Necessary Components For A Successful Team:

                                                 Finding the Right Piece

http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/closing-google-reader-is-dangerous

Every coach and management in each sport can have daunting task when seeking the right players for that particular team especially in the professional level when results determine one’s future with that team.

As the trade deadline approaches for the MLB, basketball trades finally coming to a conclusion and the NFL getting ready for pre-season, each team’s goal is to win the championship. That is the sole reason for playing a ‘team’ sport, correct?

Lately commentators discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each team and based on statistics, these analysts share his/her opinion on the team that will eventually win the ultimate prize.

Ashley Fox, an analyst recently discussed the weaknesses of the Philadelphia Eagles. Let’s examine an analyst’s point of view: 90% is based on statistics and 10% the overall performance and history of teams and each player. The big issue most analysts overlook is that the best player is not always the right player for that team. For instance, the Eagles secondary has no all-pro players and most have been recently drafted. That is a position the Eagles will surely address, however, without a superstar safety, it does not mean the Eagles will lack skill in that position. Recently seen in professional sports, the big name stars will not equate to imeditate success. A perfect example is the secondary of the Philadelphia Eagles in 2012. Last year the Eagles felt Nnamdi Asomugha and Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie were the answer for the defense. Neither player lived up to the hype. Does this mean these players were exposed and are only average football players? No. It may mean that within the particular system of the Eagles, those players' talents were not evident or used best within that system. How can a team be successful if the best players do not reach his potential? How can a team be rated weak in that position with top players? The answer is simple: the correct piece that is needed for the Eagles is the right player, not necessarily the best. 

Back in 1980, Herb Brooks took 20 collegiate ice hockey players and made them superstars when the US National Team defeated the Russians in the semi-finals of the Olympic games which eventually resulted in winning the gold medal. His mentality was finding the right players, not the best players. All-star teams fail because the individual athlete relies solely on his skill whereas the right players use his skill for the betterment of the team that is used within a designed system. Most analysts will state that professional teams do exactly what Herb did, but with high contracts and regulations, it limits a team longevity and time to develop such players within that system. Yes, there have been championships won by having the best players, but there has also been teams will the right players, not the best and that is evident in the 2003 Philadelphia Eagles team who had below average wide-receivers and the 2008 Philadelphia Phillies who won games with a pitcher who was 48 years old. Each team had solid players including youth and veterans, but they won because of the passion and joy they shared playing together as a team and mastering the little aspects of the game. Each team relied on each other and trusted that player would made the correct play or decision. Now, each sport is played for that individual athlete to get a nice pay check for his future, who feels justified if he had only one good season and will do anything to receive the pay regardless of the team. 

Today, there is no team. Teams are paying players high contacts which is killing the overall team dynamics and as a result, it limits the overall productivity and enjoyment from the game. When players were hardly paid, they played for the love of the game and his teammates. The games were exciting. Now, teams who try to buy the best player in free agency may get burned or benefit from the move, but there is no more loyalty in the game. The right pieces are now becoming extinct and the game is evolving to individualism. 

I am sorry to those analysts who rely on statistics as the main answer, not a tool for athletes and success for the game. Just like a computer, stats only represent an aspect of a ball player. The heart, loyalty, and determination cannot be quantified. I would rather coach or watch my favorite teams pick a million average ball players who can play together doing the small things correctly than having one super star. 

Besides most super stars benefit from those so called average players that surround them...thats the beauty of a team sport. Let's hope the future professional athletes will be better than our present athletes in which these players have skill, heart, and intuition  Too many players now are being praised for mediocrity or lauded for doing what is expected. Hold each player to higher standards and be tougher because then each player will learn to rely on his teammate. 

In the end, success of a team is determined by all of those varying pieces that fit perfectly within the bigger puzzle. 

"The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime."-Babe Ruth

Whose Going to Have the Better Legacy?

