Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Donnelly Out, Jackson In
There were two big events yesterday that have brought me out of seclusion (in the West Wing) to talk about, the re-hiring of Phil Jackson by the Lakers and the odd confrontation in the 7th inning of the Angels' loss to the Nats.
First off, as a Laker fan, I am thrilled to see Phil Jackson returning to the team. I realize this will mean that I will have to endure countless "stories" throughout next season about how he and Kobe are feuding again regardless of whether or not it's true. The truth is, those types of stories would be written if Jesus Christ himself were pacing the Lakers sidelines next season. No matter who you want to blame, the national media has become New York-like in their intense scrutiny and gossip-based coverage of the Lakers. That's just the way it is with this team, so we might as well get one of the greatest coaches of all-time out of it.
As usual, the cynicism of the media is also reflected in the voice of many LA citizens. I've heard all sorts of skeptical theories tossed around since yesterday...
"It's a publicity stunt." Yeeeeeeeaaahhh.......I realize that professional sports franchises are businesses like any other and that they have a bottom line like any other. However, I also believe that Jerry Buss is a competitive man who cares about winning basketball games. If all he cared about was putting butts in the seats at Staples Center, why on Earth would he have traded Shaq and fired Phil in the first place? Those moves were guaranteed to lose money for the team yet he did it anyway. Why? Because they were losing. I know, it's hard to imagine that being Western Conference Champions denotes a failure to anyone, but to Jerry Buss it sure did. Trading Shaq and firing Phil were moves that were done with one singular interest in mind: putting a team on the floor in 2005 and beyond that would be more competitive and win championships. Obviously he was wrong in his assessment of what it would take to win, but I don't see how there can really be any argument about his motive. He cares about winning and the pride of the Laker franchise. Hiring Phil Jackson is a publicity stunt? I don't buy it.
"Phil's just doing it for the money." Does incense-burning, yoga-practicing, Zen-master strike you as the greedy type? Phil's made enough money in his career to live extravagantly for the rest of his life without working another day. I don't care if it's $30 million or $300 million, the guy is staked already and is not going to commit himself to three rigorous, stressful years of coaching just to make his money bin a foot or two deeper. I understand all the analysis and questioning about why would Phil want to do this, why would he coach Kobe again, etc, and I think the answer may be too simple for us soap opera fans to accept. Maybe the guy is a basketball coach. Perhaps coaching basketball is what he does. If basketball is his passion, his life's work, why is it so shocking that he's returning to it even if it means reuniting with an "uncoachable" superstar? I think Phil Jackson just wants to get back to work. LA fits his lifestyle, his girlfriend is there, and the true source of the friction with Kobe, the power struggle between Kobe and Shaq, is no longer an issue. Could it just be about basketball? Not in LA, right? No, there has to be an angle.
"He wants to prove he can win without a pre-stacked team." Prove to whom? Does the great meditator and king of the non-timeout strike anyone as caring what other people think of him? He goes his own way. Nine championships speak for themselves.
As a fan, I will be very intrigued to see what Phil can do for this team and for Kobe and Lamar individually. I just wish I knew more fans and less haters so I could discuss the team and not the soap opera. Hey, that's what this blog is for, right? Look for a GM challenge focusing on the Lakers in the coming weeks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And then there were the somewhat bizarre events in Los Angeles of Anaheim last night....
Of course there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't recall having ever seen a manager ask for a pitcher to be checked out in a regular season game before, especially before he's thrown a single pitch. Not really making a point there.
It's hard to really argue with Frank Robinson's call since they did find Donnelly with an illegal substance. However, I do give some credence to Scioscia's contention that pine tar is widely used by pitchers and gives no advantage of additional movement on a pitch. I don't know whether any of that is true. I feel like I would need to know that in order to decide firmly one way or the other.
It does seem odd to me that Scioscia would react the way he did if he didn't believe that it were true though. If he knew Donnelly had clearly been caught cheating, technically and figuratively, sure, he's still going to go out there and stand up for his guy, but getting angry at Frank Robinson would not be a logical reaction if he knew Brendan had been honestly busted. The fact that he, as a man integrally involved in the game, truly believed it was a bush league nitpicking call to have Donnelly checked for pine tar, is enough for me to at least consider that possibility. I am not involved in the game. I don't know who uses pine tar and who doesn't or what it may or may not do to a baseball so I don't feel I have enough information to judge.
