Rare Air

Serena Williams, the number WTA one ranked women’s tennis player in the world, defeated #2 ranked Victoria Azarenka in the U.S. Open Finals in three sets to win her second Grand Slam singles event this year and the 17^th of her career. Williams has been on a tear during the past two calendar years that the sports world has not seen in about 10 years, when Tigers Woods was running away with the PGA Tour, seemingly light years away from the pack. 

Williams has nine total singles tournament wins in 2013. She has four Grand Slam singles titles since 2012 and six (count them…SIX) in the last four calendar years. She has also been a Grand Slam singles runner-up four times in her career, last at the 2011 U.S. Open, twice losing a Grand Slam Final to her older sister, Venus Williams.  

Williams, right, rubbed out the next best player on the planet, Azarenka, left. That drop-off from #1 to #2 looks steep at the moment! 1

IT DOESN’T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST

Nine days out of ten, this blog will comment on one of the five following categories of sports: the NFL, the NBA, MLB, college football, and college basketball. I am not a tennis enthusiast. I am a casual fan at best. I’ve taken a few whacks at ball with a racket with friends at recreational facilities. 

I couldn’t tell you any of the technical strategies in the game. I know the names of most of the past greats of the last 30 years but could not rattle off one defining moment by the year and event. Regarding tennis, I probably fit the profile of the typical American sports fan. Like you, I am a fan of sports and, probably like you, I am captivated by excellence. 

My garden-variety sports fan knowledge is significant because even to guys like me, the resume of Serena Williams, who turns 32 at the end of this month, is staggering. Noticing her overpowering dominance of her sport is unavoidable. Williams’ run of the last two years has vaulted her into the discussion about the greatest women’s tennis player(s) of all-time.

Maria sharapova: another one bites the dust at this year's French Open. 2

WHEN WILL IT STOP?

In a sport whose superstars are most dominant around age 25, Serena has been on the “wrong side” of that milestone. It makes her vanquishing of very formidable opponents, like the 24-year-old Azarenka, more spectacular. In a sport nearly void of American stars (especially among the men) and dominated by Eastern Europeans, Williams has kept the Red, White, and Blue at the top of the tennis mountain.

Among the Big Two country club sports, golf and tennis, much of the media attention has been focused on Woods, who is dominating all of the tournaments except for the big ones. If I never hear about Woods chasing down Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 major tournament wins before Woods actually wins another major tournament, it will be too soon. Meanwhile, Williams probably need to expand her trophy room if she continues to perform anywhere near the level at which she has throughout this decade. 

Williams is currently sixth all-time among women’s tennis players for Grand Slam tournaments won (fourth all-time since the open era began in 1968), one short of International Tennis Hall of Famers Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. Margaret Court is the all-time leader at 24 and Steffi Graf is the all-time Open Era leader at 22. I see nothing short of a debilitating injury to preclude Williams from eclipsing all of these milestones. Excellence in sports goes beyond the numbers, but should Williams play for another five years and win Grand Slam titles at the pace at which see has done so over the last four year, she would surpass Court with room to spare (Roger Federer is the men’s all-time leader with 17 Grand Slam singles titles).

Agnieszka Radwanska got the plate from the kiddie table at Wimbledon in 2012. 3

LAST NAME “EVER”, FIRST NAME “GREATEST”?

Taking athleticism, longevity, and winning into account, I do not think it is too soon to begin debating whether or not Williams is the greatest women’s player of all-time. People with more tennis knowledge than I have could craft compelling arguments for either side. Williams is in a rare position for an all-time great American athlete in any sport: she has an opportunity to erase any reasonable doubts.

Serena Williams vs Seffi Graf? Sports fans don't have a time machine, but most of us can count. That torch might be passed without argument. 4

Don't forget to vote in the fan polls! 

To advertise with The Daily Hat Trick, or to submit a guest column, please contact the editor at eric@thedailyhattrick.info. 

The Daily Hat Trick is sponsored by Sports N Stuff. For great deals on jerseys, shirts, cologne, and other guy stuff, visit http://www.sportsnstuff.biz/.

