25 Years Later

Twenty-five years ago, the #1 ranked high school basketball player in the nation was shot and killed.  Ben Wilson's death resonated across the country.  In the Sunday Chicago Tribune, he's remembered by K.C. Johnson who was a member of the Evanston basketball team that lost to Wilson's Simeon team in the state championship, in his last high school game.  His violent death came to personify the rising violence that was part of the growing drug epidemic in Chicago.  Today it's worth being reminded by the continued sadness at his death that unfortunately the problem of urban gun violence is not also a story of the past. 

Ben is still probably not the most famous basketball player to wear #25, though.  Another famous man born in the 60s who also wore #25 likely wins that honor, and now maybe has the chance to do something about the violence still ongoing.

On Stats (and Football)

I cannot understand the outcry today over Bill Belichick's decision to 'go for it' in last night's game.  Not a single media member that I have seen on TV has stopped to ponder whether it was a decent decision.  Nope, they've been quick to pile on.  Yes, the decision didn't work out.  But let's not kid ourselves, it was unequivocally the right one.

As Nate Silver observes (yes, of PECOTA and 538 fame),

Bill Belichick is not dumb, provided that his goal is to help the New England Patriots win football games. Instead, much of the NFL's conventional wisdom on when to go for it on fourth down is horribly, horribly wrong -- teams are way too conservative and punt way too often. This is the one case where 9-year olds playing Madden -- it's no fun to punt in a video game -- quite literally make better decisions than most NFL head coaches. With that said, since the same flawed conventional wisdom can govern hiring and firing decisions, there may be a price to be paid for unconventional (if statistically correct) playcalling; see also Marty Mornhinweg.

If you follow that first link, it affirms--the Pats had a 79% chance of winning doing what they did, versus 70% by punting. So why is there outrage?

On Football, Part 2

And worth reading as well, Malcom Gladwell, again on football.

On Football, Part 1

Well worth reading is fellow far upper Midwesterner Chuck Klosterman on football.

The Ricky Rubio Situation

A lot of fanfare is being made out of the fact that Ricky Rubio is not going to be coming to NBA and play with the Timberwolves this year after all. Many are blaming David Kahn for the situation. Personally, I think that's shortsighted. The only upside in my mind to him coming over now would have been drawing more fans. Maybe that would be a good thing, but for the future of the Wolves, I think Rubio developing for another couple years in Spain is fine.

Let's be honest, the Wolves aren't making the playoffs next year, and probably not the year after that either. So what is it setting them back? If they find out what they have in Flynn, they're that much further along. Many, such as The Sports Guy have been pretty down on Kahn. Simmons recently posted on Twitter, "Hey Kahn defenders: You think a team that's BLEEDING MONEY wanted to bottom out again, take on bad salaries & wait 2 yrs for Rubio? Really?" This was the latest in several posts directed at Kahn's maneuvering. I disagree, and so here's what I wrote The Sports Guy:

Okay Bill,
We need you to write a little further on this Timberwolves situation. As a fan (yes, I know that makes me biased) I think you're being a little harsh in regard to their draft results.

I'm with you in thinking Kahn deserved to be questioned based on his lack of experience. But now that we have him, let's see what happens.

You've said yourself (in the New Yorker): "Just play your best five or six guys and figure the rest out later. In the old days, nobody gave a crap about positions." You've also said that teams in the draft should take the best available player and not draft for need. So why so down on the Wolves for taking the two players they thought were the best left on the draft board? You've said yourself that you like both Rubio and Flynn. And based on the LV league, I think I'd still rather have Flynn than Curry. Are both players PG? Yes. But how disastrous would it be to play two great PGs together? Would a team be terrible if they played Chris Paul and Deron Williams together with a great wing, a great inside scorer, and a great rebounder?

What if Rubio and Flynn are nearly as good as the aforementioned? With a good shooter on the wing (Ellington) and the scorer and rebounder extraordinaire inside (Jefferson and Love), how far away are you from being a legit presence in the league?
I can think of much worse combinations. And further, if Rubio or Flynn do not pan out, you are still not in bad shape. I think the Wolves thought, and I think correctly so, we're not good enough to draft for need, let's take the best players available, and in a couple years, figure out which parts to keep in order to turn this thing into a championship.

I'd further note that I have to agree with what what Ken Berger of CBSSports observes in regard to the situation:

So Rubio will mature and get better -- albeit against sub-NBA competition -- and Kahn's team will begin the rebuilding process with a very capable point guard in Flinn. Can the two play together in the same backcourt in 2011-12? Time will tell. But in the meantime, Kahn moves forward with a formidable asset in Rubio. Even if he never plays a single game in Minnesota.

