Over the years, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about sports loyalty. What makes us fans of a certain team, and under what circumstances are we allowed to change allegiances?
With pro sports, it’s perfectly acceptable to move to a new city and maintain your old allegiance. When I came to CA, I adopted the A’s and 49ers, but there was no doubt that the Indians and the Browns would stay my main teams. People who are from NY are allowed to root for the Yankees. A lot of people in the Bay Area are from SoCal and still root for the Lakers.
Perhaps after many years of living in CA, I will root for local teams over Cleveland teams, but it will take time to surpass that loyalty. Which is why I find it troubling that the same courtesy does not apply to college sports.
College is an entirely different animal. When you step foot on a campus, you ARE that team. You are immediately expected to love them unconditionally. But what if there is already a team that you are attached to, and what if that team comes in direct contact with your school’s?
I don’t have to explain why I’m writing this. The college basketball gods had a field day with me, blasting me year after year with head-to-head matchups between MSU and UNC, culminating in the national championship game senior year.
If the Indians played the A’s in the playoffs, no one would think twice about me rooting for the Indians despite living in Oakland. However, no one at UNC could believe that I would even have a slight conflict of interest for the national championship.
The thing was, it was more than a slight bias. Every single time the teams collided, I found myself rooting for MSU. It wasn’t a choice, it just happened.
I had no trouble adopting UNC football because I went to all of their games, watched them lose big more times than I can count, and felt like I’d put in the time. UNC has not played Michigan State in football, and if they did, I would probably just laugh. I also rooted for the baseball team, since I’d never followed college baseball before and had no conflict.
However, basketball felt like jumping on a bandwagon. While everyone around me immediately became a die-hard fan, I felt like the only one who had a previous allegiance to a different college team. I could not bring myself to turn away from a team that I’d loved for 10 years to jump on the bandwagon of the reigning national champion. It didn’t matter that it was my school.
What I needed was a slow transition, but the culture of college sports doesn’t allow that. I wore MSU gear on a day that UNC wasn’t even playing and got heckled on campus. This made me distance myself even more (and, in a split second, undid 3 years worth of transitioning). Rooting for MSU made me different. And I felt stronger as a result … more loyal, even.
Rooting for the clear favorite to win the championship? A team that’s expected to win year after year? With the 25,000 other people that live in my town and go to my school? That would be easy.
But rooting for the team that I’ve followed all my life? After singing the fight song at age 5, wearing green and white to school during March Madness, and hanging a poster of Morris Peterson in my bedroom after they won the national championship? Watching a great coach take scrappy, underdog teams to the final four year after year? That feels right.
I believe this is what all sports fans should address when they move to a new city. Are you doing what is easy, or what feels right? And that will answer the loyalty question.
I still think that in 20 years, I will be rooting whole-heartedly for UNC basketball, even over Michigan State. It’s my alma mater, and I have more pride for it now that I am 3000 miles away. But it will take time. Just as it will take time for me to root for the A’s over the Indians, or the 49ers over the Browns.
At some point in my life, rooting for UNC basketball will stop being the easy road and start feeling right. In the meantime, it should be acceptable for me to say, “I went to UNC but am still a Michigan State basketball fan.”
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Sick of pointless stats
I heard an interesting stat on Sports Center tonight. As of this morning, Alex Rodriguez has gone 38 at-bats since his last home run, which was number 599. This gives him the most-at bats without a homer for a player one shy of 600.
You heard it right. Save your paper tomorrow, mark it on your calendar. This is BIG NEWS.
Or, rather, it would be... if it weren’t stupid. Anyone with a 2nd-grade knowledge of baseball knows that there are only a handful of guys in history who have hit 599 home runs. I’ll name them: Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Bonds, Sosa, and Griffey. This makes A-Rod the first in a field of seven. The 85th percentile, if you will.
Does Sports Center really think we are stupid enough not to realize how inane that stat is? I think “Alex Rodriguez has the 7th most home runs of anyone in the 100+ year history of Major League Baseball” would have more impact.
I bring this up because I hear pointless stats like this on a regular basis. I distinctly remember watching a baseball game in the late 90s and hearing something like “the Yankees are the first team to have two starting pitchers over the age of 40 throw at least 80 pitches a World Series game.”
While it’s 70 degrees Fahrenheit. With precisely 41,462 people in attendance. As a blue bird flies over the stadium and poops on section 147.