1) Image from http://espn.go.com
2) Image from www.sportingnews.com
3) Image from www.thenews.pl
4) Image from www.ilovethissport.com

Retweet of the Day - May 31, 2013

Observing a debate on great athletes over different generations of players is like listening to children debate superheroes - they all have their opinion as to who is better and you cannot convince anyone of an opinion other than their own. This goes three-fold for basketball players. While it is a part of what makes sports fun, too often people put their fanhood emotions before logic and reason and such a debate becomes grating.

HERE WE GO AGAIN


Around this time every year, late in the NBA playoffs, the inevitable comparisons about who is currently the best player in the game and who was better than whom among all time greats begin to surface and intensify anywhere the debate is being had. Whether it be in a barbershop, in a bar, or on a bus, everyone has an opinion. In 2013, anyone can jump into a debate with an infinite number of people of different ages and backgrounds on Twitter.

The debate de jour centers on four-time NBA Most Valuable Player and reigning NBA Champion LeBron James of the Miami Heat. In general it has been a two part debate. One part centers on whether the career of LeBron James can surpass that of Hall of Famer, six-time NBA champion and five time MVP Michael Jordan. The other part of the debate is whether or not James is better, right now, than Los Angeles Lakers guard Kobe Bryant. Also prevalent is who could take whom in a game of one-on-one assuming all players in their primes (LeBron would back Kobe and Mike down in the lane all day, but a Kobe-MJ battle would be intriguing).


THE KING VS HIS AIRNESS VS THE MAMBA

Before revealing today's retweet, which I thought was quite practical, let me throw in my two cents. LeBron James' career resume is not on the level of that of Michael Jordan, but he's closing the gap very quickly. James is only 28 years old and has only one NBA Championship, though he is on the cusp of winning an Eastern Conference Championship for the fourth time in his career. In contrast, Jordan won neither his first conference nor league championship until 1991 at age 28. The biggest glaring difference between Jordan's and James' careers is the difference in championship experience.

I don't think any reasonable person would say that the player with more NBA Championships had the greater career, all other factors be damned. Otherwise, Robert Horry, with seven championship rings, would walk right into the Hall of Fame. But in comparisons of individual basketball players, more than any other sport (save for quarterbacks in the NFL), championships won weigh heavily in the evaluation of a player's career. I think James needs a minimum of one more championship, making him a multi-championship winner, in his career to have any chance of his legacy being considered on level with that of Jordan. The more titles he wins, the more juice the pro-LeBron camp will have. All of that said, Jordan's standing as the greatest player of all time (for the masses who hold that opinion, including me) is in play and on the table.

Celebrity opinion - WWWS: What would Weezy say?

LeBron-Kobe? LeBron James, today, is a more complete player than Kobe Bryant. Bryant has a better shooting range but James is capable from anywhere on the floor. James is a superior passer, rebounder, and defender; there's no (evidence based) comparison. For years, I thought Kobe had the superior game-closing killer instinct, but since last season I believe the two players are equals. LeBron's game, right now, transcends that of Kobe Bryant and that gap will continue to widen between the still-improving James and the 34-year old Bryant, who is currently rehabbing a torn Achilles tendon.

That leads us to today's retweet, from Big Poppa Pump. (‏@YoungFreekoMack):

"I get so tired of the Kobe-Lebron-MJ talk. 3 different eras. 3 different players. 3 different situations. All 3 great. kill the comparisons."

James (left), Jordan (center), and Bryant (right): these guys are good!

Image from www.ballislife.com

Retweet of the Day - February 13, 2013

Now that the Super Bowl has come and gone, talk of the NBA is in full swing. I've commented a few times during this NBA season that Miami Heat forward LeBron James (27 PPG, 8 RPG, 7 APG, 2 StlPG) is quietly having an incredible season, even by his own standards. Quiet was no more as James dropped 30 points last night against the Portland Trailblazers; he only took 15 shots from the field.

Last night's performance gave James an NBA record six consecutive games in which he scored 30 points and shot at least 60% from the field. Only two players, Hall of Famers Adrian Dantley and Moses Malone had accomplished that feat in five straight games. Sports talk shows were abuzz with "LeBron James vs. Michael Jordan" discussions.

