like a point guard. All men are not created equal in the sports world. It is a fact. It is the way things are. If all men were equal skillwise, and everyone was equal with Michael Jordan, games would be closer and a hell of a lot more amusing to watch. Trade rumors would be non-existent because trades would be non-existent. I'll trade you this player who is perfectly equal to that player wouldn't make sense at all. Fantasy sports would be boring or equally nonexistent.
The language of basketball announcing reflects this nature. It isn't some insult or put down to a player if they are referred to as a "big body" or "defense specialist." It is defining the role of that player on the team. That player has a job to do within that association. The sportscasters are simply filling in those of us following along at home what that role is. Some roles are not needed as often as others. With a slight lead late in games, stars who were liabilities at the free throw line (Shaq) would be on the bench while five free throw shooters were on the floor. In many cases, teams would go with either five guards or have a small forward mixed in. Some of these guys wouldn't play all game, but would be in to shoot free throws during the final two minutes of a game. In this case, the game is on the line with "scrub" players in. And stars on the bench. Equal? No. Part of the sport? Yes.
Why was I at The Wild Horse Casino for spring break? Why, for the NorthWest Anthropological Conference of 2012, of course. The Sports Fiancee is an aspiring anthropologist who contributed research to one of the presentations at the aforementioned NWAC. I, being an aspiring linguist (among other things) tagged along and went to some of the presentations, especially those on linguistic anthropology.
What the hell does this have to do with sports? Well, one of the great things about English and anthropology is that we can study/write about just about anything. I went to a talk on the Bacon Phenomenon. I also went to a talk about Sportscasters' language in sports. I found the title interesting and decided that this would be more fun than losing money at the slots or crying in my beer at the sports bar as my brackets were taken out behind the woodshed and put down like a rabid chihuahua.
One of the points of said paper/presentation was to lament the use of language by sportscasters to describe role players in college and professional basketball. Looking at how much the announcers would talk about the stars on the teams vs. said role players, how much playing time one would get vs. the others, and how the players were talked about. The presenter used Marxist theory to point out that the sportscasters are using language to keep this lower/working class of basketball player down.
This also piqued my interest. Are we keeping these "noble savages," to use a phrase now frowned upon in anthropological as well as literary circles, from achieving their full potential by not talking about them as much as the Kobe Bryants, LeBron Jameses, or Derrick Roses of the basketball world? Are we infringing on their rights as people and basketball players to be treated with dignity and respect? Are we hindering their eventual earning potential by not highlighting them and giving them as much playing time as the previously mentioned stars? Are we $^&#ing stupid?!
Do the NBA and NCAA need more reasons for us not to really care about watching? Yes, there is a discrepancy between your mega stars and bench players. Commentators talk about the stars more because they play more. They play more because they are better players. Go fig, teams that want to win keep their stars in until the game is far enough out of reach that they are no longer needed. Kobe is averaging 38.8 minutes per game this season, LeBron is averaging 37.6 minutes, and Rose is averaging 35.6. Note that I didn't really have to use their full names because if you have even a passing knowledge of NBA basketball you know Kobe and LeBron. A regulation (non-overtime game is 48 minutes). This means that, not surprisingly, these three players play a bulk of their teams minutes at their position. Would we want to watch the Lakers with Andrew Goudelock playing at shooting guard? Do you think he scores as much as Kobe? Do you even know who the hell he is? What about Shane Battier, LeBron's back up. He, at least, is the foil to the "they don't talk about role players" argument. Battier has been written about quite a bit. Rose's bad back and toe have led to his replacement, C.J. Watson, having more playing time to a point we've also heard of him beyond passing (if you pay attention to the NBA).
We watch to watch stars. Arguably, that's the whole reason we have All-Star games. The NBA suffered a HUGE drop in popularity after Michael Jordan's three retirements. The championship runs of the San Antonio Spurs led to drops in NBA Finals ratings. It wasn't because the Spurs were a bad team. The fact they have multiple championships illustrates quite the opposite. But they aren't flashy. Tim Duncan, their star center during the duration is a fundamental player. He will kill you and he will kill you by the book. Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker make great plays, but they don't do it with flash. They don't rock the boat (Kobe, LeBron) they get out and do their jobs. Like it or not, Kobe, LeBron, Kevin Durrant, Rose, the Chris Paul/Blake Griffin duo are the faces of the NBA. They are the stars. They have their own highlights nightly on SportsCenter or YouTube. And we tune in to watch.
