Old Kobe: Three Rings; New Kobe: 81 Points

Last night Kobe Bryant scored 81 points to lead the Los Angeles Lakers to a 122-104 win over the Toronto Raptors. Only Wilt Chamberlain - with 100 points against the Knicks in 1962 - has scored more points in an NBA game. An absolutely incredible individual achievement ... by an incredibly selfish individual.

The official attendance for the game read 18,997, but it may as well have included all of Kobe's Lakers teammates since they're not given much to do these days but stand around and watch Kobe execute one-on-one moves against overmatched defenders.

Kobe has apparently gotten exactly what he wanted. No longer does he have to suffer the indignity of sharing the spotlight with Shaquille O'Neal as the Lakers win NBA titles. No longer does Kobe have to watch helplessly as mere mortals like Allen Iverson and Tracy McGrady win scoring titles. Now Kobe is Showtime and can win all the scoring titles and possibly even break all the scoring records ... but he's made a conscious trade-off: Personal glory over team success.

You always hear players saying they want to play alongside with Jason Kidd ... or how Steve Nash makes everyone around him better. You never hear anyone saying those things about Kobe Bryant ... and you probably never will.

For years, Kobe Bryant seemed intent on following in the footsteps of Michael Jordan. Numerous players have been prematurely dubbed as heir apparents, but only Bryant comes remotely close to combining Jordan's physical gifts and his killer instinct. Kobe's career does have some parallels to Jordan's ... only Kobe is doing Jordan in reverse.

Jordan started out as an unstoppable one-man show. He almost single-handedly carried the Chicago Bulls to post-season success. The key word being almost. It wasn't until Jordan began trusting his teammates and making them better that he was able to win the NBA title that had eluded him while he attempted to do it all by himself. Once Jordan finally figured out what it took to win an NBA title he wanted to keep doing it ... and he did -- five more times.

Kobe had the good fortune of joining a 53-win team as a rookie and having Shaq, the game's most dominant player, as a teammate. Jordan joined a 27-win Chicago team and had the trio of Steve Johnson, Dave Corzine and Jawann Oldham manning the middle during his rookie campaign.

Jordan didn't win his first NBA title until his seventh season ... at the age of 28. Kobe Bryant won his first title at 21 and now - in his 10th season - is still only 27! Perhaps it all came too easy to Bryant ... or maybe it was just a case of too much too soon. Whatever it was, something changed ... and not for the better.

It was no longer good enough just to win titles ... Kobe needed to be alone in the spotlight. Well, guess what? He got what he wanted.

Kobe Bryant can set all the scoring records he wants, but if he's unwilling to share the spotlight (not to mention the basketball), he's unlikely to ever win another NBA title. And if he never wins another NBA title, Bryant's legacy appears headed towards that of a selfish scoring machine. Baseball fans care about statistics and remember them long after a player has retired. In basketball, it's all about the rings.

Nobody remembers - or really even cares about - the stats put up by Bill Russell or Larry Bird or Magic Johnson or Isiah Thomas or Michael Jordan. Everyone just remembers them as winners. Patrick Ewing, Dominique Wilkins, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton and Reggie Miller were all great players ... but every hoops fan knows they won a total of zero rings between them.

Bryant's three rings can never be taken away from him so he can never belong to the ringless fraternity. However, it no longer looks like he's destined to be mentioned in the same breath as Michael Jordan and the other great "winners" either. Wilt Chamberlain or Bob McAdoo are better comparables ... but even Chamberlain and McAdoo won their scoring titles early in their careers and only later learned to accept playing contributing roles on championship teams. Bryant is going in the opposite direction. He's got the NBA titles ... now he wants the scoring titles ... and history will remember him accordingly.

How Much is Not Enough?

The rules for election to the Baseball Hall of Fame require that a "player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons". Nowhere, however, does it set a minimum requirement for how much a player must play ... only that he played. In other words, a player making a single plate appearance per season for ten seasons would be eligible for induction to the Hall of Fame. Ludicrous example, right? Well, yes and no. A player who appeared in only ten career games would never be elected into the Hall of Fame. However, it does raise the question of just how much a player must play in order to be considered for inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

For example, what's your initial impression of a player who:

* appeared in less than one-third of his team's games over his career

* appeared in the equivalent of 116 complete (nine-inning) games over the course of his career ... or less than three-quarters of one complete (162 game) season

* was on the bench for over 94% of the innings played by his team during his active career

Sound like a Hall of Famer ... or a part-time, role-player? Well, guess what? It’s both. The Hall of Fame player is Bruce Sutter and the part-time role was as a relief specialist -– a closer. Sutter was – without a doubt – excellent at what he did. That's not the question. The question is:

How great do you have to be to gain induction into the Hall of Fame when you’re on the field less than 6% of the time?