Hearing guys discuss basketball stars is like hearing pre-teen boys debate superheroes. They believe what they believe for the reason they believe it and you cannot convince them otherwise. I have been of the opinion since the early 1990s that Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player even to lace 'em up. I could understand why one would argue for Kobe Bryant, but I personally think Kobe will always be a little short of MJ unless he plays much longer than expected and leads his team to two or three more titles. I've generally been closed to other arguments.

I've kept the LeBron James argument in the back of my mind for several years and began to take the LeBron argument seriously after last season, when James finally won some championship hardware. This season, I am listening, really listening. James has a long way to go before matching Jordan's career resume, but now I think it is possible. Last night's record setting performance launched the debate into the sports mainstream.

The Twittersphere has been full of lame, tired, predictable one-liners. Most of them saying James couldn't hold a candle to Jordan. A few said the opposite. Today's retweet is the most tweet I've seen so far, from Tra Carson ‏@PlutoCarson:

"Lebron ain't Jordan but I can guarantee Jordan wasn't Lebron either"

 

Don't we all wish?

Image from http://sports.yahoo.com

G.O.A.T. (The first edition in a series about greatness in sports)

“G.O.A.T.”….Greatest Of All Time. What does it mean, exactly? What standard should be used in each sport to determine greatness? How much do team success like wins and championships factor into greatness? How much should one era of a sport be credited or discounted over a past or later era of a sport? Should different periods of time even be compared?

This topic reached my wheelhouse this past weekend when a group of college buddies, with whom I regularly discuss all manners of sports, began discussing the legacy of Paul Pierce, in light of Pierce surpassing Larry Bird as the Celtics second all-time leading scorer. This mushroomed, as it often does, into a discussion over the greatest player of all time and who was greater than whom.

This chain of discussions among this circle of friends has taken place for as long as we have all been regularly using email (more than 10 years). The basketball topic always starts some time shortly after the Super Bowl and will drag, sometimes (it feels like) in the same email thread, until after the NBA Finals. What never ceases to amaze me is how distinct, yet predictable, personalities emerge in these discussions.

I am not going to sell you my case for Michael Jordan being the G.O.A.T., not today. In fact, I am not even going to suggest reasons a certain standard, blending multiple measures of achievement. Today, I am going to discuss the lighter side of greatness in sports: the types of people (usually guys) you will inevitably encounter when discussing greatness.


“COUNT THE RINGS” GUY

It is impossible to have a discussion about individual greatness with five or more people without one or more pointing to a player’s skins on the wall as a talking point, if not a closing argument. If you don’t see that guy, it might be you! Count the Rings Guy can be a difficult debate opponent if you disagree with the relative accolades of the person he is promoting. After all, the ultimate goal of playing any competitive sport is to win and, ultimately, win a championship.

This guy has his strengths and weaknesses. Counting championship rings in a sports debate is like using salt or pepper: it can make a meal taste better, but you cannot eat it by itself. If the argument is properly framed, even in a team sport, it can be compelling and difficult to rebut.

Too often, however, this guy falls down the rabbit hole of prefacing and hinging his entire case upon the quantity of championships won by an individual player. If you can trap this guy into that argument, simply counter that reserve center Will Perdue of the Chicago Bulls has three championship rings. If “rings” is all this guy has, the discussion is over.

Bill Russell: G.O.A.T.? 1

“RINGS DON’T COUNT” GUY

This is the antithesis of Ring Guy. He will, correctly, point out that team sports are about more than one individual player. What this guy fails (or refuses) to acknowledge is that great players are the anchors on championship team. Championships won are an output of a great player’s career.

This guy has a strong position when discussing the relative greatness of marginal and role players, guys who were “good” or “key” to winning a championship, but not Hall of Fame players. When discussing true all time greats, particularly those with similar skill sets, winning and losing, particularly in the postseason and especially at the end of the postseason, is one of the few differentiators available to separate one great player’s resume from that of another.