Are we going to watch highlights of Adam Morrison (deep bench warmer who has 2 more rings than you or I do) for the Lakers when he averaged a whopping 7.8 minutes per game in 2010? Is anyone outside of the Spokane area going to care that Morrison even made it to the NBA? It isn't some Machiavellian plot to keep Morrison down. It is because he didn't really play an NBA caliber game. Announcers talking about an Adam Morrison either don't use his name ("Lakers emptying the bench now") because most fans won't know it anyway or they don't use it because then they'd have to stop and tell you who the hell he is.
One of the complaints the anthropological presentation made was that role players are reduced to their roles. The particular phrase "the coach is putting in a couple of big bodies" irked the presenter. He thought that these players were being reduced to their limited role in the defense (maybe offense) to take up space, get rebounds, and hinder close shots. I have to ask if the speaker would have been offended if the statement was "the coach is putting in Purdue and Worthington for a couple of big bodies." Does that make the statement any less offensive because we know the names of the two individuals we've never heard of? What if the statement was "the coach is putting Shaquille O'Neal and David Robinson, for a couple of big bodies?" Does it make a difference if we know their names when they are Hall-Of-Famers? We've actually heard of them. Viewers who had a working knowledge of the NBA at the time would recognize the two. So why wouldn't it be offensive to call them a couple of big bodies?
Why are announcers going to spend time talking about a guy who's on the bench all but 7 minutes of the game unless he just tripped someone or got a technical for storming the court or some other boneheaded play? Describing why these players are coming in (couple of big bodies, 3-point specialist, defensive specialist) lets us know what the role is of these players who we've never seen. Most of the announcers actually do use players names when they are talking about them. They don't simply say "New Jersey's Center" (I have no idea who he is starter or otherwise, New Jersey isn't nationally broadcast and isn't really a very good team anymore, either) they say (pause to look it up) "Shelden Williams is checking in," or "heading to the bench" or "shooting an ill-advised three."
The speaker also complained about these poor players being pigeonholed into their positions. Seriously, are we going to have a debate as to why a 7 footer shouldn't play point guard? Or why Jeremy Lin shouldn't try his hand at power forward? Sometimes your body actually does define your job. Watching Shaquille O'Neal try to dribble down the court was amusing from the side but terrifying from the view in front. As evidenced here...note the bench finding it hilarious. Imagine Shaq bringing the ball down the court in a set play. If an actual point guard moved up to guard him, Shaq would either have to pick up the dribble and pass or the point guard (some of whom could stand under Shaq's dribble) would easily steal the ball and be off to the races the other way.
Bottom line newsflash: Players are not equal. You don't treat a pawn like a queen in chess; you don't treat a role player like a star in basketball; you don't treat a center like a point guard. All men are not created equal in the sports world. It is a fact. It is the way things are. If all men were equal skillwise, and everyone was equal with Michael Jordan, games would be closer and a hell of a lot more amusing to watch. Trade rumors would be non-existent because trades would be non-existent. I'll trade you this player who is perfectly equal to that player wouldn't make sense at all. Fantasy sports would be boring or equally nonexistent.
The language of basketball announcing reflects this nature. It isn't some insult or put down to a player if they are referred to as a "big body" or "defense specialist." It is defining the role of that player on the team. That player has a job to do within that association. The sportscasters are simply filling in those of us following along at home what that role is. Some roles are not needed as often as others. With a slight lead late in games, stars who were liabilities at the free throw line (Shaq) would be on the bench while five free throw shooters were on the floor. In many cases, teams would go with either five guards or have a small forward mixed in. Some of these guys wouldn't play all game, but would be in to shoot free throws during the final two minutes of a game. In this case, the game is on the line with "scrub" players in. And stars on the bench. Equal? No. Part of the sport? Yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)