During Sutter’s 13-years in the majors (he missed one entire season due to injury), he appeared in 661 games and pitched a total of 1,042.3 innings. Sutter’s innings pitched total is the lowest among all Hall of Famers inducted primarily as pitchers. In fact, even Babe Ruth pitched more innings -– and he only pitched in 163 games during his entire 22-year career.

To put the brevity of Sutter’s career in a more contemporary perspective, consider the following:

Mark Buehrle, Barry Zito, Freddy Garcia, Jeff Weaver, Javier Vazquez, Mark Mulder and Roy Halladay are all under 30-years-of-age ... yet each of these young hurlers has already surpassed Sutter’s career total for innings pitched.

Granted, the role of a closer is very specialized ... and continues to evolve. Closers today do not pitch as many innings per appearance as Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage did in the late 70s and early 80s. So where does this trend end? Mariano Rivera has averaged under 75 innings per season over his first 11 years and he's the greatest closer in baseball history -– a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Again, where does it end?

The closer role has already been reduced to protecting a lead for only three outs. Would a great closer still be Hall of Fame-worthy if the role is further reduced to getting just the final out of the game ... or only 25-30 innings pitched per season (75-90 appearances on one out each)?

Sounds crazy ... but no more crazy than it would have sounded to a baseball fan 50 years ago if you told him that changes in baseball strategy would eventually lead to some of the most dominant pitchers in the game pitching the fewest innings ... or that a player who spent over 94% of his career on the bench would be voted into the Hall of Fame.

Big Tackles from Big Bens

Ironically, the two best defensive plays of the NFL divisional playoffs were tackles made by offensive players.

Champ Bailey's interception and 100-yard return of a Tom Brady pass was not only the most important play in the Denver Broncos' 27-13 win over the New England Patriots, but also the set-up to the most entertaining play of the entire weekend. While Bailey was decelerating to enjoy the final yards of what he thought was a clear path to the end zone, Pats tight end Ben Watson continued his own 100-yard dash from the opposite end zone ... only Watson never slowed down to celebrate. Watson hit Bailey like a freight train about one-foot shy of the end zone, separating Bailey from the ball and sending both flying out-of-bounds. Denver eventually scored, but Watson's play was reminiscent of Super Bowl XXVII when Don Beebe - in one of the most memorable plays in Super Bowl history - came from out of nowhere to strip the ball away from a showboating Leon Lett. Bailey's play may have put an end to New England's dreams of a three-peat, but it was Watson's hustle play that will remain etched in the minds of football fans forever.

The other Big Ben - Pittsburgh QB Ben Roethlisberger - provided a season-saving tackle in the most unlikely of circumstances. The Steelers were up 21-18 with 1:20 remaining and the ball on the Colts 2. Roethlisberger handed off to Jerome Bettis expecting "The Bus" to plunge into the end zone and put the game out of reach. Instead, Indy's Gary Brackett knocked the ball loose and Nick Harper scooped it up and took off toward the Steelers' goal line. Bettis had only fumbled once in the previous two seasons so there's no way Roethlisberger could be anticipating a fumble. Plus his instinct in that situation would be to go for the ball or to try and make the tackle right away -- either of which would have been disastrous. Instead, Big Ben showed the presence of mind to immediately begin sprinting backwards to try and get in position to slow Harper down enough that one of his teammates could catch him from behind. Roethlisberger did even better than that -- making the game-saving tackle himself at the Colts 42. Roethlisberger's heads-up play saved Jerome Bettis from the nightmare of having the final play of his NFL career go down as one of the biggest blunders in NFL history. Instead, Pittsburgh gets "The Tackle" to go alongside 1972's "Immaculate Reception" as two of the greatest - and most improbable - plays in NFL playoff history.

Sutter's Hall Call: Subjective or Arbitrary?

Congratulations to Bruce Sutter on being elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. After failing to gain the required 75% of the vote on his first 12 tries, Sutter now joins Hoyt Wilhelm (elected in 1985), Rollie Fingers (1992) and Dennis Eckersley (2004) as the only relief pitchers enshrined in Cooperstown.

Question: What makes Sutter a Hall of Famer in 2006 when he wasn't deemed worthy of induction in any of preceding 12 years?