Brittney Griner vs Elena Delle Donne-the age old debate in women's basketball.

In women's sports, it's rare to find not just one outstanding player in a particular sport, but two and three amazing athletes. This year in women's college basketball there were three standout players, however, the main discussion seem to rally between Brittney Griner and Elena Delle Donne. As evident in the picture above, Griner can dunk the basketball, not an easy feat to do. Delle Donne was once the number one recruit in basketball when she graduated high school and this year during her senior season she has shown why she was once the most sought basketball player in America. As each player begins her professional career in the WNBA, it will be a trust test to see who will leave the better legacy.

Let's examine the two players: Griner, has broken records with her dunking schools and ranks in the top 3 in overall scoring in Division 1 women's basketball. Brittney Griner scored 3,283 points, had 1,305 rebounds, 748 blocks, 18 dunks, and a .569 field goal percentage. Delle Donne scored over 3,000 points as well as averaging 26. 5 points per game over her career at UDel averaged over 8 rebounds per game, shot 91% from the free throw line, and 41.5% from beyond the arc.

In recent years Baylor has been known to have a solid women's basketball program while University of Delaware has only recently received national recognition for its overall success, thanks largely in part of Delle Donne skill and leadership.

Statistically it appears Griner may have the edge in overall dominance, however, I feel Delle Donne will ultimately have the greater impact on her team in the WNBA. Delle Donne has skill to be a power forward as well as a point guard. She has finess in her shot, can handle the ball, and her inutition, leadership, and passion are evident every second of the game. I am not saying that Griner does not contain these attributes, but when you have hight and a physical dominance it appears those athletes only seem to rely on those characteristics instead of developing her other skills like boxing out or ball handling skills. At this moment in time, Delle Donne is already having an immediate impact on the Chicago Sky and Griner seems to be struggling with the overall strength in this new level. It will be great to see who will end up as the ultimate victor!

I wish both players success!

The heart of the champion knows no limit...Thank you Delle Donne for playing for the love of the game and playing the game like it was meant to be played!

http://www.baylorbears.com/sports/w-baskbl/mtt/griner_brittney00.html
http://www.usabasketball.com/bios/delle-donne_elena.html
https://www.facebook.com/wnba

This Use to Be My Playground

Softball-the sport of successful failures

http://www.picstopin.com/1366/baseball-ball-hd-desktop-wallpaper-widescreen-high-definition/http:%7C%7Cwallpaperswide*com%7Cdownload%7Cbaseball_ball-wallpaper-1366x768*jpg/

As the Women's College Softball World Series begins, lets look at this playground that inspired many female athletes. 

Women's softball has always been popular thanks to amazing Olympian players like Dot Richardson, Jennie Finch, Lisa Fernandez, and Natasha Watley. ( I am just naming a few.) However, the game of softball has always been evolving. Since I started playing softball in the mid 90's the equipment has drastically changed and in the 2000's it has even changed the outcome of the game. For instance, my first bat was aluminum and any hit I had was produce by my power and mechanics. As travel teams emerged and leagues became more competitive, the bats had more technology, the pitchers mound was moved back three feet, and the catchers gear limited mobility-at least for me. Softball games use to be all about strategy where a team would win 1-0. Now, teams are averaging higher batting averages, more runs are scored and overall more people are watching the game. 

Success, right? Wrong. As I began my coaching career in softball, I realized the mechanics are one of the only strengths most softball players utilized and cannot understand the finesse that comes with the mechanics. For instance, a college softball player can slap a ball and reach base safely or a batter can hit a homerun off a ball where they did not have a level swing and as a result they are praised. The game is no longer about instincts, but rather manufactured success....Is this softball?

