Sim's Sports Page

I wrote a recent article for Bleacher Report that examines how much Tyreke Evans is worth to the Sacramento Kings. I examine the recent contracts that similar players have signed and compare them to Evans to give an indication of what his market value would be. Then I juxtapose that value with what he’s worth to the Kings. You can find the article here.

I posted a new article on Bleacher Report. It’s about the Kings staying in Sacramento!!! Here’s the link.

If you’re someone that’s read a lot of my work, you’ll notice that I try to avoid anything political. The vast majority of my writing deals with sports. That’s for a couple different reasons: 1) I deal in the sports realm; I’m much more comfortable discussing it, and 2) I don’t feel too strongly about politics because, for the most part, I don’t think they define us. I’ve met plenty of good people from all sides of the political spectrum.

That said, I’m going to step back from that overall philosophy and write about something that’s overall scope isn’t entirely sports related. That, of course, is the recent announcement from Jason Collins in an upcoming issue of Sports Illustrated that he is homosexual. Collins’ revelation puts him as the first male in a major American team sport to come out while still an active player.

Personally, I’m proud to be an American. I’m proud to be a citizen of one the most progressive countries in the world. Yet there are certainly times when I feel like our society isn’t progressive enough…isn’t accepting enough. So I’m proud to say that this is not one of those moments. I feel like today is a victory for all Americans, regardless of your opinions on homosexuality.

I don’t know what the overall effect of Collins’ announcement will have. I don’t know how people will react. I imagine we’ll see people voice opinions on both sides. And that’s fine by me. I’d expect nothing less. In fact, I want nothing less. Homosexuality, like plenty of other things, is a polarizing issue in this country. But the only way we can truly accept people for who they are is to have an open dialogue. This announcement will certainly provide that.

What I take from the announcement, and what I think people should take from it, is not whether homosexuality is “right or wrong.” I have my opinions, just as I’m sure you have yours. What those opinions are is irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is that acceptance of people for who they are is paramount.

Because we’re a progressive society, the dialogue about sexual orientation isn’t going away. And just because Collins was the first male in American professional team sports to come out, it certainly doesn’t mean he’ll be the last. If anything, his revelation will open the floodgates to more and more people feeling comfortable enough to go public with it. This, too, is a good thing.

But now that this is here to stay (not that it wasn’t before), we as a society need to accept it for what it is. Even if you don’t agree with homosexuality, think it’s some sort of sin, or a decision people make rather than a natural preference beyond their control, you need to accept that it’s here to stay, and treat people with respect regardless of their orientation.

I’ll end with this: I’m not big on quotes or quoting people. Don’t get me wrong, I read quite a bit and I come across many admirable sayings worth admiring. However, not many of them resonate with me to the point where I use them in every day life or use them in my writing.

Yet there’s one that I learned during my freshman year of high school in my Italian I class while watching the Federico Fellini film, “81/2.” The quote reads, “Accept me as I am. Only then can we discover each other.”

That’s what Collins’ announcement, and any other ones like it, are about. We don’t have to like it. We don’t have to agree with it. But we need to accept it for what it is, for that’s the only way we’ll see people for who they are. That’s the real accomplishment here.

Yes, it’s a monumental day in gay rights. That’s good, but it’s also beside the point. It’s a monumental day for our society as a whole. This is another step in accepting people for who they are. That’s the real victory.

Follow me on Twitter: @SimRisso

The NFL playoffs are finally here. All of the participants and matchups have been finalized. Now it’s time to settle it on the field.

Part of what makes the NFL so much fun as a spectator is the “any given Sunday” mentality—that any given team can win on any given Sunday. To an extent, this carries through to the playoffs; although by now, we have a 16-game sample size to go off of. Given the unpredictable nature of the NFL, there are no guarantees that my picks will be correct. That said, here’s my best attempt at predicting the winners of this week’s Wild Card Round.

Cincinnati Bengals at Houston Texans

This game features two teams headed in opposite directions. The Bengals finished their season on a roll, while the Texans stumbled into the playoffs, losing their No. 1 seed and first-round bye by losing to the Indianapolis Colts in Week 17. This is one of the more difficult matchups to pick, but I’ll go with the Bengals, simply because they’re entering the playoffs hot, and I think the Bengals have an advantage on defense and at the quarterback position.

Minnesota Vikings at Green Bay Packers

This is a rematch of Week 17, in which the Vikings topped the Packers 37-34, giving Minnesota a berth into the playoffs. Although the Vikings won their most recent matchup, I like the Packers for one main reason: quarterback play.

Aaron Rodgers is one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL right now; Christian Ponder has been solid in the past few weeks but shaky overall. Quarterback play becomes increasingly important in the playoffs; either in the ability to make a big play at an opportune time or to avoid a costly mistake at an inopportune time. That’s a distinct advantage for the Packers.

