Kobe vs. Lebron. The debate has raged on in the social media universe for years now, each side with countless numbers of rabid supporters. Kobe bricks a game winner, you can bet there'll be sarcastic status updates questioning his "closer" status. Lebron falls short in the playoffs again, more statuses pop up proclaiming him to be the "Regular Season Warrior". The two fan bases are for the most part bitter enemies, yet in reality, they're really the exact same in nature. By this I mean that the grand majority of them fall into the category of "casual fans" of the NBA, and a subcategory of that which I like to call "mercenary fans".
The definition of a "casual fan" is one who has a passing interest in the NBA, for example. They may have a favorite team, but they don't live and die by that team. Just about every Timberwolves fan I know is a "casual fan". There's nothing wrong with this distinction. In fact, I'd put most of the blame for this trend in fandom squarely on the Timberwolves. Such has their floundering been that it's hard to blame the fans for losing interest. This can lead to many things though. One is that the fans outsource their fandom to another team. This can lead to there being a lot of Lakers "fans" or Celtics "fans" in Minnesota. They may even throw themselves into that team as if it were their own from the beginning, but I find this to be rare. What is much more common is when fans identify with a certain superstar in the league and become a "fan" of solely that player. This is certainly understandable in a sport where superstars are created and promoted more than any other in the US. This is indeed where we see people who are Lebron "fans" and Kobe "fans", or fans of any other superstar in the NBA.
The Lebron group are an example of the people who weren't so much Cavalier fans, but Lebron "fans" while he played in Cleveland. As soon as he jumped ship to Miami, they were right there with him. Now, they're Heat "fans" because that's where Lebron plays. Another instance of this is if a favorite college player gets drafted by a team, then the person becomes a "fan" of that team. These fans are the definition of "mercenary fans". They have a roving allegiance to whomever their player plays for. They aren't tied down by the passion one feels as a true fan of a team rather than a player. They could care less about the Mario Chalmers, James Jones, or Joel Anthonys of the world. If tomorrow Lebron got shipped to the Pacers, we'd see a fresh Pacer's jersey on the mercenary fan in a matter of weeks. And they'd be all in on the Timberwolves bandwagon if they should turn it around, dropping their flimsy allegiance to their favorite player on the spot in favor of greener pastures.
Mercenary fans are harmless for the most part, and are mostly the byproduct of a population of sports "fans" that are slowly becoming less and less die-hard. Everyone knows the people who seem to have a new favorite team every year. They rationalize their allegiance in someway or another which never makes much sense but everyone goes along with it rather than call them out because they end up just getting defensive. This mode of fandom is very attractive to any casual fan. They can exchange their crappy team for a brand spanking new one every year! In a way, this is all fine. It could be said that any interest in the league is good, even if it is just casual rather than die-hard. Yet, I still feel bad for those "fans", simply because they never get to go through the trials and tribulations that the die-hards go through. Since they never have any real connection to a team, they never feel the agony of a defeat, and most importantly, the ecstacy of a triumph. I once likened the plight of a die-hard fan as being something like a pot of food being prepared. Sometimes fans of a team get the dish as it is, they're spoiled by success. Other fan bases go through agony after agony. These agonies are like spices added to the pot, which make the meal taste even better once it's finally finished. The mercenary fans never get to experience any of these meals. With their hollow interest in their teams (or their players), they only get to be in the company of the die-hards while never actually being a part of any of it.