As I reflect back on my youth and realize how quickly the game has changed, I can only wonder what is in store for this sport. If only all of these present, past, and future players have that athletic IQ, finesse to strengthen her skills, and have equipment that does not dictate a game, then maybe the game would be worth the bragging rights it richly deserves. Sadly, this game is tainted, not like that of baseball, but similar to inflated grades in college where we as a society expect results and want everything to be exciting...who said a run one ball game isn't? Even though we cannot turn back time and play the game like it once was, there is still hope. The hope stems from passionate and solid athletes that make my coaching experience joyous because we can then share the love of the game. Despite the changes, if there is just that one player that can think or react like those old greats, then the game of softball is still alive.

Let's get back to the playground and start from the basics so this wonderful game of successful failures can continue to grow and inspire the next Dot Richardsons! 

"A true champion is someone who wants to make a difference, who never gives up, and who gives everything she has no matter what the circumstances are. A true champion works hard and never looses sight of her dreams."-Dr. Dot Richardson

Are Players Worth the Price?

Money Money Money Money...MONEY

                                                  http://jockpost.com/business-baseball/

In every professional sport, the athlete tries to be the best player he can at his sport or position in order to receive an insane paycheck for years to come. Is this good or bad business?

Over the years, the athletes and his agent have had these lucrative deals where the athlete will be paid well despite lack of production for that year or years in the contract. These deals have created significant changes in teams during the season to trade players to reduce the amount of money owed because the contracts are too high or the player is owed too much and his production has been dismal.  For instance, Vernon Wells is owed 20 million dollars still by his former team despite being traded to the New York Yankees. He is a typical case where an athlete's career has been overpaid for his services that have been mediocre. Yes, his WAR is next to Alex Rodriguez who has the highest in the MLB, but does that justified the means to an end? Wells has had a few good years, whereas Rodriquez has been more consistent, yet both players are lacking in production and are more harmful to the team than helpful. Is Alex worth the $29 million he is owed this year and next? Not at all, especially since he has been linked to PED's and is under another investigation.

These high salaries are making it nearly impossible to maintain a solid team throughout a year let alone 5 or 10 years. In fact, more teams trade away players just to keep one or two solid players because of high salaries. The Boston Red Sox have traded away half the team to reduce salary cap taxes and have begun to start over. The players need to realize that each insane paycheck he accepts, it limits the teams overall success. Let's face it, the higher one person is payed (everyone else wants that high paycheck), it limits other good players from staying in that organization and each year the player's salary increases even if the production decreases by the player.

In order to keep each team a potential victor for the championship, the players should be paid based off of performance. Each year, there should be a base salary that the professional athletes can make and if they are not playing well, then that player will receive the money close to base salary. If the player becomes a CY Young candidate or recipient, or MVP of the league or golden glove or silver slugger recipient then the players should receive a high salary based on production. Bryce Harper is a young phenom as a rookie, therefore, he can only receive a set salary based off on the MLB regulations.

Let's examine that logic.... Age-young + Production-Highly successful = base salary
                                        Age-middle/older age + Production-successful/statistics average or lower = High Salary.

* (minimum salary in the MLB is $450,000).

By standard business practices, the individual that produced results receives the higher pay and the one who did not only receives the base salary...hmmm interesting.

Pitchers who are considered the best in the game that play every 5 games have salaries that are $15-26 million per year compared to highly talented catchers that play every game unless they are injured tend to make on average $5-23 million per year. The highest paid catcher is Joe Mauer who is receiving $23 million this year, where the next highest is Buster Posey at $18 million followed by Molina at $15 million. Are these players worth the cost and the overall expense to the teams they play on?

The Philadelphia Phillies are paying three of their starting pitchers $20 plus million and those three pitchers are the ten highest paid in baseball.  Why? Isn't the point of a pitcher just to get the ball over the plate so the defense can make a play? Why are contracts so high when a player has not yet proven his worth for that year? Yes, he may have in that particular season, but what about the rest of the contract?

I believe the saying goes "You are only as good as your last at bat." If thats true, why do we praise 1st baseman lucrative deals when they tend to only hit home-runs or they strike out? If the game of baseball or any professional sport is going to succeed these deals need to end. The game is no longer the true game of baseball where every ball or inch mattered, instead it has become entertainment like that of a movie rather than a sport.