(It was Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson, in case you were wondering.)
I seriously think there’s a room full of geek statisticians who run regressions day and night... maybe trying to wow us, or perhaps looking to fill the dead air during the 97 times each batter adjusts his gloves, socks, and cup before each pitch.
And really, these geeks aren't necessary, because anyone with half a brain could come up with one of these stats.
Here, I have one. Derek Jeter is the only starting Yankees shortstop to win a World Series in the 21st century. (He’s also been the Yankees shortstop for the past 15 years, but it doesn’t matter.) You throw the word “only” or “first” into a sentence, and BOOM, you have a Sports Center-worthy stat.
The Cleveland Indians are the only team to trade two consecutive reigning Cy Young winners at the deadline and then have them face each other in game 1 of the next World Series.
Heck, Dallas Braden is the only A’s pitcher to start a home game while I have been sitting in section 209, row L. Tim Lincecum was the first Giants pitcher to face the Washington Nationals while I ate a Ghirardelli chocolate sundae.
The New York Yankees were the first team to score 5 runs against the A’s on $1 dog day in less time than it took me to get to the front of the line at the only concession stand at the Coliseum that serves veggie dogs. (Okay, that one's a stretch, but I'm still bitter about that long line.)
Maybe instead of trying to blow our minds with insignificant stats, ESPN should delve into the deeper questions. Like, why are we trivializing A-Rod’s quest for 600 because he admitted to using steroids, while the current record holder is going on trial for juicing? And why does Luis Valbuena , who was just called back up from the minors, make more money than the President of the United States?
You heard it right. Save your paper tomorrow, mark it on your calendar. This is BIG NEWS.
Or, rather, it would be... if it weren’t stupid. Anyone with a 2nd-grade knowledge of baseball knows that there are only a handful of guys in history who have hit 599 home runs. I’ll name them: Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Bonds, Sosa, and Griffey. This makes A-Rod the first in a field of seven. The 85th percentile, if you will.
Does Sports Center really think we are stupid enough not to realize how inane that stat is? I think “Alex Rodriguez has the 7th most home runs of anyone in the 100+ year history of Major League Baseball” would have more impact.
I bring this up because I hear pointless stats like this on a regular basis. I distinctly remember watching a baseball game in the late 90s and hearing something like “the Yankees are the first team to have two starting pitchers over the age of 40 throw at least 80 pitches a World Series game.”
While it’s 70 degrees Fahrenheit. With precisely 41,462 people in attendance. As a blue bird flies over the stadium and poops on section 147.
(It was Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson, in case you were wondering.)
I seriously think there’s a room full of geek statisticians who run regressions day and night... maybe trying to wow us, or perhaps looking to fill the dead air during the 97 times each batter adjusts his gloves, socks, and cup before each pitch.
And really, these geeks aren't necessary, because anyone with half a brain could come up with one of these stats.
Here, I have one. Derek Jeter is the only starting Yankees shortstop to win a World Series in the 21st century. (He’s also been the Yankees shortstop for the past 15 years, but it doesn’t matter.) You throw the word “only” or “first” into a sentence, and BOOM, you have a Sports Center-worthy stat.
The Cleveland Indians are the only team to trade two consecutive reigning Cy Young winners at the deadline and then have them face each other in game 1 of the next World Series.
Heck, Dallas Braden is the only A’s pitcher to start a home game while I have been sitting in section 209, row L. Tim Lincecum was the first Giants pitcher to face the Washington Nationals while I ate a Ghirardelli chocolate sundae.
The New York Yankees were the first team to score 5 runs against the A’s on $1 dog day in less time than it took me to get to the front of the line at the only concession stand at the Coliseum that serves veggie dogs. (Okay, that one's a stretch, but I'm still bitter about that long line.)
Maybe instead of trying to blow our minds with insignificant stats, ESPN should delve into the deeper questions. Like, why are we trivializing A-Rod’s quest for 600 because he admitted to using steroids, while the current record holder is going on trial for juicing? And why does Luis Valbuena , who was just called back up from the minors, make more money than the President of the United States?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
No room for hate
I discovered something this week. Through all my anger and bitterness, I came to realize that there is a finite amount of sports hate in the world.