Kahn is quickly becoming the most mysterious executive in the NBA, tearing a page straight from the book written by his mentor, Donnie Walsh. He is humorless and needs to brush up on his people skills -- despite the fact that he's a former member of the media. (Maybe this explains why he is a former member.) But I'll give him credit for this much: It took a certain amount of gumption to welcome a controversy like this with the very first and most important decision of his regime. Whether it ultimately works out or not is very much an unknown. Say Kahn is in over his head if you want; you might ultimately be correct. But I have no problem giving Kahn credit for being unafraid of Fegan and all the contractual entanglements that came with Rubio. Enjoy Barcelona, Ricky. See you in 2011.

What are your thoughts?

Prospects

I've written before about the recruiting world of high school basketball. And as most who follow it know, it's only beginning earlier and earlier for today's young players.

In a pretty interesting article on three young 8th-graders who will be going to high school in Chicago next year, Michael O'Brien of the Sun-Times notes,

High school basketball is undergoing a dramatic shift. The focus on younger players likely is here to stay and figures to intensify over the next few years.

More players are committing to colleges as freshmen, which means college coaches, recruiting analysts and the media have begun to pay serious attention to seventh- and eighth-grade players.

I'm just looking forward to watching these guys play next year. And if they end up in the orange & blue in four years, even better.

Press

My high school team did it. And I'm a pretty big proponent. I love the run and gun that results.

Although, probably not for junior high, where I think it should be about more than winning.

Pressing in basketball. Just thinking about it, I bet you envisioned an exciting game. So, is it underused?

Malcom Gladwell thinks so. Definitely read the article. It's moreso an analysis of how an underdog can optimize their chances of success. But very interesting, as always.

Go Cubs Go

I enjoyed this synopsis on the My Baseball Fantasy blog of the origins of the Cubs' postgame victory tune, "Go Cubs Go."

If you don't know the full story, definitely check it out. It's almost playoff time...

The Art of Flopping

Well worth passing on:



(ht: TrueHoop)

A "No Bull" Cause

When Scott Skiles was fired as head coach of the Chicago Bulls on Christmas Eve, he told the Chicago Tribune: "Hardly a day goes by that I don't demand accountability and stress results. Today was my day to be held accountable."

It's that type of vintage Scott Skiles attitude that I'm going to miss. But I'm not surprised that it came to this (although I didn't think it would be this December). He is unafraid to let others know what he thinks, and that can be a blessing and a curse. For young players trying to find their way in the NBA, a no-nonsense tough guy like Skiles can motivate them pretty well. For a veteran player who thinks he's paid all of his dues, a guy like Skiles wears thin pretty quickly; and once a veteran is openly rebelling in the locker room, it doesn't take long for others to follow suit.

While John Paxson's patience with Skiles had obviously run out, there are rumors that Skiles had repeatedly let Paxson know that he was dissatisfied with what he had to work with on the roster. Based on my own observations of the Bulls this season, I wouldn't be surprised if Skiles had indeed complained to Paxson about his roster. After all, the Bulls do not have a single All-Star, lack a legitimate inside scoring presence, and they frankly have various match-up problems at every position (with the possible exception of small forward where Luol Deng is a solid player at both ends of the court when his back isn't hurting).

Last year I felt as though the Bulls were assembling the pieces of a team that could eventually compete for the NBA championship. However, now that I've seen how this season has started, it's looking like Paxson will have even greater difficulty acquiring the missing pieces without giving up too much. It will be interesting to see how the team plays from here on out, and I will be especially curious to see how Tyrus Thomas and Thabo Sefolosha progress under interim head coach Jim Boylan.

As for Skiles, even though he is no longer a Bull, I think if he ever got another NBA coaching gig you could still count on him to bring that same "No Bull" attitude.

Disappearances

TrueHoop pointed me to this disconcerting summary of some strange disappearances basketball players have encountered.

Pro basketball has had some truly bizarre disappearances of several athletes over time. And I'm not talking about players just leaving the game or losing their talent at the drop of a hat. I'm talking about guys literally disappearing.

The most recent bizarre disappearance involves former Washington State University player Tony Harris...

It seems that Tony Harris has disappeared in Brazil where he travelled to play basketball.

This year he decided to return to Brazil to get a "financial cushion" before the birth of his first child with his wife.

[She] said her husband left Seattle for Brasilia in central Brazil on Oct. 31. She last heard from him early November...

The other disappearances cited are those of John Brisker and Bison Dele. Each story is very strange in its own way.