Even I got accused of being a mercenary fan, though not in those terms of course. A while back on Facebook someone challenged me by saying that if Kobe Bryant got traded to the Jazz, I would be a Jazz fan the moment it occured. Basically, they accused me being just a Kobe "fan". I explained to them that no, I would not then become a Jazz fan all of a sudden. I was a Lakers fan, I had been since my Mom bought me a Magic Johnson jersey in kindergarden. Since my aunt and uncle from Anaheim sent me Lakers gear for Christmas soon after. Since I traveled out West during the '99 NBA Finals with my family and counted driving by the Staples Center as being one of the best things about the trip. I went on to tell the person that as a kid my favorite player was Shaquille O'Neal. I may have been a bigger fan of him as a Laker than any other athlete ever, yet when he got traded to the Heat, I didn't all of a sudden become a Heat "fan". If his claim of me being a mercenary fan was true, wouldn't I have become a Heat fan then? I assured him that I was just as big a fan of Shaq then as I am of Kobe now. I'm not a fan of just players, I have a team and I stick by it. It's not coincidence that my favorite players have always been Lakers, because my favorite player's will always play for the teams I'm a fan of. It's simple like that. You stick by your team throughout anything. Even if they have a Smush Parker/Kwame Brown period, you're there with them, adding spices to the dish and waiting to savor the meal when you're done. Mercenary fans will never experience this, and I think they're worse off for it.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Super Bowl XLV: Why Big Ben is Overrated
America's biggest sporting spectacle has all the makings of a memorable game. A high-flying offense against a bruising defense and two historic franchises searching for yet another ring to add to their collections. I am in particular interested in the QB battle. I recently had a debate about the merits of Ben Roethlisberger and Aaron Rodgers. It's often stated that quarterbacks are ultimately measured by how much they win. In particular, Super Bowls. This would clearly make Big Ben one of history's best right? Indeed, if he wins tonight, he'd join Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, Tom Brady, and Troy Aikman as winners of 3 or more titles. Truly elite company. Yet I will contend that Big Ben has no business being listed among those elites, that he's actually overrated, and that wins are not the be-all and end-all with which to measure a QB's career. Let me now explain why.
9-21, 123 yards, 0 Touchdowns-2 Interceptions, QB rating-22.6
Those are the stats for Ben Roethlisberger's first Super Bowl win. Pretty bad right? You may relay the common respone of "who cares what his numbers were? He won". He did win, or more specifically, the Steelers won. The numbers, however, can't be ignored. Especially when they are among the worst QB numbers in Super Bowl history. Time will likely forget these numbers though, and only the fact that Ben Roethlisberger won that year's Super Bowl will remain in our minds. We won't remember the actual fact that he did just about everything he could to lose his team that game, or that the refs were simply awful. Nope, all we'll know is that Big Ben and the Steelers beat the Seahawks.
Football is often used as the gold standard for team sports. 11 men fulfilling different roles to accomplish a team goal. So why then, in this "ultimate team sport" do we only hand the QB the distinction of the win? Why don't we ever see stats on how many postseason wins Troy Polamalu has? Isn't his role on the defense just as big as Big Ben's on offense? We never compare running backs by number of wins. It's almost entirely based on actual stats. So why should quarterbacks be any different? You might say that QB's are easily the most influential position in football. You'd be right, but they have zero influence on defense. You know, only 50 percent of the game. Similar to how a pitcher in baseball relies on his batters for him to get the win, QB's need the defense to get wins, usually anyway. A perfect example of this is Aaron Rodgers playoff game against the Cardinals last year. He had 4 TD's to 1 INT, yet the Packers lost 51-45 to the Cardinals. Aaron Rodgers surely did enough to help his team to the win, but his defense let him down. This year, the Packers D is vastly improved, and the results show it. Big Ben on the other hand has always had the safety net of an elite defense. It bails him out if he has a bad game (which is fairly often). The perfect example of this is of course the above mentioned Super Bowl. Being a QB for the Steelers is the football equivalent of being a pitcher for the Yankees.
I am not saying that Big Ben is not a good QB. He's easily a top ten quarterback. It's just when people start to overrate him that I take exception. He is not a top 5 QB in the league, and he's nowhere near a top QB in the history of the league. I am not alone with this line of thinking. In 7 seasons in the league he's made one Pro Bowl. Despite having plenty of team success and being in an era where making a Pro Bowl is not that hard (Matt Cassel anyone?), he's made just 1. It was 4 years ago. To put it differently, he's just once been considered one of the top 3 QB's in the AFC! "So what if the fans don't like him.", you might say. Well, they aren't the only ones not so high on Big Ben. He was also voted among the top 5 most overrated players by his peers in a Sports Illustrated poll in 2009. That's not so long ago. I must be on to something, as neither the fans nor his peers rate him as high as his reputation merits. I think pro-football-reference.com rates Big Ben correctly using their "Similar Players" calculation. This lists players with careers of similar quality and shape. Big Ben's career is comparable to Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, David Gerrard, Jake Delhomme, etc. All pretty good to good quarterbacks, but not exactly a who's who of best QB's in the history of the game.