Let’s be clear from the beginning: sports hate is not the same as regular hate. It’s when normal, non-malicious people take their frustrations from everyday life and direct them at sports teams. It’s a way of cheering for your own team: “hating” the rival. It’s also a way of expressing frustration: “hating” the team that just beat yours, or the team that always wins, or the team that has a giant payroll and steamrolls everyone else.
When LeBron James announced that he was signing with Miami, a never-before-seen level of hate brewed inside of me. I hate the Heat more than I have ever hated any other team. I hate them more than I hate all 4 Boston teams combined (and that’s a lot). I hate them more than I hate Duke, and the Yankees, and the Lakers, and Barry Bonds.
Then a strange thing happened. I started to like Kobe Bryant. I felt warm feelings toward the Yankees. When someone made a comment to me about Duke basketball, I didn’t respond with a scathing retort.
It’s as if I needed such an enormous amount of hate for Miami that I had to transfer it away from other teams.
The same thing happened to me a few years ago after the Red Sox beat the Indians in the ALCS. My dislike of Boston teams was at its peak, as all 4 teams were title contenders, and most were plowing over Cleveland on their way to uncontested championships. Around that time, some of my hatred of the New York Yankees, a team which I’d loathed all my life, was transferred over to Boston. I went to a Sox-Yanks game the next fall and found myself fervently cheering for the men in pinstripes.
It also happened to me this spring when the Celtics met the Lakers in the NBA finals. I’ve always hated the Lakers, but after the Cavs' recent history with the Celtics (dating back to the Paul Pierce wheelchair charade of 2008), I found myself cheering for them. I wanted the Celtics to lose so badly that it negated my previous dislike of the Lakers.
Now this is being taken to a whole new level, extending across all sports. I think Kobe the Lakers are a fine team, and hope to see them win more championships. I think Boston fans are very loyal, Big Baby’s not so bad, and even Paul Pierce doesn’t look like such a ghoul any more. The Yankees have a rich tradition of winning that should be celebrated. Coach K is a good man, and so are his players. Next time I go to a San Francisco Giants game, I’ll cheer for them (unless they’re playing the Dodgers).
But Miami? ... Miami can suck it, big time.
Let’s be clear from the beginning: sports hate is not the same as regular hate. It’s when normal, non-malicious people take their frustrations from everyday life and direct them at sports teams. It’s a way of cheering for your own team: “hating” the rival. It’s also a way of expressing frustration: “hating” the team that just beat yours, or the team that always wins, or the team that has a giant payroll and steamrolls everyone else.
When LeBron James announced that he was signing with Miami, a never-before-seen level of hate brewed inside of me. I hate the Heat more than I have ever hated any other team. I hate them more than I hate all 4 Boston teams combined (and that’s a lot). I hate them more than I hate Duke, and the Yankees, and the Lakers, and Barry Bonds.
Then a strange thing happened. I started to like Kobe Bryant. I felt warm feelings toward the Yankees. When someone made a comment to me about Duke basketball, I didn’t respond with a scathing retort.
It’s as if I needed such an enormous amount of hate for Miami that I had to transfer it away from other teams.
The same thing happened to me a few years ago after the Red Sox beat the Indians in the ALCS. My dislike of Boston teams was at its peak, as all 4 teams were title contenders, and most were plowing over Cleveland on their way to uncontested championships. Around that time, some of my hatred of the New York Yankees, a team which I’d loathed all my life, was transferred over to Boston. I went to a Sox-Yanks game the next fall and found myself fervently cheering for the men in pinstripes.
It also happened to me this spring when the Celtics met the Lakers in the NBA finals. I’ve always hated the Lakers, but after the Cavs' recent history with the Celtics (dating back to the Paul Pierce wheelchair charade of 2008), I found myself cheering for them. I wanted the Celtics to lose so badly that it negated my previous dislike of the Lakers.
Now this is being taken to a whole new level, extending across all sports. I think Kobe the Lakers are a fine team, and hope to see them win more championships. I think Boston fans are very loyal, Big Baby’s not so bad, and even Paul Pierce doesn’t look like such a ghoul any more. The Yankees have a rich tradition of winning that should be celebrated. Coach K is a good man, and so are his players. Next time I go to a San Francisco Giants game, I’ll cheer for them (unless they’re playing the Dodgers).
But Miami? ... Miami can suck it, big time.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Renaming my dad's car
A few years ago, my dad purchased a Chrysler 300C. You know, the one that’s sort of boxy with the big grill, that looks like a pimpmobile from a P Diddy music video?