Now, news in the latest story involving Harris has come in and it is not good.

99 Years of Cubs Losses

For all you Cub fans out there... In honor of the World Series you're not a part of:

Just Getting Started

I suppose now it's official. After knocking off Wisconsin and upping their record to 5-1, the Illini are one of the "surprise" teams of this college football season.

While hindsight is 20/20, what the Illini have done so far shouldn't come as a big surprise*. After all, Zook has brought in back-to-back elite recruiting classes, and last year we saw this team make strides in terms of competitiveness. Furthermore, we knew going into this season that the Big Ten would be down. Heck, after the bowl games last year one has to wonder if the Big Ten had ever really been "up."

Prior to the season, the biggest question mark in my mind with the Illini was their relative lack of experience. However, this team has rebounded quite nicely from a tough loss to Mizzou in the opener, and they're getting more experienced each week.

Next week the Illini are at Iowa, and honestly, that's a game we should win. The week after is when things get really interesting as Michigan comes to town. We'll see how that goes. It's been a long time since the Illini have beaten Michigan in Champaign. As far as I'm concerned, it's been too long... I'm guessing that Ron Zook will tell the guys the same thing...

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Zook was right to call next week a "big game." Anytime you go on the road in the Big Ten, you've got to take things seriously or else risk an embarrassment. In order to prepare better for Iowa, perhaps one day during practice this week Zook should wear a pink tutu?

Seriously, come Saturday that shock tactic could make the difference for the Illini at Kinnick Stadium...

* For what it's worth, I might as well take this opportunity to point out that I was the only person in the pre-season who picked the Illini to win 8+ games in Chairman Gau's poll. Oskee Wow Wow!

The Vick Ethics

As I've been contemplating it, and as the story has remained in the news, now that Michael Vick has pled guilty to the dogfighting charges he faced, I have a few more thoughts.

I think Gregg Easterbrook, who has the same type of dog I do, nails much of what my reaction is:

The disgusting thing about dogfighting isn't that animals battle and die -- after all, animals fight to the death in nature, tearing each other's flesh with heartless violence. The disgusting thing about dogfighting is that supposedly intelligent members of Homo sapiens add sadism to the natural equation by starving dogs to make them extra aggressive, filing their incisors to make the fights bloodier, and engaging in other acts unbecoming any man or woman of ethics. What Michael Vick confessed to Monday ought to disgust you, regardless of whether you are a dog lover. Include me. [My dog] -- a Chesapeake retriever, noble state dog of Maryland -- slumbers happily near my feet as I write this.

But the punishment expected to be imposed on Vick -- one to two years in federal prison, and perhaps never playing in the NFL again -- seems out of proportion to his actions and his status as a first-time offender. The situation is confusing because the federal crimes to which Vick pleaded guilty turn as much on gambling and racketeering as dogfighting; gambling and racketeering concern federal prosecutors because of their relationship to organized crime. Racketeering can lead to jail terms even for nonviolent first-time offenders not involved with drug sales, such as Vick. The NFL, for its part, has very strong reasons to detest gambling, and elaborately warns players they will be harshly penalized for associating with gamblers. Yet I can't help feeling there is overkill in the social, media and legal reactions to Vick, and that the overkill originates in hypocrisy about animals.

Thousands of animals are mistreated or killed in the United States every day without the killers so much as being criticized, let alone imprisoned. Ranchers and farmers kill stock animals or horses that are sick or injured. Some ranchers kill stock animals as gently as possible, others callously; in either case, prosecution is nearly unheard of. As Derek Jackson pointed out last week in the Boston Globe, greyhound tracks routinely race dogs to exhaustion and injury, then kill the losers, or simply eliminate less-strong pups: "184,604 greyhound puppies judged to be inferior for racing" were killed, legally, in the past 20 years.

Hunters shoot animals for sport. They do so lawfully, while the manner in which Vick harmed his dogs was unlawful. But from the perspective of the animal, there seems little difference between a hunter with a state game license zipped in his vest pocket shooting a deer as part of something the hunter views as really fun sport, and Vick shooting a dog as part of something Vick views as really fun sport. In both cases, animals suffer for human entertainment. The animal-ethics distinction between Vick's actions and lawful game hunting are murky at best. A first-time offender should go to prison over a murky distinction?