The athletes need to play the game of baseball (football, basketball, etc.) rather than playing the game for the highest paycheck, otherwise, what is the point of sports? Shouldn't we all then try to be a famous athlete and wear a uniform to work?

Professionals and amateurs should be synonymous  but it is not. Amateur means for the love of the game, where professionals look the part...let's get back to playing for the love of the game.

Is the Pro Bowl worthy to watch?

2013 Pro Bowl Game-Peyton Manning representing the AFC, and Adrian Peterson representing the NFC.

As the Pro Bowl is near, the constant debate remains. Should the Pro Bowl exist or be completely cancelled?

Last year, Roger Goodell wanted to cancel the Pro Bowl due to fans extremely upset with the play of these "pro bowlers". The term "pro bowl" means that these selected individuals were selected by fans and his peers that he was the best at his position: however, it seems to be more a popularity contest than actual ability. For instance, the teams that seem to be more victorious tend to have more players, but does that mean those players are better than teams with subpar records? No. I know at least four teams that do not have one player on the roster nor as an alternative. Why? If this is suppose to be exciting, by not having at least one player from each team on the "Pro Bowl" squad than it already eliminates certain fans to watch the game. I am not saying that each team needs a player to keep it interesting, but that would reduce the low television ranks.

The big issue with the pro bowl is the money and the incentives these players receive. The players want a bonus. It's one thing just to receive a bonus, but winning the pro bowl game allows that team to recieve more money on top of a nice trip Honolulu. It's a dream come true. Each pro bowler receives money and a nice vacation. If you were a player enjoying a nice vacation and receiving more money besides your regularly high pay check what is the purpose to play? The past few years, the pro bowl is infamous for players not trying to tackle or play hard because they fear injuries so the scoring is ridiculously high making it seem more of a walk through practice than an actual game.

Too bad this game lacks cockiness and attitude to be deemed the best of the best, not just a pro bowler. Why is football such a great sport? Camaraderie and hard hits make football enjoyable to watch.

The injured players or those players going to the super bowl are still paid despite them missing the action to unpredicted circumstances.

If the players do not care, why should we the viewers care?

The pro bowl use to be after the super bowl and it was a nice way to end the season. Imagine winning the super bowl and then seeing all the other greats on the same field at the same time. The last game of the 2012 season. Although the money seems to have the most power, more fans watched the pro bowl after the super bowl than before the super bowl and there was no issue with any player missing the pro bowl except those injured players.

I know the MLB, NBA all have mid-year all-star games, which I think is ludicrous since some athletes emerge after the break where others dwindle. Does the "best" no longer have meaning? Or are all these games just to make more money.

If the latter, why do we watch them? What perks does it have on the viewers? In the Baseball All-star game, it determines home field advantage in the world series, which means that All Star game holds a purpose for the baseball season. Again, I think the team with the best record should have home field advantage since these players playing in the mid-season game won't necessarily remain consistent statistically.

If everything is based off of luck or mid-season form, what is the purpose of these all-star games? MONEY!

I think it is essential to recognize those athletes that had remarkable seasons and its great seeing them with those other greats as well, but is there something we can change in order for ball players to take the game seriously and us the viewers to actually enjoy the game?

I think the best solution is having all the all-star games at the end of the year where the winning team is the only team to receive a bonus. Let's face it, these athletes already receive incentives for winning MVP of the league, or best defender, and this way we are making them play to earn his bonus.

Even the olympians love being in the olympics, but it is never enough for them. To win a gold medal puts those athletes on elite status of the world and sets themselves apart from the rest of the olympians, so why not treat our athletes that same way. Give glory and praise to those athletes that not only proved it during the season, but the all star game as well and that way there is no doubt for that sports season that player or those players were the best.