We picked on him for weeks… heck, we still pick on him. He loves that car. He never lets anyone drive it. He keeps it so clean it sparkles, and parks it a mile away from his office on the far side of the parking lot so no other cars come near it.
We bought him dice and gave him beads to hang from the rearview mirror. We wanted to name it after a rapper, but my dad wouldn’t have it. Finally, we decided on LeBron. It was perfect. For years, LeBron was a valuable and revered member of the household.
Then, in a massive self-promoting flash, it became the worst name in the history of car-naming.
My dad’s response: “I’m not the one who named it. You were the ones who insisted on naming it LeBron.”
Fair enough. But regardless, we had to find a new name for it. It had to be “hood” without conjuring up unpleasant memories. We came up with a few really bad ideas:
1) Antawn … probably the most high profile Cavalier left, for however long he lasts. Also is a former UNCer with, in my opinion, great character. My dad rejected it immediately. Obviously this is still a sore spot for him.
2) Another Cleveland athlete... how about Josh [Cribbbs]? Grady [Sizemore]? Fausto [Carmona]? Not exactly what we're looking for.
3) Historical Cleveland athletes. Since they’re retired, we know they won’t break our hearts. Jim [Brown]? Larry [Doby]? Bob [Feller]? Is it just me, or do Cleveland legends have really dull names?
4) An unpronounceable symbol that means “the vehicle formerly known as LeBron”
With the discussion going nowhere, we landed on the only viable solution: mobsters.
My dad’s car is now named Silvio. As in Silvio Dante, the consigliore from The Sopranos.
Silvio is a badass. He doesn’t take crap from anyone. He has bling. He could totally drive a 300C.
He didn’t turn traitor. He was loyal to Tony Soprano until the end, and took out other traitors. He didn’t turn on the family, unlike others that shall remain nameless.
So, meet Silvio. It’ll be tough to get used to the new name, but if P Diddy can change names every 8 months, this car can do it once.
We picked on him for weeks… heck, we still pick on him. He loves that car. He never lets anyone drive it. He keeps it so clean it sparkles, and parks it a mile away from his office on the far side of the parking lot so no other cars come near it.
We bought him dice and gave him beads to hang from the rearview mirror. We wanted to name it after a rapper, but my dad wouldn’t have it. Finally, we decided on LeBron. It was perfect. For years, LeBron was a valuable and revered member of the household.
Then, in a massive self-promoting flash, it became the worst name in the history of car-naming.
My dad’s response: “I’m not the one who named it. You were the ones who insisted on naming it LeBron.”
Fair enough. But regardless, we had to find a new name for it. It had to be “hood” without conjuring up unpleasant memories. We came up with a few really bad ideas:
1) Antawn … probably the most high profile Cavalier left, for however long he lasts. Also is a former UNCer with, in my opinion, great character. My dad rejected it immediately. Obviously this is still a sore spot for him.
2) Another Cleveland athlete... how about Josh [Cribbbs]? Grady [Sizemore]? Fausto [Carmona]? Not exactly what we're looking for.
3) Historical Cleveland athletes. Since they’re retired, we know they won’t break our hearts. Jim [Brown]? Larry [Doby]? Bob [Feller]? Is it just me, or do Cleveland legends have really dull names?
4) An unpronounceable symbol that means “the vehicle formerly known as LeBron”
With the discussion going nowhere, we landed on the only viable solution: mobsters.
My dad’s car is now named Silvio. As in Silvio Dante, the consigliore from The Sopranos.
Silvio is a badass. He doesn’t take crap from anyone. He has bling. He could totally drive a 300C.
He didn’t turn traitor. He was loyal to Tony Soprano until the end, and took out other traitors. He didn’t turn on the family, unlike others that shall remain nameless.
So, meet Silvio. It’ll be tough to get used to the new name, but if P Diddy can change names every 8 months, this car can do it once.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The problem with soccer
Rick Reilly wrote an amazing article on the World Cup last week. I'm a huge fan of his (as is probably obvious from my emulating him in this blog), and think he articulated perfectly the frustrations of a non-soccer-fan attempting to watch these games.
I didn't even watch the World Cup until the final game (and even that was not by choice). I respect soccer, and the athletic ability of the players, and the international unity that it brings. But man, the games are boring to watch. 106 minutes of scoreless play? The most exciting thing we got in the first two hours of the final was a "kung-fu kick to the chest," which, last time I checked, was a martial arts move and not a soccer play.
