Geoff Decker’s whereIstand blog

I remember doing a public speaking debate during my senior year in high school that addressed the issue: Should high school student-athletes be drug tested?

I was overwhelmingly opposed to it. This issue should probably have been more clearly defined because there is a small, but growing movement to install drug testing in high school. I thought this was ludicrous at the time. Then again, it was a simpler time when the home run era was in bloom and, more importantly, clean.

Then everything came undone. The BALCO (Bay Area Labratory Co-Operation) investigation exposed not only baseball stars Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds, but also 5-time medalist Marion Jones and current world record holder Tim Montgomery.

At the time, my vehemence against high school testing was related to high costs and low effectiveness or necessity. The fact was, studies at the time indicated that less than 5% of high schoolers had used performance enhancing drugs. It was hardly an epidemic.

Now, it is a tough call. The Florida state senate recently approved state-wide random drug-testing for its HS athletes. College was never in doubt in my opinion. At that level, performance can often mean the difference between a multi-million dollar paycheck upon graduation and a has-been gas pump attendant. There needs to be a system in place to monitor such temptations.

But high school? Once again, maybe I’m just late to the game and think the sports arena is an innocent, can’t-do-wrong institution. Now, obviously, I understand that’s not true, but the sanctity of competition is on the line when unfair performance enhancement plays into the equation and high school sports is the most pure form of competition. For anyone who has ever played on a high school team understands this.

whereIstand Tags

• BarryBonds
• Should student-athletes be drug tested?

(Warning: sweeping generalizations will be made in subsequent paragraphs.)

Contrary to what my previous blog entry indicated, I do think there’s a left-leaning bias.

And I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Here’s why:

The south is predominantly Republican, right? The south has the worst performing school systems in the country, right?

Two truths.

The allegedly left-leaning Northeast boasts the most colleges proportionately of any region in America. Northeast “elites” generally receive an excellent education.

Two truths. (Maybe).

In terms of liberal bias, the most widely criticized institutions are higher education and journalism.

But let’s keep in mind the truths I’ve listed above and think about this for a second. College professors, who’s job it is to teach at the highest level of education, probably spend a ton of their time reading and learning, right?

Journalists, who’s job it is to gather as much information about a ‘beat’ — through interviews, personal accounts and reading through relevant documents — must spend a ton of their time researching, right?

So, when two of the most well-read professions in the country are considered liberal maybe there’s something to their political opinions. Maybe they found something buried between all those pages of knowledge and all those years of intellectual stimulation.

Is it wrong that they’re liberal? I don’t think that’s the question. The question is, what do they know that the others don’t?

The left-leaning bias in the media is too often misinterpreted. I think journalists are just doing their job. I can’t say for certain, though, because I just didn’t pay enough attention to how the news was reported when Clinton was office and the Democrats controlled congress. It was also a different world. The 24-hour news cycle was in its nascent stages and the advent of online journalism and blogging was still being invented by Al Gore.

But I’d imagine that a balanced and fair news report awarded equal scrutiny to stories that came from the White House and Capitol during those times. So I’m not entirely convinced that journalists at the NY Times and at MSNBC rendezvous in their conference rooms like mad scientists attempting to create left-wing conspiracies.

I just think it kind of happens. No matter where you stand on the political horizon, you’d be hard pressed to find an awful lot of good things to say about the people who’ve been in charge of running our country the last 8 years. The war, the scandals, the cover-ups.
But that’s besides the point. Journalists are, by nature, overly critical. They’re job is to explore and scrutinize every angle of a story.

Find me an organization donating millions of dollars to a charitable foundation and I’ll find you a fortune 500 company simply fulfilling its corporate responsibility to improve its public opinion.

Good journalists eventually get to a point where even in their non-working life, they live under a cloud of scrutiny. In my short time working for a paper, the grizzled veterans on staff were eternally grumpy, bitter and always willing to play devil’s advocate with me — even as I lauded the merits of, say, cheese. For instance, I love how delicious it is and how it melts onto food, in effect, creating even more deliciousness.

They’d pick me apart for supporting inhumane treatment of cows and for not tolerating the plight of those that are lactose intolerant.