Sources: http://www.nfl.com/probowl

Old News: Chip Kelly in Philadelphia...New News: Hybrid

Chip Kelly-A New Movement in Eagles Mentality

Chip Kelly the new Philadelphia Eagles Coach in action.

Now that all the dust has settled with Chip Kelly, it's time to assess his scheme and mentality he brings to the Philadelphia Eagles. 

It is known to every football phanatic that he has an uptempo offense and he is very charasmatic. 

Problem one: How is this going to work with the current Eagles roster?

Solution: Keep Foles, lose Vick and create a hybrid of the pocket passer with an electric uptempo offense. It sounds complex, but yet its simple. The Eagles can use the fourth round pick to help create that uptempo offense in the red-zone and use Foles for the pocket passing. Let's face it, Vick can be a threat to any defense; however, he is injury prone and losing his step. Just because an athlete loses his step does not mean rid him right away- for instance, the Eagles made a big mistake not keeping Brain Dawkins who was the heart and soul of the defense and team. Mike Vick, on the other hand, does not have that leadership nor the desire to be a leader and play as a team. Now that Vick is out, McCoy is a dynamic back that can be used in the slot or up the gut, which allows the Eagles to stretch out the defense in the red-zone. That's where Brent Celek would be perfect for overpowering the small defensive ends. Finally, use the number four pick to find a dynamic player that can throw and run to fill that hole in the uptempo offense in the red-zone. This is a perfect time to rebuild, reinvigorate and finally utilize the talent from each player on the team. 

Problem two: How can a college coach control these very out-spoken and cocky athletes? 

Solution: Chip Kelly is a college coach who loves to control his team. I think Chip will have to use that mentality to refocus the Eagles and make them act as a team and not as individuals. The only way he could succeed is using this hybrid technique because it utilizes the talent so the players will be actively used; ergo, they will not complain too much and he needs to be a tough coach that will not tolerate mediocre play or attitude.

I have no doubt that his coaching talent will be successful, but it does take a team and organization to succeed. It will take a long time, so the sooner the Eagles start, the better. That means, rid of Vick and reshuffle the deck. 

Let's Go Eagles! 

"Coaches who can outline plays on a black board are a dime a dozen. The ones who win get inside their player and motivate"-Vince Lombardi



Source: phillysportslive.com

Field of Dreams

Where does the Baseball Hall of Fame leave America's game in the future?

http://www.neontommy.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Shotgun%20P4%20Field%20of%20Dreams.jpg

Today in the Baseball world, many fans, players, and analysts are at odds. For the first time since 1996, no one was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame for 2013. This years class includes players like Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, and Mike Piazza. 

Lets take a quick look at these candidates. 

Craig Biggio had the highest percentage of votes (68.2% of votes, needs 75%). One of few players on this list who was not linked to steroid use.

Barry Bonds on the other hand is linked to taking performance-enhancing drugs only received 36.2% of the votes. Despite that, Bonds is still considered one of the greatest hitters of baseball.

Lastly, Mike Piazza, considered one of the best hitter catchers of all time, I think faired well in this years class with 57.8% of the votes despite his uncertainty with taking performance-enhancing drugs.

Whether or not these athletes took steroids should not be in question. The real question should examine the purpose and meaning of being an inductee into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Ok, so lets take a look.

What is the Baseball Hall of Fame? According to sportingcharts.com, they define it to be "A building located in Cooperstown, New York that functions as both a baseball museum and a venue displaying the accomplishments of, and honoring the memory of baseball's greatest players. Also defined as the collection of players, managers, coaches, and other individuals associated with the history of baseball who have been honored as cherished and valuable contributors to the game."

Based on that definition, I am not surprised that fans, athletes, analysts, and voters are at odds when the game has become more complicated thanks to the usage of performance-enhancing drugs. How can those who have used substances receive such a prestigious award and forever be remembered? How can some of the best players of the game not be included? 