Many would say that it doesn't matter because what Donnelly did was against the rules and therefore he is cheating and Robinson is justified. Legally, technically, of course that is true. I don't think it's always that black and white though in sports, especially baseball with all its "unwritten rules."
This incident reminded me of my days on the high school tennis team. When you're done laughing, I'll continue.........So anyway, in the game of tennis, it is illegal to cross the baseline while serving until the serve is complete. If you do violate this rule, it's called a "Foot fault" and the same rules apply as would a serve that lands outside the service box or anywhere out of bounds. The thing is, people foot-faulted all the time, but nobody ever called it. Our coach made a point to tell us not to ever call foot-faults unless we truly believed our opponent was gaining a decided and repeated advantage by doing so. The reason for that is the foot fault is tough to call from the other side of the net and to do so would be sort of a cheap shot even though it is technically within the realm of the rules. If one person calls a foot fault, he said, everybody starts calling foot faults and word spreads from court to court and before you know it, you've got coaches acting as refs and it gets out of hand. So in four years of play, I never called a foot fault nor did I have one called against me. I don't recall ever seeing a foot fault called in professional tennis either.
Obviously, the specifics of my tennis experience and this baseball game are as different as apples and onions. However, as the circumstances unfolded in the 7th inning last night, the tone and spirit of the foot fault seemed eerily similar.
Maybe it was the same type of thing, maybe it wasn't. My point is simply that, as a fan, I don't feel I am in a position to judge on this particular incident. I just don't know enough. Yes, using pine tar is without question is against the rules. Whether it's actually cheating, I can't really say. I don't take Scioscia's word for it, but I don't take Frank Robinson's either.
UPDATE: Here are some excerpts from the Angels' team website that would further support Scioscia's contention. Take them for what they're worth.
"It's not like I'm using it to doctor the ball," said Donnelly, "I want to know that I have a good grip on the ball and I'm not going to kill people."
Angels starter Jarrod Washburn said he does not use it, but said it's been a known substance for pitchers for a long time. Washburn also said hitters are aware and don't necessarily have a problem with it.
"I know the few hitters on our team that have said they would rather have a pitcher have a good grip on the ball instead of not knowing where it is going," Washburn said.
|
First off, as a Laker fan, I am thrilled to see Phil Jackson returning to the team. I realize this will mean that I will have to endure countless "stories" throughout next season about how he and Kobe are feuding again regardless of whether or not it's true. The truth is, those types of stories would be written if Jesus Christ himself were pacing the Lakers sidelines next season. No matter who you want to blame, the national media has become New York-like in their intense scrutiny and gossip-based coverage of the Lakers. That's just the way it is with this team, so we might as well get one of the greatest coaches of all-time out of it.
As usual, the cynicism of the media is also reflected in the voice of many LA citizens. I've heard all sorts of skeptical theories tossed around since yesterday...
"It's a publicity stunt." Yeeeeeeeaaahhh.......I realize that professional sports franchises are businesses like any other and that they have a bottom line like any other. However, I also believe that Jerry Buss is a competitive man who cares about winning basketball games. If all he cared about was putting butts in the seats at Staples Center, why on Earth would he have traded Shaq and fired Phil in the first place? Those moves were guaranteed to lose money for the team yet he did it anyway. Why? Because they were losing. I know, it's hard to imagine that being Western Conference Champions denotes a failure to anyone, but to Jerry Buss it sure did. Trading Shaq and firing Phil were moves that were done with one singular interest in mind: putting a team on the floor in 2005 and beyond that would be more competitive and win championships. Obviously he was wrong in his assessment of what it would take to win, but I don't see how there can really be any argument about his motive. He cares about winning and the pride of the Laker franchise. Hiring Phil Jackson is a publicity stunt? I don't buy it.
"Phil's just doing it for the money." Does incense-burning, yoga-practicing, Zen-master strike you as the greedy type? Phil's made enough money in his career to live extravagantly for the rest of his life without working another day. I don't care if it's $30 million or $300 million, the guy is staked already and is not going to commit himself to three rigorous, stressful years of coaching just to make his money bin a foot or two deeper. I understand all the analysis and questioning about why would Phil want to do this, why would he coach Kobe again, etc, and I think the answer may be too simple for us soap opera fans to accept. Maybe the guy is a basketball coach. Perhaps coaching basketball is what he does. If basketball is his passion, his life's work, why is it so shocking that he's returning to it even if it means reuniting with an "uncoachable" superstar? I think Phil Jackson just wants to get back to work. LA fits his lifestyle, his girlfriend is there, and the true source of the friction with Kobe, the power struggle between Kobe and Shaq, is no longer an issue. Could it just be about basketball? Not in LA, right? No, there has to be an angle.