I think Minnesota’s best chance at winning is to control the ball by running Adrian Peterson and turning this into a low-scoring affair, even in light of it dropping 37 on Green Bay in Week 17. While it’s possible for that to come to fruition, the Vikings must not fall behind. If they’re in a scenario where Christian Ponder needs to get them back into the game by throwing, then they’ll be in a lot of trouble.

Indianapolis Colts at Baltimore Ravens

Ravens’ linebacker Ray Lewis is returning for Sunday’s game against the Colts. His presence alone should help steady a Baltimore defense that’s been shaky. Add in the emotional swing from Lewis announcing that he would retire after this season, and I’ve got to believe the Ravens will find a way to get it done. That’ll be one fired up team and one fired up stadium, especially with it likely being Lewis’ last game in Baltimore, regardless of whether the Ravens win or lose.

As much as I like Andrew Luck, I’m not too confident in his ability to win a playoff game. His offensive line is shoddy and he doesn’t have much of a run game to support him. That should allow the Ravens to apply pressure without a genuine fear of being beaten on the ground. I don’t necessarily like Joe Flacco any better, but I think he has a stronger supporting cast around him.

Seattle Seahawks at Washington Redskins

This game is incredibly difficult to pick. Both teams have rookie quarterbacks who have shown to be similar in skill set and ability throughout the season. They both have excellent ground attacks, with Seattle ranking third in rushing and the Redskins ranking first. Ultimately, though, I think Washington has a better offensive attack, mainly because I like its versatility and receiving corps better.

There’s no doubting that Seattle has a serious advantage on defense. The Seahawks were fourth in total defense and first in points allowed. The Redskins, meanwhile, were 28th in total defense and 22nd in points allowed.

The last component worth considering is the game’s venue, as Seattle has gained a reputation for being a juggernaut at home and subpar on the road. Once again, the Seahawks were 8-0 at home (really 7-1 because the Green Bay debacle shouldn’t count) and 3-5 on the road. The Redskins were a steady 5-3 both at home and on the road.

I’m really waffling in my mind, but I’ll pick the Seahawks. I don’t like them having to travel to Washington; that’s an obvious disadvantage given their woes on the road. But, because the quarterbacks and offense are so similar, the difference in each team’s defense will become a factor. In general, I also like a defense’s ability to travel, so even if Seattle’s offense struggles in Washington, its defense should be its normal stout self.

Check back next week for my predictions in the Divisional Round.

Also, Follow me on Twitter: @SimRisso

As you’ve probably heard by now, the father of the MLB Players’ Association, Marvin Miller, has passed away at the age of 95. Like most people, you probably aren’t too aware of Miller’s contributions. While I’m not an expert on the man, or his life, I became somewhat familiar with his story by reading John Helyar’s “The Lords of the Realm” (an excellent book, if you haven’t read it).

There isn’t much to be said about his life accomplishments that hasn’t been written a hundred times over by other journalists. Because of that, I’ll largely stay away from that topic. Besides, since my only encounters with the man are from Helyar’s book, I’ll give you what I took away from it.

As a character, Miller was hard to sympathize with. It’s hard to pinpoint the exact reasons why, but my inclination is that it’s because of his hard-lined approach. Miller knew what he wanted to accomplish, and he took whatever steps were necessary to get there. Whether it was striking, battling it out in courts or by being a cut-throat negotiator, Miller always reached his destination.

He’s also, at least according to the baseball executives interviewed in Helyar’s book, responsible for ending the patriarchy between front offices and their players. Before Miller and the union, there was this relationship between a team and its players that hasn’t existed since. The players viewed their general managers like their parents; they’d ask them for advice, and they’d negotiate contracts together, the players knowing full well that the GMs held all the leverage.

After Miller, relationships between teams and players became business-like, which is ultimately what they should be. After all, as much as we hate to admit it, that’s what professional sports really are—businesses. That’s how they operate when deciding which players to sign and which players to cut. Personality, character, years of service…those things don’t go into consideration; it’s only about the bottom line.

Miller’s also responsible for skyrocketing salaries and free agency. Those things tend to add a disconnect, especially the salaries, between athletes and their fans. It’s simply easier to relate to someone when you’re in a similar financial situation. You face the same struggles, or a lack thereof, and you tend to look at the world in similar ways.

While those climbing salaries and increased freedom created distance between fans and athletes, or athletes and front offices, it’s a necessary evil. As I see it: Sports are a big-time business. There’s a lot of money invested and that doesn’t figure to change anytime soon. So, the question becomes: If somebody’s capitalizing on this, should it be the players or the teams?

You could look at it both ways. The teams deserve the most capital because they’re the ones flipping the bills; they’re the ones taking all of the financial risks. The players, however, are the commodity. Without them, sports wouldn’t be as lucrative as they are. They’re the “talent”; they should be rewarded handsomely for that. Miller understood that, and he used it to his advantage in negotiations. So, as unpleasant as Miller may have come off to the owners, to the media and to the fans, he was a necessary cog in the sporting landscape.

