So I don't know the NBA as well as the other leagues, but here's my crack at season predictions.
East West
Miami OKC
Chicago San Antonio
Brooklyn LA Clippers
Atlanta Denver
Indiana Minnesota
New York Golden State
Milwaukee Houston
Toronto Memphis
Washington Portland
Philadelphia LA Lakers
Boston Dallas
Cleveland Utah
Detroit Phoenix
Charlotte Sacramento
Orlando New Orleans
NBA Finals
Chicago Bulls over the LA Clippers
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Monday, October 28, 2013
Patience for a "rebuild"
Two years ago was supposed to be "the year" the result a 32-40-7 season. Last year was supposed to be "the year" the result 19-22-7. This year was definitely supposed to be the year, so far 3-8-2. If you haven't figured it out yet I'm talking about the disappointing Edmonton Oilers. Who are "rebuilding."
They entered this season with a buzz that hasn't been there nearly as much as the last two seasons (all though there was some buzz) the two biggest off season acquisitions in Andrew Ferrence and David Perron were supposed to give this team the last big boost it needed to get over the hump. However, that still hasn't happened.
Andrew Ferrence hasn't been enough to bolster a still shaky defense and well the goal tending has been non-existent at times. The offensive fire power for the Edmonton Oilers is there, they don't need any more of that. However, the defense and goaltending have just been that bad and inconsistent that they can't support it.
Here's some numbers for you to think about. They average a little more than two and a half goals a game which is middle of the pack for the league. They are dead last in goals against giving up almost four. The offense is there and nothing else is.
To me those numbers are the telling sign about the back end of this team. The defense and goaltending don't need to be spectacular. Just good enough to support a good offense. In theory this doesn't sound so hard, but in practice it isn't working. The back end has just been so awful even when the offense scores a bunch of goals in a game the goalie and/or defense seem to do their best to make sure the other team scores a bunch + 1 goal.
I don't know about you, but for me the "rebuilding" excuse is wearing thin. This is a team with a defense that should be playing better and a goalie that has been in the league way too long to be having these problems. I honestly don't know where to put this problem, but it's frustrating. I've tried to have patience with this defense and goaltending, but they have yet to yield much significant other than the odd good game from a goalie.
This team has way too much talent to be having these problems and I don't have much patience left.
Where do you think the Oilers' biggest problem lies? And how much patience do you have left?
Darren.
They entered this season with a buzz that hasn't been there nearly as much as the last two seasons (all though there was some buzz) the two biggest off season acquisitions in Andrew Ferrence and David Perron were supposed to give this team the last big boost it needed to get over the hump. However, that still hasn't happened.
Andrew Ferrence hasn't been enough to bolster a still shaky defense and well the goal tending has been non-existent at times. The offensive fire power for the Edmonton Oilers is there, they don't need any more of that. However, the defense and goaltending have just been that bad and inconsistent that they can't support it.
Here's some numbers for you to think about. They average a little more than two and a half goals a game which is middle of the pack for the league. They are dead last in goals against giving up almost four. The offense is there and nothing else is.
To me those numbers are the telling sign about the back end of this team. The defense and goaltending don't need to be spectacular. Just good enough to support a good offense. In theory this doesn't sound so hard, but in practice it isn't working. The back end has just been so awful even when the offense scores a bunch of goals in a game the goalie and/or defense seem to do their best to make sure the other team scores a bunch + 1 goal.
I don't know about you, but for me the "rebuilding" excuse is wearing thin. This is a team with a defense that should be playing better and a goalie that has been in the league way too long to be having these problems. I honestly don't know where to put this problem, but it's frustrating. I've tried to have patience with this defense and goaltending, but they have yet to yield much significant other than the odd good game from a goalie.
This team has way too much talent to be having these problems and I don't have much patience left.
Where do you think the Oilers' biggest problem lies? And how much patience do you have left?
Darren.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Paying Athletes Part 2
The one type of athlete that I didn't touch on in part 1 were college athletes. While I think you can justify what professional athletes make, there is no way I can justify paying College athletes and the reasons why are as follows.
They get scholarships. Scholarships can be worth up to $100,000, are you telling me that isn't payment for these players? These scholarships are also how they get into the school, meaning they're still students. They have volunteered themselves to the school sports team and got into the school for fairly cheap or maybe even free.
These players are amateurs not professionals. There aren't many things in which an amateur or non-professional are paid well (if they are paid at all). Why should sports be any different. They are at the school as students, or are supposed to be anyway. Students don't get paid for anything so why should a select few at the school be paid, and at what point do you draw the line? If the athletes are being paid, does that mean the musicians should be paid? Or the members of the drama program? Afterall, the professionals in those businesses are being paid, why not the college students?
The ones who go to the pro leagues are going to get paid anyway. Any of these players entering the NHL, MLB, NFL, or NBA are going to get a healthy contract from their respective teams anyways. The players that are top players in the draft are going to get an extremely healthy contract from their team. As for the ones who won't go to a pro league? Well in that case they should be that much more focussed on their studies so they can get a solid job in their field. If they work hard in school they won't need the money that they would get paid in college.