Still, I'll sit through 106 minutes of nil-nil for the sake of friends and international unity. What I can't tolerate is when soccer starts interfering with what really matters to me... and that's baseball.
I'm talking about the vuvuzelas.
I went to 3 baseball games last week, and each one featured at least 1 vuvuzela. You can hear them all the way across the stadium. At first it's funny, then it's kind of funny, then it's plain annoying.
Especially when it's an Oakland A's game, and nothing exciting is happening (since nothing exciting ever happens at A's games, except the occasional perfect game, which I missed because I decided to stay home and watch the Cavs lose instead).
And you're sitting in your $2 nosebleed seat, freezing your tail off because you forgot that evenings in the Bay Area get cold and you didn't bring a jacket for the 4th straight game, and it's already 7-0 Yankees, and all you want is for the game to end so you can go home and defrost, and Javier Vasquez is taking 5 minutes and 15 pickoff attempts before each pitch.
And then someone blows a vuvuzela, and you blame it all on soccer.
I didn't even watch the World Cup until the final game (and even that was not by choice). I respect soccer, and the athletic ability of the players, and the international unity that it brings. But man, the games are boring to watch. 106 minutes of scoreless play? The most exciting thing we got in the first two hours of the final was a "kung-fu kick to the chest," which, last time I checked, was a martial arts move and not a soccer play.
Still, I'll sit through 106 minutes of nil-nil for the sake of friends and international unity. What I can't tolerate is when soccer starts interfering with what really matters to me... and that's baseball.
I'm talking about the vuvuzelas.
I went to 3 baseball games last week, and each one featured at least 1 vuvuzela. You can hear them all the way across the stadium. At first it's funny, then it's kind of funny, then it's plain annoying.
Especially when it's an Oakland A's game, and nothing exciting is happening (since nothing exciting ever happens at A's games, except the occasional perfect game, which I missed because I decided to stay home and watch the Cavs lose instead).
And you're sitting in your $2 nosebleed seat, freezing your tail off because you forgot that evenings in the Bay Area get cold and you didn't bring a jacket for the 4th straight game, and it's already 7-0 Yankees, and all you want is for the game to end so you can go home and defrost, and Javier Vasquez is taking 5 minutes and 15 pickoff attempts before each pitch.
And then someone blows a vuvuzela, and you blame it all on soccer.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Anatomy of an Insult
Up until last week, it was very difficult to insult me. Sure, you could use racist, homophobic, or sexist comments and probably get my blood boiling. But I was generally pretty forgiving.
I've discovered this week that I am brutally offended by insensitive and/or uninformed comments about Cleveland sports.
For example,
1) "LeBron was 'stuck' in Cleveland."
2) "LeBron put Cleveland on the map."
3) "Cleveland fans shouldn't be this upset."
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard comments along these lines over the past few days. Comments like "He has the best chance of winning in Miami" just display ignorance toward the NBA, which I can tolerate. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, taking your ignorance out on the city of Cleveland is just plain low.
I was actually thinking about writing a blog entry a few months ago on how angry I was at NBA fans for bashing LeBron for not winning a title in Cleveland. Now, things have changed a little, but the sentiment is still there. Let's examine.
Comment #1 "LeBron was stuck in Cleveland."
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Last I checked, the Cavs have had the best record in the NBA for the past 2 seasons, have made multiple trips to the Eastern Conference Finals and one trip to the NBA finals.
When I think of someone being "stuck" on a bad team, I think of Alex Rodriguez on the Rangers, or Kevin Garnett on the Timberwolves, or basically anyone that plays for the Nationals. Or Chris Bosh on the Raptors. These guys don't even make the playoffs, and when they become free agents, they leave or demand trades because they want a shot at winning. It's not out of disrespect for the city or the small market, it's simply the nature of the game.
LeBron had a shot at winning. He led the Cavs to the NBA finals with a relatively bad team around him. Since then, they have been a title contender every season and came up short each time.
Jordan came up a little short in his first few years when he kept losing to the Pistons. No one said he was "stuck" in Chicago, and we know how that story wound up ending.
LeBron had every right to leave. He didn't choose to play for Cleveland, he was drafted there. He's 25, and he has a right to try out a new city and a new team. But for people to imply that the past 7 years were a waste... it's just plain insulting.