I contend that the only reason Big Ben finds himself with a much better reputation than the others is because he was fortunate enough to have been drafted by a great franchise. Doesn't mean he's not good, just that he's not as good as people think he is. If he indeed does win tonight, he will be a member of that elite group in name only. Winning should not define the quarterback position just like stats shouldn't. It's the overrall body of work that needs to be taken into account when comparing Big Ben to the greats. Keep that in mind tonight. Just know that no matter what happens in the game, he's still not in the category of Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.
Prediction for Super Bowl XLV
Green Bay: 31
Pittsburgh: 24
It really does pain me to even think that the Packers will win, but I think their offense is too good in the dome setting for anyone to stop them.
9-21, 123 yards, 0 Touchdowns-2 Interceptions, QB rating-22.6
Those are the stats for Ben Roethlisberger's first Super Bowl win. Pretty bad right? You may relay the common respone of "who cares what his numbers were? He won". He did win, or more specifically, the Steelers won. The numbers, however, can't be ignored. Especially when they are among the worst QB numbers in Super Bowl history. Time will likely forget these numbers though, and only the fact that Ben Roethlisberger won that year's Super Bowl will remain in our minds. We won't remember the actual fact that he did just about everything he could to lose his team that game, or that the refs were simply awful. Nope, all we'll know is that Big Ben and the Steelers beat the Seahawks.
Football is often used as the gold standard for team sports. 11 men fulfilling different roles to accomplish a team goal. So why then, in this "ultimate team sport" do we only hand the QB the distinction of the win? Why don't we ever see stats on how many postseason wins Troy Polamalu has? Isn't his role on the defense just as big as Big Ben's on offense? We never compare running backs by number of wins. It's almost entirely based on actual stats. So why should quarterbacks be any different? You might say that QB's are easily the most influential position in football. You'd be right, but they have zero influence on defense. You know, only 50 percent of the game. Similar to how a pitcher in baseball relies on his batters for him to get the win, QB's need the defense to get wins, usually anyway. A perfect example of this is Aaron Rodgers playoff game against the Cardinals last year. He had 4 TD's to 1 INT, yet the Packers lost 51-45 to the Cardinals. Aaron Rodgers surely did enough to help his team to the win, but his defense let him down. This year, the Packers D is vastly improved, and the results show it. Big Ben on the other hand has always had the safety net of an elite defense. It bails him out if he has a bad game (which is fairly often). The perfect example of this is of course the above mentioned Super Bowl. Being a QB for the Steelers is the football equivalent of being a pitcher for the Yankees.
I am not saying that Big Ben is not a good QB. He's easily a top ten quarterback. It's just when people start to overrate him that I take exception. He is not a top 5 QB in the league, and he's nowhere near a top QB in the history of the league. I am not alone with this line of thinking. In 7 seasons in the league he's made one Pro Bowl. Despite having plenty of team success and being in an era where making a Pro Bowl is not that hard (Matt Cassel anyone?), he's made just 1. It was 4 years ago. To put it differently, he's just once been considered one of the top 3 QB's in the AFC! "So what if the fans don't like him.", you might say. Well, they aren't the only ones not so high on Big Ben. He was also voted among the top 5 most overrated players by his peers in a Sports Illustrated poll in 2009. That's not so long ago. I must be on to something, as neither the fans nor his peers rate him as high as his reputation merits. I think pro-football-reference.com rates Big Ben correctly using their "Similar Players" calculation. This lists players with careers of similar quality and shape. Big Ben's career is comparable to Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, David Gerrard, Jake Delhomme, etc. All pretty good to good quarterbacks, but not exactly a who's who of best QB's in the history of the game.
I contend that the only reason Big Ben finds himself with a much better reputation than the others is because he was fortunate enough to have been drafted by a great franchise. Doesn't mean he's not good, just that he's not as good as people think he is. If he indeed does win tonight, he will be a member of that elite group in name only. Winning should not define the quarterback position just like stats shouldn't. It's the overrall body of work that needs to be taken into account when comparing Big Ben to the greats. Keep that in mind tonight. Just know that no matter what happens in the game, he's still not in the category of Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.
Prediction for Super Bowl XLV
Green Bay: 31
Pittsburgh: 24
It really does pain me to even think that the Packers will win, but I think their offense is too good in the dome setting for anyone to stop them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)