Without Miller, we may have eventually ended up where were are today. Athletes would probably still make millions of dollars, and sports would probably still consume a large portion of our daily lives. But just because something would have happened eventually, it doesn’t discredit those that hastened the process. For that reason, Miller deserves credit for his accomplishments.

Whether that means he’s eventually enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame, who knows? The fact that he’s not already there tells us a lot about the purpose of the Hall of Fame; it’s not a historical museum, it’s a revisionist’s historical museum. Its refusal to include Miller and steroid users tells us as much. But that’s beside the point.

The point is, losing Marvin Miller today is a blow to our society. Agree or disagree with his methods and his accomplishments, you can’t deny his progressive nature. Those are the types of people that make this society great. They have enough foresight and intelligence to see something that needs to be changed, and they have enough courage to do something about it.

For that, Marvin Miller will surely be missed.

The recent advancements made in sports analysis have been in sabermetrics, or advanced statistics. These advanced statistics give us a new way of evaluating sports and seeing value in areas that haven’t been coveted historically. Two examples, from different sports, that come to mind are drawing walks in baseball and getting to the free-throw line in basketball. While both are obviously from different sports, there are some similarities between the two.

First, there’s the simple fact that being able to consistently draw walks or regularly getting to the free-throw line is a quantifiable value in a player. But the similarities don’t stop there.

There’s also the fact that drawing walks and getting to the free-throw line are skills. That is, they aren’t random. In baseball, it’s about plate discipline and working the count to your favor. One could also argue that eyesight factors into the equation. While that’s true, even the most free-swinging players have adequate vision; if they didn’t, they wouldn’t have made it to the major leagues. So really, it comes down to discipline and working counts.

In basketball, getting to the free-throw line on a regular basis requires aggressiveness with the ball and manipulating defenders into uncomfortable positions, where they’ve either left their feet and have no control over their body, or by being forced to foul because they are out of position.

Some players are better than others at drawing walks in baseball; some players are better than others at getting to the free-throw line in basketball. And if you look at statistics, you’ll see that the same names keep popping up in leader boards in both categories.

There’s also what I like to call the “fear factor”. The basic idea behind the “fear factor” is that if you’re a dominant enough player, you’ll draw walks in baseball and you’ll get to the free-throw line in basketball.

The best example in baseball is Vladimir Guerrero. Anybody who watched Vlad play knows about his free-swinging nature. It’s what made him such an amazing player to watch, because he could hit pitches inside and out; from his toes to his eyes. But despite that lack of plate discipline, Guerrero drew his share of walks. It obviously wasn’t because he was a patient hitter, it’s because pitchers feared him.

Consider that from 1999-2007, Guerrero averaged 62 walks per season. Or, you could say he walked in 9.6 percent of his plate appearances during that time. That’s a decent number, certainly better than average. But it’s attributable to the fear surrounding pitching to Vlad. As an example of this, on average, 23 of Guerrero’s 62 walks during that span were intentional walks. And an unquantifiable number of those were “unintentional intentional walks”, where the pitcher didn’t throw anything within the vicinity of the plate.

The same goes for basketball, with Shaquille O’Neal being the best example. During O’Neal’s prime (1994-2005), he shot an average of 10.7 free throws per game. Six times during that span, O’Neal led the NBA in free-throw attempts. Was this due to his ability to draw fouls or was it due to the “fear factor”?

With O’Neal, it’s difficult to quantify how much was due to fear and how much was due to a skill in getting to the line. He undoubtedly drew a lot of fouls because of his position (center) and proximity to the basket. But the fear that came along with O’Neal was the main reason he got to the stripe so often. Basically, whenever he got the ball near the hoop, he was unstoppable. It was a better bet to foul him and send him to the line than to try and guard him honestly.

What’s interesting is that statistically speaking, fouling O’Neal was a better bet than letting him shoot. His career field-goal percentage (.582) is greater than his career free-throw percentage (.527). And if he makes a field goal, it’s an automatic two points. If you foul him, the odds are that he’ll only get one point because of his poor free-throw shooting.

In baseball, on the other hand, in most situations it’s statistically better to pitch to a player like Vladimir Guerrero than it is to walk him intentionally, because the expected value of putting a player on base automatically is higher than if you were to pitch to him. There are scenarios that are exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, you’re better off pitching to a hitter than giving him a free pass.

So, what’s the point? The point is that there are two-new school barometers of evaluating players in two different sports and there are similarities between the two. There are similarities in the skills involved, and there are also similarities in the fear involved. Is that useful information? That’s up to each individual. But it’s certainly interesting, which is what’s most important to me.

Former Ohio State head coach Jim Tressel was hired by the Colts as a replay assistant. But will Tressel face suspension like Terrelle Pryor will have to?

http://www.suite101.com/content/san-francisco-giants-need-to-beat-arizona-this-weekend-a387108