Much more troubling is that the overwhelming majority of Americans who eat meat and poultry -- I'm enthusiastically among them -- are complicit in the systematic cruel treatment of huge numbers of animals. Snickering about this, or saying you're tired of hearing about it, doesn't make it go away. Most animals used for meat experience miserable lives under cruel conditions, including confinement for extended periods in pits of excrement. (Michael Pollan, who enthusiastically consumes meat and fowl, describes the mistreatment in his important new book The Omnivore's Dilemma.) Meat animals don't magically stop living when it's time to become a product; they suffer as they die. One of Vick's dogs was shot, another electrocuted. Gunshots and electrocution are federally approved methods of livestock slaughter, sanctioned by the Department of Agriculture for the killing of cows and pigs. Regulations under the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 give federal sanction to shooting cows or pigs, or running electrical current through their bodies. Shooting and electrocution are viewed by federal law as humane ways to kill animals that will be consumed. Federal rules also allow slaughterhouses to hit cows in the head with a fast-moving piston that stuns them into semiconsciousness before they are sliced up. Being hit in the head with a powerful piston -- does that sound a bit painful, a bit cruel? It's done to tens of thousands of steers per year, lawfully.

Don't say "eew, gross" about how meat animals are butchered, then return to denouncing Vick. If you're eating a cheeseburger or BLT or steak or pot roast today, there's a good chance you are dining on an animal that was shot or electrocuted. You are complicit. You freely bought the meat, you did not demand Congress strengthen the Humane Slaughter Act. Livestock can be calmed and drugged before being slain. A few slaughterhouses do this, but most don't because it raises costs, and you, the consumer, demand the lowest possible price for your meal. Now about your turkey sub or coq au vin. Federal slaughter regulations apply mainly to large animals, leaving considerable freedom in the killing of fowl. Many poultry slaughterhouses kill chickens by slashing their throats rather than snapping their necks. Snapping the neck kills the bird quickly, ending suffering, but then the heart dies quickly, too. Slashing the throat causes the bird to live in agony for several minutes, heart still beating and pumping blood out of the slash -- and consumers prefer bloodless chicken meat.

Further, the Humane Slaughter Act exempts kosher and halal slaughter. In both traditions, the cow or lamb must be conscious when killed by having its carotid artery, or esophagus and trachea, slashed. The animal bleeds to death, convulsing in agony, as its heart pumps blood, which is viewed as unclean, out of the slashed openings. The delicious pastrami we consumed at a kosher deli, or the wonderfully good beef we could buy at a halal butcher, comes from an animal that suffered as it died.

Yes, Vick broke the law; yes, he arrogantly lied and refused to apologize when first caught; and yes, his actions before and after the dog killings indicate he is one stupid, stupid man. But Vick's lawbreaking was relatively minor compared to animal mistreatment that happens continuously, within the law, at nearly all levels of the meat production industry, and with which all but vegetarians are complicit. There is some kind of mass neurosis at work in the rush to denounce Vick, wag fingers and say he deserved even worse. Society wants to scapegoat Vick to avoid contemplating its own routine, systematic killing of animals. We couldn't all become vegetarians tomorrow: that is not practical. But American society is not even attempting to make the handling of meat animals less brutal, let alone working to transition away from a food-production order in which huge numbers of animals are systematically mistreated, then killed in ways that inflict terror and pain. We won't lift a finger to change the way animals die for us. But we will demand Michael Vick serve prison time to atone for our sins.

Legal note: Vick might be compelled to repay the Falcons a huge amount of bonus money, and will lose $25 million or more in endorsement income. I have no sympathy for his loss of endorsement income: Vick was hired to bring Nike and other companies he endorsed good publicity, and instead brought them bad. But think about the income loss in the calculation of overpunishment of Vick. One or two years in federal prison, and perhaps state prison time if state charges are filed as well; plus $25 million in lost endorsement income and, oh, $50 million in lost or returned NFL income. That's overkill! Often the indirect financial consequences of legal proceedings are worse than the official ones, in the same way that a speeding ticket might cost you $75 but add $1,000 to your annual insurance bill.

In effect, the federal indictment of Vick is resulting in him being fined around $75 million, which is far too much retribution. The legal hang-up is that since 1984, federal courts have been forbidden to consider monetary loss in private life as counting toward punishment. But a year of banishment from the NFL, a guilty plea with suspended sentence and probation (meaning the sentence is imposed if probation is violated), seems plenty of punishment for a first offense by someone who has not harmed another human being. Prison time and a $75 million fine? What Vick did was indecent, but now excessive punishment is being imposed, and two wrongs do not equal one right. Justice, after all, must be tempered with mercy. That's what you would think if you stood in the dock accused.

Here's what I think. Not only is the punishment Vick is facing an overreaction, but this is an illustration of the typical inconsistency that people have in discussing animal rights. In my mind the reactions to this Vick story are only a part of what is a larger societal discussion of the animal rights movement. And the saga got me thinking about it...