I understand that for the time which they are students these players (including the ones on scholarships) do need some money to pay for needs and some wants (especially if they attend an out of state college), so that is why there is one form of getting paid which I think should be legal. If one of these athletes in their own time, wants to go sign autographs or do an endorsement deal, that I would be okay with. However, that's the only place they should be allowed to get money as athletes, nothing from the schools. Not only does it not make sense for the players to be paid, but it wouldn't make sense for the schools to pay them and may even hurt some schools.
It could hurt smaller schools. One of the things of beauty of college sports is there are hundreds of schools competing, and of all these schools most of them are good at some time or another and each season dozens of them are fairly high competitors. If however, they had to start paying athletes some of the smaller schools wouldn't be able to afford it and the competition would dwindle from dozens to about a dozen.
Comments always welcome,
Darren.
They get scholarships. Scholarships can be worth up to $100,000, are you telling me that isn't payment for these players? These scholarships are also how they get into the school, meaning they're still students. They have volunteered themselves to the school sports team and got into the school for fairly cheap or maybe even free.
These players are amateurs not professionals. There aren't many things in which an amateur or non-professional are paid well (if they are paid at all). Why should sports be any different. They are at the school as students, or are supposed to be anyway. Students don't get paid for anything so why should a select few at the school be paid, and at what point do you draw the line? If the athletes are being paid, does that mean the musicians should be paid? Or the members of the drama program? Afterall, the professionals in those businesses are being paid, why not the college students?
The ones who go to the pro leagues are going to get paid anyway. Any of these players entering the NHL, MLB, NFL, or NBA are going to get a healthy contract from their respective teams anyways. The players that are top players in the draft are going to get an extremely healthy contract from their team. As for the ones who won't go to a pro league? Well in that case they should be that much more focussed on their studies so they can get a solid job in their field. If they work hard in school they won't need the money that they would get paid in college.
I understand that for the time which they are students these players (including the ones on scholarships) do need some money to pay for needs and some wants (especially if they attend an out of state college), so that is why there is one form of getting paid which I think should be legal. If one of these athletes in their own time, wants to go sign autographs or do an endorsement deal, that I would be okay with. However, that's the only place they should be allowed to get money as athletes, nothing from the schools. Not only does it not make sense for the players to be paid, but it wouldn't make sense for the schools to pay them and may even hurt some schools.
It could hurt smaller schools. One of the things of beauty of college sports is there are hundreds of schools competing, and of all these schools most of them are good at some time or another and each season dozens of them are fairly high competitors. If however, they had to start paying athletes some of the smaller schools wouldn't be able to afford it and the competition would dwindle from dozens to about a dozen.
Comments always welcome,
Darren.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Paying Athletes Part 1
People always complain how much money pro athletes make. However, before you make these complaints there are some things you need to understand.
Being an athlete is a full time job, they're always practicing, training, and traveling, sure this may not explain huge multi-million dollar contracts, but you have to appreciate what they do for their jobs. They entertain millions of people around the world and make enough to comfortably retire at the end of their careers. However, this isn't the biggest reason for their contracts. The market allows for it.
Here's what I mean when I say the market allows for it. Of the four major sports the NHL brings in the LEAST revenue which is $3 billion. When you have to split that much money someone is going to get rich. The market allows for that much money. So if you don't like how much money these athletes are making in the four major sports, quit supporting it. Every time you watch a game on TV, go watch a game live, buy a jersey, buy food or drink at a game, buy a coffee cup with your team's logo on it, buy a jersey for your pet, etc. You're supporting some athlete's multi-million dollar deal. Quit buying NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL related stuff and you won't support them, it's that simple. However, there's something else, if you don't want the players making that money it's not going to go away.
What I think a lot of people don't understand is with every professional league being a multi-billion dollar industry, whatever money the players don't get is going to go somewhere else. Personally, I'd rather see the players get it. The money that doesn't go to the players is going to go to the owners. No one goes to any llive sports events to watch the owners sitting in their luxury boxes, they aren't the entertainment for the night, so why should they get more money? I know they've taken the risk on the team and could lose money, but that was also their decision, the players are the entertainment so I think they should get it.
Darren.
Being an athlete is a full time job, they're always practicing, training, and traveling, sure this may not explain huge multi-million dollar contracts, but you have to appreciate what they do for their jobs. They entertain millions of people around the world and make enough to comfortably retire at the end of their careers. However, this isn't the biggest reason for their contracts. The market allows for it.
Here's what I mean when I say the market allows for it. Of the four major sports the NHL brings in the LEAST revenue which is $3 billion. When you have to split that much money someone is going to get rich. The market allows for that much money. So if you don't like how much money these athletes are making in the four major sports, quit supporting it. Every time you watch a game on TV, go watch a game live, buy a jersey, buy food or drink at a game, buy a coffee cup with your team's logo on it, buy a jersey for your pet, etc. You're supporting some athlete's multi-million dollar deal. Quit buying NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL related stuff and you won't support them, it's that simple. However, there's something else, if you don't want the players making that money it's not going to go away.