Comment #2: "LeBron put Cleveland on the map."
Corollary (and this one came from James himself): "Cleveland fans should be grateful for what LeBron gave them."
Maybe if you're a small-minded, casual fan. Okay, he gave Cleveland national media attention where maybe there had not been any. Cavs games were on TV, and I for one appreciate that.
However, Cleveland is not a 3rd world country in need of aid. Yes, it's championship starved and has been on the butt end of about 5 too many heartbreaks. But LeBron James is not the only good thing that has ever happened to Cleveland (as fans that are just now tuning in may assume). The Cavs and Browns were good in the late 80s, and the Indians were good in the 90s and nearly went to the World Series in 2007. Sure, they don't get national media attention, but Cleveland teams have come close to winning many times. Much like the dismantling of the late-90s Indians, the past few years will be added to the long list of times we came up short.
We've had other things to cheer for besides LBJ over the past 10 years, and we'll have other things to cheer for over the next 10 (although I'm willing to bet that Jake Delhomme won't be one of them).
Comment #3: "Cleveland fans shouldn't be this upset."
Are you kidding me? Seriously.
It's not that he left -- we all new that was a possibility. Maybe we were a little delusional, overlooking things like him showing up at an Indians game in a Yankees hat, or showing up at a Browns game in a Cowboys hat. Maybe we thought he was more loyal than he actually is (and we can blame the media for that).
But we knew there was a possibility that he would leave. Especially after the past month of media. What we didn't expect was him clowning out a 1-hour self-promotional special and essentially dumping the entire city on national television without even a hint of remorse.
Cleveland has seen athletes leave in the past. It's a relatively common occurrence, actually. Just last fall, two former Indian Cy Young winners faced off in game 1 of the World Series.
You can leave Cleveland amicably, or you can incur the wrath of fans for years to come.
Examples of revered athletes who left amicably: Jim Thome, Cliff Lee, Kenny Lofton
Examples of once-revered athletes who Clevelanders now hate with the fire of a thousand suns: Albert Belle, Manny Ramirez
... and LeBron James.
Maybe I'm naive, but I truly believe that LeBron could've had a place on the first list (or perhaps a middle-ground). It seems like he thinks he belongs on the first list, like he's been wronged in some way, or misunderstood in some way. But here's the deal.
If he had come out in May and said "hey, I want a change of pace. I've enjoyed the past 7 years but want a different experience and am going to move on," sure, people would've been upset, but they would've respected the honesty.
Hell, if he'd done so much as called anyone on the Cavs prior to 9pm on the night of his decision, maybe the owner wouldn't have written a scathing letter bashing him. I don't necessarily agree with Dan Gilbert's methods, but the content was spot on and James 100% deserved it.
By stringing the Cavs (and 4 other teams for that matter) along for months and turning his announcement into a frenzied spectacle, LeBron transformed himself from a hero into a villain in a matter of seconds. I wish I didn't have to vehemently root against him for the rest of his career, but he brought it on himself.
I've discovered this week that I am brutally offended by insensitive and/or uninformed comments about Cleveland sports.
For example,
1) "LeBron was 'stuck' in Cleveland."
2) "LeBron put Cleveland on the map."
3) "Cleveland fans shouldn't be this upset."
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard comments along these lines over the past few days. Comments like "He has the best chance of winning in Miami" just display ignorance toward the NBA, which I can tolerate. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, taking your ignorance out on the city of Cleveland is just plain low.
I was actually thinking about writing a blog entry a few months ago on how angry I was at NBA fans for bashing LeBron for not winning a title in Cleveland. Now, things have changed a little, but the sentiment is still there. Let's examine.
Comment #1 "LeBron was stuck in Cleveland."
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Last I checked, the Cavs have had the best record in the NBA for the past 2 seasons, have made multiple trips to the Eastern Conference Finals and one trip to the NBA finals.
When I think of someone being "stuck" on a bad team, I think of Alex Rodriguez on the Rangers, or Kevin Garnett on the Timberwolves, or basically anyone that plays for the Nationals. Or Chris Bosh on the Raptors. These guys don't even make the playoffs, and when they become free agents, they leave or demand trades because they want a shot at winning. It's not out of disrespect for the city or the small market, it's simply the nature of the game.