First, let's get a couple definitions out there. Animal rights is a broad term that really encompasses a couple items. Animal welfare is care that is given an animal such that it does not suffer unnecessarily. Animal liberation is a push to give animals equivalent rights to humans. Most animal rights 'activists' likely yearn for animal liberation while taking sometimes extreme measures attempting to push for animal welfare. Yet, animal welfare only focuses on the morality of human action (or inaction), as opposed to making deeper political or philosophical claims about the status of animals.

Truly, the perspective one has on what rights an animal has boils down to theology in my opinion. Is an animal the moral equivalent of a human or are humans in fact a special creation set above the rest of the animal world? This past Sunday in church, the sermon was actually on Genesis 1 and 2, in which God gives man dominion over all the animals. Thus, a Christian could not consider any animal as having equal status with man. That does not mean, however, that our actions to them do not matter. We are called to be stewards, and great care should be given to treat animals well--so that they do not suffer unnecessarily. This does not also mean that we imbue animals with special rights equivalent to what we as humans deserve. Do you believe animals were given to humans to use for work, food, and enjoyment?

With the perspective of your own moral basis, why do you treat animals the way you do? Do you consider the indirect actions your interaction with the products of animals may have? In establishing one's own position on animal rights, moral consistency is important. Do you think eating beef is wrong? How about eating horse? How about eating dog? What's the difference? If one is okay with eating meat from one animal, it seems they should be from another.

Don't be too quick to judge Michael Vick before we have contemplated our own actions. Learn where your food comes from, watch Fast Food Nation, and happily still eat meat, as I do, knowing all the facts. I would call all of us to judge what our own action or inaction says in regard to the issue of animal rights. Are we being morally consistent? What should we be advocates for in this discussion?

Pickup Basketball

Anyone who has played pickup basketball knows the characters.


11 Guys At The Playground -

Which one are you?

The United Countries of Baseball

Pretty cool. Where do you live?

Dogfighting

As you probably know, NFL star Michael Vick is accused of financing and running a dogfighting operation in Virginia.

ESPN has an intriguing article on the situation. It begins,

A History of Mistrust
Having trouble understanding why so many black Atlantans see the Michael Vick case as a racial conspiracy? Try walking a mile in their shoes...

I thought the article does a great job of outlining the overwhelming role race plays in peoples' reactions whenever drama such as this plays out so publicly, especially in the south. One can quickly remember how quickly blacks sought to defend OJ a decade ago.

To be honest, though, I do wonder if the reaction is greater because Vick is black. Lang Whitaker points out,

Obviously, the food we eat — and yes, I am a world class carnivore — isn’t made to fight each other before we tuck into it, but is it any worse to electrocute a dog than it is to shoot a bolt into a cow’s head? Nobody cares that Brett Favre, the NFL’s golden child, spends his off-season in the wilderness hunting unsuspecting animals?

I too, though a dogowner, wonder if this issue is being blown up more than it should be. The Sports Guy notes,

Vick could have been accused of murdering a stripper, blowing up a shopping mall or funneling his Nike money to Al Qaeda, and people wouldn't have been even 1% as outraged as they are about the dogfighting allegations. You can get away with just about anything these days; just don't tick off dog lovers.

Is the dog worthy of more moral consideration only because it's domesticated? Is the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' discarded when the defendent is black? Tough questions, but worth asking.

The Slam

NBA will be A-OK

This NBA season when you look into the stands and see a fan holding a sign that reads something like, "I fixed this game," just remember that the fan paid the NBA good money both for his ticket and the jersey he's wearing of his favorite player.

My guess is that the interest in the NBA going into this season will be near an all-time high, which will be good for profits. And besides, this whole thing with NBA officials not being fair is nothing new. It's been pretty obvious for some time that they have been, to some degree, playing favorites.

This is gonna be great theater.

Hate is a waste of time

Across the ocean, in a bigoted Irish town, little girls ask other little girls, "Coke or Pepsi?" It is a veiled, mean question -- because the wrong answer can get a little girl's home firebombed. This is a story about the right answer: a basketball game. A game arranged, in part, by one man who's a Coke and one man who's a Pepsi …

Last night at the ESPY's, Dave Cullen and Trevor Ringland won the Arthur Ashe Courage Award for their work with Peace Players International in Northern Ireland. Their story is a powerful reminder that we are only a generation away from peace if we can reach the children caught up in the conflicts this world is so full of. Video outlining the project can be found at ESPN.