As we attempt to work our way through the steroids issue on this site a well-rounded look at all perspectives is necessary . Because of the nature of this debate, there many layers that need to be explored and weighed.

Our first big-time baseball steroids issue has been approved and its a doozy:

 Should Mark McGwire be voted into the Hall of Fame?

Big Mac. A name once reminiscent of Baseball’s return from the low popularity years that followed the ‘94 Strike. The ‘98 home run race with Sammy Sosa absolutely captivated our country. The rate that they slugged balls out of the park was as exciting as it was mind boggling. The reason for the former is obvious. If we had only considered more deeply the reason for the latter.

Watching a tiny ball explode off a bat and soar far into a stadium’s blinding lights and reappearing into the waiting arms of a group of excited fans is one of the coolest sights in sports. But how were these men doing it? How were they making extraordinary home run records — records that previously stood for 34 and 38 years, respectively — look, well, ordinary?

Consider: Before the 1998 season, Roger Maris held the single season home run record with 61 (1961). Before that it was Babe Ruth in 1927 with 60. After the 1998, the record books were literally re-written. According to Baseball Reference, the top 6 places for single season home run marks look like this:

1. Barry Bonds, 73 HR in 2001
2. Mark McGwire, 70 HR in 1998
3. Sammy Sosa, 66 HR in 1998
4. Mark McGwire, 65 HR in 1999
5. Sammy Sosa, 64 HR, 2001
6. Sammy Sosa, 63, 1999

Analysts looked everywhere to explains the “home run boom.” Better conditioning. Watered down pitching. Smaller ballparks. Virtually no one brought up steroids. Sure there were rumors, but no one took them too seriously. How could we? We were having too much fun watching balls soar out of the ballpark.

Let’s all just take a step back and withhold judgment on Randy Moss until at least preseason. In the week after players reported for their first required team practice of the off season — known as minicamp — it seems like every armchair quarterback had something to say about Moss and his first offseason with the world class New england Patriots.

Michael Felger, an otherwise knowledgeable source and Boston Globe beat writer had this to say about Moss:

FOXBORO - If you want to get excited about Randy Moss and what he’ll bring to the Patriots [team stats] in 2007, here’s a bit of advice:

Don’t watch him practice.

Moss was content to remain in the pack. He never was first in line. He certainly didn’t make defensive backs look foolish. Aside from climbing the ladder once or twice on high throws, he didn’t give any hints of his prodigious physical gifts.

Based on his performance, it was as if Moss was saying, “I don’t care how I’m viewed. I don’t care about my reputation. I’m going about business the same way.”

Jeez Mike, give the guy a chance. Players at mini camp play at about 70% game speed and don’t have pads.

Oh wait, the mainstream response to that is "he’s already had two chances with his previous teams. He needs to prove himself all over again."

Fair enough, but the guy has done nothing in the off season to summon those ghosts. He’s not only said all the right things but he’s back them up with action as well. Accepting salary reductions, taking red-eye flights to meet with team personnel, reporting to Foxboro early for conditioning drills. Sports Illustrated’s Peter King paints an entirely different story than Felger in his "Inside the NFL" column last week:

At his first Patriots minicamp, wideout Randy Moss looked like a new man. Can a player disparaged for his work ethic succeed in an all-for-one ethos?

At 2 a.m. on April 29 coach Bill Belichick called Moss in Houston and informed him that he would have to accept a $6.25 million reduction in his $9.25 million base salary and undergo a physical in Boston within 10 hours if he wanted to be a Patriot. Moss immediately agreed to the pay cut and hired a private plane to rush him to New England. He also changed two weeks of personal plans for early May so that he could attend the Pats’ off-season program, though he was not ordered to do so by Belichick. At New England’s Organized Team Activities — practices without pads that NFL teams hold each spring — Moss felt he was lagging in conditioning drills, so when the Patriots took the last week of May off, he stayed in Foxborough for four days of aerobic work.

Now, who to believe…the Patriots beat writer or a 30-year NFL sports writing vet. Honestly, its a toss-up.

Thankfully its June.

The season doesn’t start until September and the first significant news shouldn’t be reported until July 27, when preseason camps open up.