These questions have been debated time and time again. Looking back at the definition, the Hall of Fame "honors the memory of baseball's greatest players...individuals who have been honored as cherished and valuable contributors to the game" can everyone who values the HOF look at those players already in the Hall of Fame and players on the 2013 list and assess the talent. 

Is the significance of the Hall of Fame only to recognize talent or does it represent the man on and off the field who has the best talent? These questions reveal two different answers and viewpoints on the Baseball Hall of Fame. 

The Baseball Hall of Fame to kids is a dream that is untouchable. To be considered in the HOF with legends like Hank Aaron, Yogi Berra, and Babe Ruth is like living in a dream with faces that defined baseball.  These athletes played the game because it was a passion and just for a moment these players were raised to immortal status for a few hours during every game. 

Today, analysts and players talk about being inducted into the HOF like these players have already received his plaque. Here is an example: Derek Jeter is an outstanding shortstop for the Yankees organization and along the way he has been a great hitter, leader, and fielder. Each of those qualities put Jeter on a different level than most great athletes. Derek Jeter, although his career may be ending soon, has already been discussed a sure inductee when he is eligible. That is a tremendous honor and exciting for Jeter; however, during the past few seasons the focus has been on his achievements and not of the Yankees success. 

Why is it that analysts write the ending of each great player before the player has a say? Taking Jeter for instance, he probably will be inductee into the Hall of Fame as soon as his name is on the ballot, but some athletes will not have his path into the HOF. 

In a media driven society, is a player not defined by his actions off the field as much as on the field? The candidates for the 2013 HOF class is not just dealing with stereotype of the 'steroid era', but they are fighting with media and how they are portrayed. Athletes need to understand that in today's society, they have to be extra careful with his actions and how it can taint the future. Barry Bonds is considered by some to be one of the top 10 players in baseball history for his impeccable hitting qualities, but his actions to be linked to steroids have hindered his successes. Unlike Bonds, Mike Piazza was not found nor did he reveal if he used performance-enhancing drugs (although people have their speculation that he did), he is considered one of the best hitting catchers in baseball. The unique aspect about Piazza is his hitting statistics are considered HOF worthy, however, his defense, leadership, and running abilities were subpar. I know many may try to despite that, but throughout baseball its rare to find a catcher who hits for power, accuracy, great defender, great rapport with the pitchers, and a solid runner = ultimate catcher. I do not think statistically Piazza falls under that category, but as a hitter absolutely. With that being said, is Piazza's fame due to mediocre catchers during the 90's? What should be assessed for these HOF candidates is the team's overall success while they were playing. A man is never bigger than the game in this era especially in a sport like baseball when you can do everything by the book and fail and succeed by luck and that is why the 'steroid era' is in question. 

America's game... America's game anymore? 

Despite the controversy over this years ballot, there are a few players who may have lost the chance to be inducted into the HOF because of performance-enhancing drugs. Craig Biggio is not linked to drugs and his legacy is hitting 3,000 hits and being one of the top second basemen in baseball. His only downfall was ending his career subpar, which most analysts believe it is one of the reasons for Biggio to not get the nod in this years HOF. 

How do we fix this debacle? Simple: Re-define what it means to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame. This has to included characteristics off the field is just as important as on the field, drug usage  etc, or keep the old definition and let the voters have their say and the rest is up to the Baseball gods. 

The game is changing, but it doesn't mean we change our past, we just have to remind ourselves to look back to the roots of the game to  help pave the way for the future. 

"I always thought that record would stand until it was broken."-Yogi Berra

http://bestclipartblog.com/clipart-pics/-baseball-clipart-1.jpg

Sources: http://www.sportingcharts.com/dictionary/mlb/national-baseball-hall-of-fame.aspx

http://www.nndb.com/honors/351/000044219/

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/quoberra.shtml

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1477358-mlb-announces-2013-hall-of-fame-inductees