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

Bruce Sutter's career stats are exactly the same as they were when he recorded his 300th and final save in 1998. If he deserves to be voted into the Hall of Fame now, then he should have been voted in way back in 1994. If he didn't deserve to be voted in back in 1994 (not to mention 1995-2005) then he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame now.

This is not intended as an indictment of Sutter. This is an indictment of the baseball writers who do the voting. Look at how their opinion of Sutter has steadily improved while the case for his induction has remained exactly the same:

Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006	Votes 109 137 137 130 147 121 192 245 238 266 301 344 400	% of Votes 23.9% 29.8% 29.2% 27.5% 31.1% 24.4% 38.5% 47.6% 50.4% 53.6% 59.5% 66.7% 76.9%

In 1994, over three-out-of-every-four voters felt Bruce Sutter did not belong in the Hall of Fame. This year - 12 years later – over three-out-of-every-four voters feel that Sutter does belong in the Hall of Fame. In other words, over 50% of the voters (largely the same group of writers) changed their mind ... for no reason whatsoever.

Subjective: Based on or influenced by personal opinion.

Arbitrary: Determined by impulse; seemingly random or without reason.

Herein lies the problem. Hall of Fame voting is subjective by nature ... that's fine. In fact, that's what makes the debate entertaining. But 50% changing their minds for no reason? That makes the inclusion of a borderline case (like Sutter) seem almost arbitrary. Subjective is OK. Arbitrary is not OK.

What do we mean by arbitrary? Let's look at an example. Currently, candidates receiving less than 5% of the vote are removed from the ballot. Let's assume a different cutoff, say 50%. In other words, if the majority of voters feel a player belongs in the Hall of Fame, he stays on the ballot. If the majority feels he does not belong, he's off the ballot. Is 50% arbitrary just as arbitrary as 5%? Yes. But unreasonable? No.

Yet, under this scenario, Bruce Sutter would not have been voted into the Hall of Fame. Neither would Ryne Sandberg, Gary Carter, Billy Williams, Hoyt Wilhelm, Luis Aparicio, Don Drysdale or Duke Snider. Over the past 25 years, all of these players climbed in the voting from under 50% to over 75% ... without doing a thing. Voters changed their vote without reason ... arbitrarily.

Here's another example of the arbitrary nature of Hall of Fame voting. Voters like to vote for at least one player each year. So this year – with no automatic first ballot Hall of Famers – was seen as a great opportunity for a frequently passed-over candidate like Sutter (or Goose Gossage or Jim Rice) to get in ... and it was. Next year's ballot will have Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn on it for the first time (not to mention the juice brothers, Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire). Translation: Neither Gossage nor Rice will not get in next year. Not because they will be – in any way – more or less qualified, but rather because voters will be focusing on other players.

2008 will present another golden opportunity for a borderline case to get in. Why? Simply because Tim Raines will be the best first-timer on the ballot and voters will again give Gossage and Rice and Andre Dawson a closer look ... and - in all likelihood - arbitrarily decide that at least one of them deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

Proposal: Leave balloting the way it is. It's flawed but should remain relatively unchanged for the sake of historical consistency. However a new tier of the Hall of Fame should be created ... only it would be limited to 100 players. The Hall of Fame's Hall of Fame. Ten players would be added every year for the next ten years. After that, voters could elect to add a new player to the Top 100 ... but they would have to identify the player they are replacing as well. Voting Ripken and Gwynn into the "regular" Hall of Fame next year is easy. Voting either of them into the Top 100 – when you also have to identify who is to be removed - is an infinitely more difficult call. Subjective? Yes. Fascinating new fodder for debate? Absolutely. But arbitrary? Not at all.

Relax Giants Fans, Eli is Still the Man

It's been less than 24 hours since the New York Giants suffered one of the worst home playoff losses in NFL history, so it's understandable that the team's fans - as well as the media - are using today to rip into the team ... and they deserve it. The final score of 23-0 isn't even indicative of just how dominant the Carolina Panthers were in every single facet of the game. Consider these incredibly one-sided stats:

* Carolina held a staggering 42:45 - 17:15 advantage in time of possession

* Carolina ran 71 plays to only 35 for the Giants

* Carolina gained 335 total yards to only 132 for the Giants

It was – in every way – an embarrassment for the entire team, including the coaching staff. Yet – rightly or wrongly – the NFL is a quarterback league. Quarterbacks get a disproportionate amount of credit when a team wins ... but they also get a disproportionate share of the blame when their team loses.