But that won’t stop fantasy football players, Patriots fanatics and, yes, even traditional media like King and Felger, from speculating on each and every move the guy makes now until then. In the meantime, sit back and take it for what it’s worth. A big load of here say.

whereIstand Tags

• What effect will Randy Moss’ acquisition have on the New England Patriots?

Bill Simmons makes a good point and manages to cop out entirely on the issue at the same time.

He writes:

Just to clear something up: I abstained from voting for ESPN.com’s "NBA Best Centers Ever" package because I’m a snob about stuff like this. A question like that can’t be answered without specific guidelines — for instance, are you talking about careers, or the ceiling of every center? Kareem had a better career than Walton, but if you were picking between them for one game and your life depended on it, you’d take Walton. There’s no debate. Also, are we talking about the impact of the players when they played, or how they compared to every other great center? Russell and Wilt put up phenomenal numbers in the ’60s, but you’re telling me that Hakeem wouldn’t have averaged a 45-25 in 1962? That’s why I had to abstain. There’s no real way to answer the question.

Thanks, Bill (I’m on a first name basis). You’ve managed to once again keep an opinionated frame of mind without actually committing to any stand on this issue. Kudos.

But, as usual, he makes sense. Too many times titles like "greatest"  and "best" get abused in making a point about someone who’s accomplishments are exaggerated.

And this issue might be one of the all-time abuses because, as Simmons explained, many factors should be considered. He didn’t even address George Mikan, the first true "big man" who forced the game to change its rules and who now has a fundamental basketball drill named after him. Talk about transcending generations.

Luckily, these factors can be rendered mute because we are thankfully graced by the presence of Shaquille O’neal, whose prodigal talents and physical attributes rank him #1 in all categories considered in the "greatest center" debate.

In terms of players within his own playing career, let’s immediately anoint Shaq the greatest of his era. Statistically, we can eliminate Hakeem and David Robinson, two guys who, in their own right were among the greatest (4 NBA Championships; 2 MVP’s between them). Even by achievements, Shaq won 4 Championships, 3 of which he was named the MVP.

As of 2006, Shaq’s career stats averaged 5 points per game (26.3 to Hakeem’s 21.8; to Robinson’s 21.1) and over half a rebound more than his Hall of Fame counterparts. Simply put, in an era when 7-footers were as frequent as they were dominant (others included Patrick Ewing, Rik Smits, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutumbo) Shaq dominated them all.

For the sake of argument, I concede that Hakeem made up some ground on defense, of which he’s the career leader in blocks, and at the free throw line, where Shaq is paltry.

But let’s span eras. Wilt Chamberlain averaged 30.1 points a game from 1959-1972 when there was less than 10 teams in the league and they played about 20 games less per season. He also scored 60 or more points 32 times, including 100 in one game. In terms of domination against his competition, its clear Chamberlain was unstoppable.

But what was his competition exactly? A guy name Russell, who is arguably the greatest defensive center to play the game. For all that he accomplished, including leading his Boston Celtics to 11 NBA Championships, he only averaged 15 points a game for his career.

And how about his teammates? As John Hollinger points out, Russell never had fewer than 3 hall of famers playing along side him in any season.

But how thin was their competition? Pretty thin. Literally. Wilt was 250 and 7′0. Russell was 225 and 6′9". Shaq was 300 and 7′1". If Shaq played in that era can you imagine what he would have done to the competition? Against smaller competition in less games per season, is it even fair to discuss Shaq’s potential statistical lines?

The only candidate left that can hold a candle to Shaq is Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. 24.6 and 11 per game for his career and 6 NBA Championships. He was a staple on those dominant Lakers teams in the 1980’s, but ‘dominance’ to describe his game isn’t a word associated with Sweet Lew. At 7′2" and 225 pounds he relied more on his smooth sky hook than any power post moves that became the norm in the 90’s. Plus, after 1985, the Laker became Magic Johnson’s team.

With Shaq, it was always his team. During his run with his version of the Lakers, Kobe, for all his infinite ability couldn’t have accomplished what he did with Big Diesel.

And that’s the final point of difference. Dominance. Shaq’s dominance would have transcended basketball eras. His size, his skill set, his nimble feet, his court vision. Its dominance that is exactly what should embody a center.

whereIstand Tags

• Who is the NBA’s greatest center of all time?