LeBron had a shot at winning. He led the Cavs to the NBA finals with a relatively bad team around him. Since then, they have been a title contender every season and came up short each time.
Jordan came up a little short in his first few years when he kept losing to the Pistons. No one said he was "stuck" in Chicago, and we know how that story wound up ending.
LeBron had every right to leave. He didn't choose to play for Cleveland, he was drafted there. He's 25, and he has a right to try out a new city and a new team. But for people to imply that the past 7 years were a waste... it's just plain insulting.
Comment #2: "LeBron put Cleveland on the map."
Corollary (and this one came from James himself): "Cleveland fans should be grateful for what LeBron gave them."
Maybe if you're a small-minded, casual fan. Okay, he gave Cleveland national media attention where maybe there had not been any. Cavs games were on TV, and I for one appreciate that.
However, Cleveland is not a 3rd world country in need of aid. Yes, it's championship starved and has been on the butt end of about 5 too many heartbreaks. But LeBron James is not the only good thing that has ever happened to Cleveland (as fans that are just now tuning in may assume). The Cavs and Browns were good in the late 80s, and the Indians were good in the 90s and nearly went to the World Series in 2007. Sure, they don't get national media attention, but Cleveland teams have come close to winning many times. Much like the dismantling of the late-90s Indians, the past few years will be added to the long list of times we came up short.
We've had other things to cheer for besides LBJ over the past 10 years, and we'll have other things to cheer for over the next 10 (although I'm willing to bet that Jake Delhomme won't be one of them).
Comment #3: "Cleveland fans shouldn't be this upset."
Are you kidding me? Seriously.
It's not that he left -- we all new that was a possibility. Maybe we were a little delusional, overlooking things like him showing up at an Indians game in a Yankees hat, or showing up at a Browns game in a Cowboys hat. Maybe we thought he was more loyal than he actually is (and we can blame the media for that).
But we knew there was a possibility that he would leave. Especially after the past month of media. What we didn't expect was him clowning out a 1-hour self-promotional special and essentially dumping the entire city on national television without even a hint of remorse.
Cleveland has seen athletes leave in the past. It's a relatively common occurrence, actually. Just last fall, two former Indian Cy Young winners faced off in game 1 of the World Series.
You can leave Cleveland amicably, or you can incur the wrath of fans for years to come.
Examples of revered athletes who left amicably: Jim Thome, Cliff Lee, Kenny Lofton
Examples of once-revered athletes who Clevelanders now hate with the fire of a thousand suns: Albert Belle, Manny Ramirez
... and LeBron James.
Maybe I'm naive, but I truly believe that LeBron could've had a place on the first list (or perhaps a middle-ground). It seems like he thinks he belongs on the first list, like he's been wronged in some way, or misunderstood in some way. But here's the deal.
If he had come out in May and said "hey, I want a change of pace. I've enjoyed the past 7 years but want a different experience and am going to move on," sure, people would've been upset, but they would've respected the honesty.
Hell, if he'd done so much as called anyone on the Cavs prior to 9pm on the night of his decision, maybe the owner wouldn't have written a scathing letter bashing him. I don't necessarily agree with Dan Gilbert's methods, but the content was spot on and James 100% deserved it.
By stringing the Cavs (and 4 other teams for that matter) along for months and turning his announcement into a frenzied spectacle, LeBron transformed himself from a hero into a villain in a matter of seconds. I wish I didn't have to vehemently root against him for the rest of his career, but he brought it on himself.
It was inevitable...
As the resident Cavs fan (loser? sucker?) amongst my friends, I have had many discussions over the past week and have been told no fewer than 5 times, "you should start a blog."
Okay, so the answer to that is, "I have a blog, I just started it on a bored night in March, didn't give anyone the link, and then abandoned it." This isn't to say I haven't been ranting about sports -- I just haven't been organizing the thoughts. Obviously, the events of the past week have spurred a new surge of ramblings, and it's time I start organizing my thoughts again.
The sad part is that I need pages and pages to get it all out...
Okay, so the answer to that is, "I have a blog, I just started it on a bored night in March, didn't give anyone the link, and then abandoned it." This isn't to say I haven't been ranting about sports -- I just haven't been organizing the thoughts. Obviously, the events of the past week have spurred a new surge of ramblings, and it's time I start organizing my thoughts again.
The sad part is that I need pages and pages to get it all out...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)