What I think a lot of people don't understand is with every professional league being a multi-billion dollar industry, whatever money the players don't get is going to go somewhere else. Personally, I'd rather see the players get it. The money that doesn't go to the players is going to go to the owners. No one goes to any llive sports events to watch the owners sitting in their luxury boxes, they aren't the entertainment for the night, so why should they get more money? I know they've taken the risk on the team and could lose money, but that was also their decision, the players are the entertainment so I think they should get it.
Darren.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Fighting in Hockey
What happened to George Parros last night was a fluke. I'm going to say that right now. Most injuries in fights occur from punches, not from falling face first on the ice.
However, what this has done is once again brought up the debate of fighting in hockey.
From the 11/12 season the NHL has averaged about 655 fights per season. I can't find stats for how many of those resulted in an injury, but not many. Let's use last night for example. There were six fights in the NHL last night, only one resulted in an injury. And I'd be willing to bet it's even less than that. In a survey from 2011 fights resulted in just 8% of concussions. While 58% were from what were at the time "legal" hits, most of which are probably illegal now. You can see the stats here.
http://www.hockeyrants.ca/nhl/nhl-releases-concussion-statistics/
The debate about fighting in hockey is always going, however the only time it really soars like this is when there's an injury to a player like last night. Which really is only once or twice a year, less severe injuries do happen from fighting but still in a lot less than half the fights, after almost every fight both guys are okay. Even when an incident like last night does occur, what does the league office do? Almost nothing.
Fights do have a purpose in the game and one of them is to stand up for teammates. When a goal scorer gets hurt from an illegal hit to the head, a tough guy from the team is pretty much expected to step in and fight, and most of the time they do. Anyone who hits a star player on a team knows that they risk having a tough guy come after them.
Fights also energize a team, in a study done by the hockey news, almost every time there's a fight in an NHL game, at least one, if not both of the teams start to play better. In one season when Shawn Thorton was in a fight for the Boston Bruins, the Bruins were 38-13-8, which is pretty astounding. You can read more on fights energizing a team here.
http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/43976-Moneyball-look-at-NHL-stats-shows-starting-a-fight-sure-way-to-change-momentum.html
Finally, players want it in the game. When the league asked them both in 11/12, both years 98% of the players said fighting should not be completely abolished. To me, that's the strongest argument for keeping it in the game. The players want it, the league wants it, and on a survey on "The Hockey News" website something like 86% of the fans wanted it, I think fighting is going to stay.
You can see the hockey fight stats here
http://www.hockeyfights.com/stats/
Players survey results here
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/once-again-nhl-players-voice-overwhelming-opposition-fighting-175557533.html
As always your thoughts are welcome in the comments section,
Darren.
However, what this has done is once again brought up the debate of fighting in hockey.
From the 11/12 season the NHL has averaged about 655 fights per season. I can't find stats for how many of those resulted in an injury, but not many. Let's use last night for example. There were six fights in the NHL last night, only one resulted in an injury. And I'd be willing to bet it's even less than that. In a survey from 2011 fights resulted in just 8% of concussions. While 58% were from what were at the time "legal" hits, most of which are probably illegal now. You can see the stats here.
http://www.hockeyrants.ca/nhl/nhl-releases-concussion-statistics/
The debate about fighting in hockey is always going, however the only time it really soars like this is when there's an injury to a player like last night. Which really is only once or twice a year, less severe injuries do happen from fighting but still in a lot less than half the fights, after almost every fight both guys are okay. Even when an incident like last night does occur, what does the league office do? Almost nothing.
Fights do have a purpose in the game and one of them is to stand up for teammates. When a goal scorer gets hurt from an illegal hit to the head, a tough guy from the team is pretty much expected to step in and fight, and most of the time they do. Anyone who hits a star player on a team knows that they risk having a tough guy come after them.
Fights also energize a team, in a study done by the hockey news, almost every time there's a fight in an NHL game, at least one, if not both of the teams start to play better. In one season when Shawn Thorton was in a fight for the Boston Bruins, the Bruins were 38-13-8, which is pretty astounding. You can read more on fights energizing a team here.
http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/43976-Moneyball-look-at-NHL-stats-shows-starting-a-fight-sure-way-to-change-momentum.html
Finally, players want it in the game. When the league asked them both in 11/12, both years 98% of the players said fighting should not be completely abolished. To me, that's the strongest argument for keeping it in the game. The players want it, the league wants it, and on a survey on "The Hockey News" website something like 86% of the fans wanted it, I think fighting is going to stay.
You can see the hockey fight stats here
http://www.hockeyfights.com/stats/
Players survey results here
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/once-again-nhl-players-voice-overwhelming-opposition-fighting-175557533.html
As always your thoughts are welcome in the comments section,
Darren.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)