Don’t worry, this is not where we start to explain how Eli Manning really wasn’t all that bad yesterday against the Carolina Panthers. He was that bad. In fact, he was awful. He looked like exactly what he is -- a 25-year-old, second year pro who was playing in the first NFL playoff game of his career. And that is what Giants fans – and the media – have to keep in mind. Sure, it would have been great if Eli Manning had played with poise beyond his years and carried the Giants to victory against a team that was much better prepared to win yesterday ... but it didn’t happen. Get over it.

Before the season began, the Giants would have eagerly signed up for an 11-5 regular season, an NFC East title and steady signs of progress from their neophyte franchise QB. Well, that’s exactly what they got. [Question: Does Walt “Clyde” Frazier actually own the rights to word "neophyte" or does it just feel that way?].

However, the feeling around New York today is that the Giants might actually have a problem at quarterback ... or at least cause for concern. Maybe Eli Manning will never develop into the QB everyone – and we mean everyone – expected he’d develop into. Relax. It was one game.

While there are no guarantees in sports, here's a scenario that will put things into perspective. You're starting an NFL franchise and can pick any player in the game to build your team's future around. Who's it gonna be?

Sure, Peyton Manning (age 29) and Tom Brady (28) are #1 and #2. Put them in any order you like, but if you're picking at number three, they're both off the board. So who are you going to take at three? Not easy, right? But as you start to consider the names, it's impossible NOT to include Eli Manning in the discussion ... even after yesterday's disaster. Ben Roethlisberger (23) and Carson Palmer (26) would certainly be in the mix (assuming Palmer comes back 100% from yesterday's knee injury). Maybe even college superstars Matt Leinart and Vince Young, though most likely not as early as number three. But that's really about it.

Matt Hasselbeck, Trent Green, Jake Plummer, Jack Delhomme, Kerry Collins, Steve McNair and Brett Favre are all competent QBs ... but they’re all at least 30 and would not be selected ahead of Eli Manning to build around.

There are also a number of other under-30 QBs would may have bright futures in the NFL, including:

Kyle Boller, 24 Drew Brees, 26 Marc Bulger, 28 David Carr, 26 Daunte Culpepper, 28 Byron Leftwich, 25 Donovan McNabb, 29 Kyle Orton, 23 Chad Pennington, 29 Philip Rivers, 24 Aaron Rodgers, 22 Chris Simms, 25 Alex Smith, 21 Michael Vick, 25

Admit it Giants fans, wouldn't you rather have your team's future tied to Eli Manning than any of these guys? Even the great (and by great we mean vastly overrated) Michael Vick? Yes you would.

So what was the point of this exercise? Simply to point out that if you're building around a guy who would arguably be the third overall pick in an expansion draft of the entire league, then things really aren’t all that bad. Just ask the fans of the 25 or so teams who have their Super Bowl dreams pinned on a quarterback whose future remains less promising than that of Eli Manning ... even is he did stink up the joint yesterday.

Dozen Dream Fights for 2006

2005 was yet another up-and-down year for the sport of boxing. Sure, it had its moments (like Corrales-Castillo I), but it would have been much better if fight fans got to see more of the fights they really wanted to see. So here are 12 fights for the next 12 months to make sure 2006 is a year to remember. The good news for fight fans is that nine of these bouts are already scheduled (or at least being actively discussed).
CLICK HERE FOR PREDICTIONS ON ALL 12 FIGHTS.

If Herm Edwards Wants to Leave ... Let Him

The Kansas City Chiefs are reportedly interested in hiring current Jets coach Herm Edwards to take over for the retiring Dick Vermeil. One problem -- Edwards still has two years left on his contract with the New York Jets.

To his credit, Edwards had the Jets playing hard right to the end of the season ... even when it was costing them a shot at Reggie Bush in the 2006 NFL Draft. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Herm Edwards is not a special coach. Good motivator. Terrible game coach. Good results when Chad Pennington is healthy and Curtis Martin is productive. Terrible results when the Chad/Curtis combo is not available to him.

Edwards says he wants to stay with the Jets. Don’t believe it. Edwards wants a raise and an extension ... from whoever is willing to give it to him. And Jets owner Woody Johnson would be foolish to give Edwards either after a 4-12 season.

Jets fans should prepare themselves for a new coach. If Edwards was committed to remaining the head coach of the Jets, then all the speculation over him leaving for Kansas City would have already been silenced. No one benefits when the head coach wants to be somewhere else ... just ask any owner that has continued to sign paychecks for Bill Parcells or Larry Brown while they were busy lining up their next jobs.