"He wants to prove he can win without a pre-stacked team." Prove to whom? Does the great meditator and king of the non-timeout strike anyone as caring what other people think of him? He goes his own way. Nine championships speak for themselves.
As a fan, I will be very intrigued to see what Phil can do for this team and for Kobe and Lamar individually. I just wish I knew more fans and less haters so I could discuss the team and not the soap opera. Hey, that's what this blog is for, right? Look for a GM challenge focusing on the Lakers in the coming weeks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And then there were the somewhat bizarre events in Los Angeles of Anaheim last night....
Of course there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't recall having ever seen a manager ask for a pitcher to be checked out in a regular season game before, especially before he's thrown a single pitch. Not really making a point there.
It's hard to really argue with Frank Robinson's call since they did find Donnelly with an illegal substance. However, I do give some credence to Scioscia's contention that pine tar is widely used by pitchers and gives no advantage of additional movement on a pitch. I don't know whether any of that is true. I feel like I would need to know that in order to decide firmly one way or the other.
It does seem odd to me that Scioscia would react the way he did if he didn't believe that it were true though. If he knew Donnelly had clearly been caught cheating, technically and figuratively, sure, he's still going to go out there and stand up for his guy, but getting angry at Frank Robinson would not be a logical reaction if he knew Brendan had been honestly busted. The fact that he, as a man integrally involved in the game, truly believed it was a bush league nitpicking call to have Donnelly checked for pine tar, is enough for me to at least consider that possibility. I am not involved in the game. I don't know who uses pine tar and who doesn't or what it may or may not do to a baseball so I don't feel I have enough information to judge.
Many would say that it doesn't matter because what Donnelly did was against the rules and therefore he is cheating and Robinson is justified. Legally, technically, of course that is true. I don't think it's always that black and white though in sports, especially baseball with all its "unwritten rules."
This incident reminded me of my days on the high school tennis team. When you're done laughing, I'll continue.........So anyway, in the game of tennis, it is illegal to cross the baseline while serving until the serve is complete. If you do violate this rule, it's called a "Foot fault" and the same rules apply as would a serve that lands outside the service box or anywhere out of bounds. The thing is, people foot-faulted all the time, but nobody ever called it. Our coach made a point to tell us not to ever call foot-faults unless we truly believed our opponent was gaining a decided and repeated advantage by doing so. The reason for that is the foot fault is tough to call from the other side of the net and to do so would be sort of a cheap shot even though it is technically within the realm of the rules. If one person calls a foot fault, he said, everybody starts calling foot faults and word spreads from court to court and before you know it, you've got coaches acting as refs and it gets out of hand. So in four years of play, I never called a foot fault nor did I have one called against me. I don't recall ever seeing a foot fault called in professional tennis either.
Obviously, the specifics of my tennis experience and this baseball game are as different as apples and onions. However, as the circumstances unfolded in the 7th inning last night, the tone and spirit of the foot fault seemed eerily similar.
Maybe it was the same type of thing, maybe it wasn't. My point is simply that, as a fan, I don't feel I am in a position to judge on this particular incident. I just don't know enough. Yes, using pine tar is without question is against the rules. Whether it's actually cheating, I can't really say. I don't take Scioscia's word for it, but I don't take Frank Robinson's either.
UPDATE: Here are some excerpts from the Angels' team website that would further support Scioscia's contention. Take them for what they're worth.
"It's not like I'm using it to doctor the ball," said Donnelly, "I want to know that I have a good grip on the ball and I'm not going to kill people."
Angels starter Jarrod Washburn said he does not use it, but said it's been a known substance for pitchers for a long time. Washburn also said hitters are aware and don't necessarily have a problem with it.
"I know the few hitters on our team that have said they would rather have a pitcher have a good grip on the ball instead of not knowing where it is going," Washburn said.
# posted by j.h.k. @ 9:40 AM 