When this guy gets on a roll, ask him who he thinks the five greatest players or coaches are in whatever category you are debating. Only a contrarian could name that many people without any championships, in which case you are talking to a brick wall and should not engage this person. When they name people who won championships, simply press this person to eliminate the championship winners and replace them with non-winners. It is always harder to refute a negative (like championships not mattering) than a positive, but it will throw a speed bump in this guy’s path.

Dan Marino: Zero rings, G.O.A.T.? 2

“HE WOULDN’T SURVIVE IN THE MODERN GAME” GUY (OR “HE WOULDN’T HAVE SURVIVED BACK THEN” GUY)

This is the guy who discounts the accomplishments of great players from the past because their physical dimensions, collectively, are smaller, weaker, and slower than their present-day counterparts. This is a person who will frequently use the words “would, could, and should”. This guy sometimes takes the opposite point of view because, for example, sports were less regulated. But often the bias is one toward the present day. He will argue you in circles if you fall into his trap.

This is one of the weakest debaters. He will not engage you in what actually happened on the field of play but, instead, drown you in hypotheticals of what would have happened. Pointing out that, in professional sports, the talent was more concentrated in the past because there were fewer teams in existence (hence the fraternity of pro athletes was more exclusive) is a waste of time. He will discount any groundbreaking achievements of athletes from the past and ignore the relative dominance of that person at that time. Since there is no real world DeLorean with a Flux Capacitor, which makes time travel possible, the comparison holds no merit because a direct, head-to-head competition between the athletes in question is not possible.

If you are in a debate with several people and this guy does not introduce a different angle, stop acknowledging him and address the talking points of the others. If you are debating this person, one-on-one, just cede the discussion to him or pick a similar era player because you will not get this person to budge, ever.

Jim Brown (Hall of Fame): that bum would be a bust in "the modern game"! 3

“HE WOULD HAVE DOMINATED IF HE PLAYED BACK THEN” GUY (OR “HE WOULD HAVE DOMINATED THESE NEW GUYS” GUY)

This is often the same guy as “He Wouldn’t Survive Today” Guy. If so, point out that if said athlete played back then, that his achievements should be discounted because he wouldn’t have been playing in the modern era. End of discussion. If this person’s bias only runs one way, suggesting that modern athletes would have dominated in the past, take the same approach out lined for “He Wouldn’t Survive Today” Guy. You’ll never win.

Bear Bryant: His legacy spawned off generations of this type of guy in Alabama. 4

“I AM SMARTER THAN YOU” GUY

There is always a guy who has been everywhere and seen everything. Because he has, his opinion is worth more than yours and he will tell you so. If you are debating this guy in an online chat room or fan forum, a simple “fuck you,” followed by moving on to another topic will suffice. If you are debating personal friends and acquaintances, more tact is in order.

Complete tool 6

The best way to handle this guy, should you choose to do so, is to keep him on topic. “I am smarter than you,” is a distraction technique. It’s irrelevant. The topic is sports, not who had the better ACT score. Force his hand and make him defend his statement, if he is so smart.

This guy is abrasive, by the very fact he would suggest he knows more than you (often without knowing what you do or don’t know) and you can expect some tense, heated moments with him. But we are MEN. We usually cannot let a guy earn stripes at our expense in a sports discussion!

There's always one. He knows it all, except how to get a girl! 5

“I AM OLDER THAN YOU” GUY

"Joe Louis was 137 years old!" 7

This is the guy who has a few years on you or the group and his method of propelling his argument and discounting yours is the fact that he saw certain players play and certain events when the activity took place. Like a lot of debating styles, this guy has strengths and weaknesses.

When evaluating a cultural or societal response to an athlete, this person’s opinion, in a vacuum, does hold more weight than a person who did not see and experience a certain performance with comprehension and maturity. This guy, however, thinks that “more weight” means his opinion is the only one that counts. Two-hundred-ten pounds is more than 200 pounds, but it is not a monumental difference. A better informed younger person, for example, is more credible than an ignorant person who watched events unfold without seeing the bigger picture.