If Edwards really wants to leave, then let him ... but accept nothing less than a first-round draft pick as compensation. The Chiefs would be foolish to offer a first-round pick for Herm Edwards. The Jets would be even more foolish to turn it down.

Final 2005 Grades for New York Teams

2005 is over. Time to hand out grades to the professional sports franchises in New York. By New York, we include the football Giants and Jets (which are really New Jersey teams) AND the Buffalo Bills (which really is a New York team). First a look at each team's winning percentage [and record] during calendar year 2005 (including playoff games, if any):

Team Giants Rangers Yankees Nets Mets Islanders Devils Bills Knicks Jets	Winning Pct. [W-L] .706 [12-5] .667 [22-11-5] .581 [97-70] .563 [49-38] .512 [83-79] .486 [17-18-2] .471 [16-18-5] .313 [5-11] .296 [24-57] .222 [4-14]

Collectively, New York teams went 329-321 for an entirely uninspiring .506 winning percentage. Five teams had winning records, while five others lost more games than they won. Three teams (Yankees, Nets, Jets) played post-season games. One other team (Giants) played well enough in 2005 to qualify for the playoffs in 2006. Three other teams played a sport (hockey) which - through its own stupidity - didn't even have any playoffs in 2005.

GRADES:

Yankees: C+
For most teams, a 95-67 regular season, a division title and a trip to the playoffs would merit a significantly better grade than a C+ -- the Yankees aren't most teams. With the highest payroll and winningest tradition in sports history, nothing less than winning the World Series is truly acceptable ... and for the last five years the Yankees' final game of each season has been a playoff loss. Not acceptable. Maybe Johnny Damon can help change that in 2006.

Mets: B-
How do the Mets finish 12 games worse than the Yankees and still get a better grade? Lower expectations. New-additions Pedro Martinez and Carlos Beltran led the Mets to 83 wins and a third-place finish -- a 12-game improvement over 2004. After adding Pedro Delgado and Billy Wagner, it will take another 12-game improvement and a trip to the playoffs to earn better than a C+ in 2006.

Giants: A-
Rebounded from a disappointing 6-10 season in 2004 to capture the NFC East with an 11-5 mark. Tiki Barber was the New York sports MVP of 2005 (sorry A-Rod). Eli Manning may never be the best quarterback in his family but he's the best in the New York ... by a wide margin (sorry Chad). Note: 12-5 record for Giants includes winning final game of 2004 regular season, which was played in 2005.

Jets: D+
Why not an F? It might seem like ages ago, but the Jets actually started 2005 with a two-week playoff run which - with better coaching and placekicking - could have easily lasted at least another week. The 2005 season began with high hopes but - like so many other season in J-E-T-S history - quickly disintegrated into frustration ... desperation ... embarrassment ... and, finally, talk of rebuilding from scratch. Not pretty.

Bills: D
Finished 9-7 in 2004 and seemed to found a stud running back in Willis McGahee, so Bills fans were not prepared to go 5-11 this season. McGahee proved to be a workhorse but it turns out replacing Drew Bledsoe was harder than expected as neither Kelly Holcomb not J.P. Losman distinguished himself at QB.

Nets: B
Finished the 2004-05 season with a 32-22 run to make the playoffs, only to get swept in four straight by the Miami Heat. Started this season 9-12 before winning eight straight to end silly speculation over coach Lawrence Frank's job security and Vince Carter's value to the franchise. If these Nets played at Madison Square Garden, New York would once again be the great basketball city it still considers itself.

Knicks: F
The reason New York City can no longer be considered a truly great basketball town. Finished last season by losing 36 of their final 53 games. The arrival of Larry Brown raised expectations but the team has done the inconceivable -- they'll actually gotten worse under the tutelage of the Hall of Fame coach. The Knicks receive New York's only failing grade for 2005 ... and they've earned it. While the Jets were nearly as bad [excluding their playoff run that began the year], there are two big differences:

1. The Jets always played hard ... unfortunately, the same can't be said for the Knicks.
2. The Jets still own the high draft pick they earned through their losing ways ... the Knicks dealt their pick - maybe a #1 overall - to Chicago in the Eddy Curry deal. Oops.

Rangers: INCOMPLETE
Devils: INCOMPLETE
Islanders: INCOMPLETE
Sorry, but when the hockey pucks that are in charge of your sport cancel an entire season, you don't get a grade. Check in again next year.