Likewise, he thinks that because he saw an athlete from a past era play in person or on live television and you didn’t, he knows more than you about the athlete and any topic involving that athlete as a whole. Again, there is some merit to that point, but it does not give Old Guy carte blanche to dominate the discussion with questionable, stretching-reality opinions. Someone who watched Kiki Wandeweghe play in the 1990s can argue with an 18 year old that Kiki was a better player than LeBron James, but nobody is listening, not even Kiki.

Kiki Vandeweghe: last name, "Ever", first name, "Greatest"? 9

STATS GUY

12

There is always one like this in every discussion. This is often one of the stronger debaters because Stats Guy is backing up his argument with facts. However, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. This guy, too often, can get caught up in the minutia of numbers while ignoring the eyes test and not analyzing what the numbers are actually telling us.

This guy can be a tough sell. You can talk all day about what “could have” “should have” and “would have” happened until you are blue in the face. The scoreboard is the final arbiter in any athletic contest. This guy, however, often tries to propel a weaker argument by manipulating the numbers and trying to convince the group that the numbers are saying more or less than they really are.

Knowledge is power. The only way to beat this guy is to know some stats of your own and either directly rebut Stats Guy or manipulate some numbers of your own to put him back on his heels. Remember that Daunte Culpepper had the seventh best single season QB rating in NFL history. He will not be fitted for a crème colored jacket or a have a bust in Canton, Ohio one day.

"He whipped Joe Louis' ass!" 8

STATS DON’T COUNT GUY

This is the guy who often doesn’t want to listen to facts or reason if you support your argument with statistics. This is not the antithesis of Stats Guy. Stats Guy goes through analysis paralysis with numbers, but at least is dealing with irrefutable, objective facts. Stats Don’t Count Guy is throwing critical thinking to the wind. His entire position is, often, “That isn’t how I see it.” Try to steer this guy into backing up his claims and comparisons with something of substance. If that does not happen, do not bother engaging this guy. It is his way or the highway.

This guy isn't hearing or seeing your point. 10

“I PLAYED THE GAME” GUY

All Pro? More like, "All JV".  13

This is another example of a person whose life experience does, in fact, add to his credibility. This guy played the sport in question in an organized manner and (presumably) for an extended period of time and (presumably) you did not if he plays the “I played the game,” card. When that card is played, you had better have a strong position, know what you are talking about, and be able to back it up. Because this guy did, in fact, play and you didn’t.

Often, the only weakness this guy exhibits is when he tries to extend his credibility further than he is entitled to. A four year letterman on his high school football team, who did not play in college, probably can spot a flawed fundamental blocking or tackling technique, at any level, that you cannot identify if you never played at that level. He has very little credibility over you in discussing the degree of difficulty of executing a punt return in the NFL. Put this guy in his place when he steps out of place.

The female counterparts to the dudes still reliving their high school glory in sports debates. 11

I’M THAT TYPE OF GUY

I hope you enjoyed this light hearted piece on different kinds of sports debate guys. Chances are you have encountered every last one of these guys and see some of these guy in yourself. Or maybe you said, “Hey…that’s ME he talking about!” The Hat Trick will look into some more angles of evaluating greatness in sports. I hope that this opening salvo lightened the mood before we get into some more meat and potatoes discussion in future editions.

Don't forget to vote in the fan polls!

To advertise with The Daily Hat Trick, or to submit a guest column, please contact the editor at eric@thedailyhattrick.info.

The Daily Hat Trick is sponsored by Sports N Stuff. For great deals on jerseys, shirts, cologne, and other guy stuff, visit http://www.sportsnstuff.biz/.


1) Image from http://content.usatoday.com
2, 4) Image from www.bleacherreport.com
3) Image from www.cleveland.com
5) Image from www.motifake.com
6) Image from www.princetontourcompany.com
7) Image from http://kynchsbruinskorner2.blogspot.com
8) Image from http://rss.listal.com
9) Image from www.nysun.com
10) Image from http://80sand90sactioncomedies.blogspot.com
11) Image from www.highfashiongirl.com
12) Image from http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com
13) Image from www.flickr.com