Josh Hancock: A Cautionary Tale

It's interesting how tragedies that befall professional athletes are magnified by the media. For that matter, we as fans get an up close and personal look at both their triumphs and failures, on and off the field.

Much of the time, I'd consider this a bad thing. For example, it's wrong that Michael Vick doesn't treat his dogs well, but what business is that of mine?

When it comes to the death of Cardinals' pitcher Josh Hancock, though, I'm glad that the public is getting a healthy, if painful dose of the truth.

Hancock is dead and there's no bringing him back, but his story can be a cautionary tale for others to heed. A few of the basic lessons that can be learned:

• Don't drink and drive. You'd think this would be obvious by now, but apparently it's not.
• Don't talk on the cell phone while driving, especially while driving drunk. Have you ever had a conversation while driving and arrived at your destination, only to realize that you remember none of the journey to get there? It's an eerie feeling.
• Youth and/or fame and fortune do not equal invincibility. We're all going to die eventually, but so many people fail to realize that that could occur before age 75.

I'm sure Hancock's family is less than thrilled to hear about the circumstances of his death, not to mention that everyone else knows, too. But given that this public knowledge could save a life -- or hundreds -- should be of solace to them when the initial sorrow subsides.

** Update ** I have posted on the lawsuits filed by Mr. Hancock here.

Here's to a Blast from the Past

Thanks to my buddy, Jeremy, for this "guest" post.

Let’s take a trip into my bedroom at my parent’s house and down memory lane.

On the walls are posters of Tim Hardaway, Latrell Sprewell, Chris Webber, and Chris Mullin--all wearing Golden State Warriors jerseys. This brings back fond memories: memories of Hardaway’s killer crossover, Sprewell attacking the rim, Webber’s Rookie of the Year season, and Mullin’s sharp shooting.

For anybody who can remember that far back (13 years ago, to be exact), that was the last time the Warriors made the playoffs. Now, after countless horrible trades and free agent signings and even more draft picks that went horribly wrong, the Warriors are finally back in the playoffs. Not only are they back, but with loads of athleticism and a healthy Baron Davis leading the charge, the Warriors are on the brink of one of the greatest playoff upsets in NBA history.

For a Warriors fan that has been through some rough times, this series against the Dallas Mavericks has been a dream come true. Let’s just hope the Warriors don’t blow this series. I don’t want to wait another 13 years.

One "Foul" Cry Too Many

Oh great, another post about racism in sports.

The New York Times published the result of a Cornell study that found that white referees call fouls on black players at a higher rate than on white players.

I tend to agree with the NBA's counterargument that the study's methodology was weak -- it examined the box scores, which contain the names of the referees but don't say who called which foul -- but I took exactly one class in statistics, so I'll leave that part of the discussion to others.

My concern is that well-meaning referees -- white, black, or purple -- will see the results of this study and start to second-guess their subconscious motivation for the way they officiate. So when they do see a foul against a black player, referees will start asking themselves if they're about to blow their whistle because the player is black.

Our society has become very sensitive about race-related topics, but I think there comes a point that we do ourselves a disservice by overfocusing on race. For example, are you nice to your co-worker because he's black, or because you genuinely like him? After honking your horn at a person that cut you off, should you feel worse when you realize she's black?

Race is an important issue, and if we're not careful our minds can become ensnared with nasty prejudices. But hypersensitivity is a cousin of prejudice, and too much introspection can leave us worse off in the long run.

Give Gifts a Chance!

The Wall Street Journal published a very interesting article this weekend about professional athletes and how they give to charity.

Next to buying a Hummer and demonstrating wealth by wearing excessive jewelry, it would seem that starting a charitable foundation is one of the most popular pursuits among professional athletes these days.

The problem is, most of these "foundations" may be crumbling from the start.

According to the article, many of pro athletes' charities are contributing much less than the benchmark 75% of assets expected of most charities. World Vision, for example, gives 87% of all moneys donated to its programs, with the rest going to overhead costs.

But most athletes that start up foundations seem to be clueless about what they are doing, and many of them hire their own friends and family to run the organizations. As a result, some foundations have contributed funds in the 15-20 percent range of their total "income." The article said that, in 2005, the Dirk Nowitzki Foundation gave zero percent. ZERO.

How about at least matching your field goal percentage, Dirk?

I realize there's more publicity in having your own foundation. It's "cool" and it makes pro athletes feel good about themselves. But for once, I wish athletes would do something that isn't about them and give them money to someone who knows how to handle it.

After all, this is charity we're talking about.

*EDIT: I should mention that there are a number of athletes out there doing a great job with their charitable foundations. If you can do it right, then I'm all for it.

Sosa's 600 or Bonds' 755: Which is Worse?

I probably should post about the NFL Draft, but I don't really feel like it, so I'm not going to.

Instead, I want to write about an issue that is flying under the radar while the world talks about Barry Bonds' pursuit of Hank Aaron's home run record.

I can't disagree with anyone who complains that Bonds' 756th home run will be tainted with doubts (or head-shaking certainties, as the case may be) about how he achieved it and the 755 before it.

But I would like to pose the question, which is the greater baseball travesty: Bonds reaching 756 home runs or Sammy Sosa hitting number 600?

Bonds, at least, is an extremely talented baseball player. As I wrote in an earlier post, he's a Hall of Famer, with or without steroids or other performance enhancing drugs. He doesn't deserve the home run record, but like him or not, Bonds deserves recognition as a great baseball player.

But then there is Sosa, who has stealthly climbed to fifth on the all-time career home run list. Fifth! This ahead of Frank Robinson, Harmon Killebrew, Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams and Mike Schmidt. I find that an apalling achievement for a guy who, in my books, has never been a very great baseball player. (Check out the all-time leaders for strikeouts!)

Again, you will never hear me say that it's a great -- or even good -- moment for baseball when Barry Bonds breaks the home record this season. But when Sammy slams his 600th and does his ridiculous little dance down the first base line, you can bet that the baseball gods will have never felt so mocked.

NCAA to TXT Recruiting: C U L8R

The NCAA has enacted a ban on the sending of text messages to recruits. That means that coaches can no longer barrage recruits with messages like "We could use u at WR" or "Come 2 Gainesville 4 a shot at glory." (For the record, those were totally made up.)

But when I read the news, I breathed a sigh of relief. A victory for sanity, finally.

Recruiting is a two-side coin, of course. The coach brings in an athlete that will help (he hopes) the program succeed, but the recruit gets in return the opportunity to play in the spotlight.

Heck, what is college these days except a training ground for the pros? When an athlete is ready for the big time, he's gone.

The college education that "student"-athletes are receiving has already been ruined for most athletes by the allure of big bonuses and greater recognition at the professional level. But the intensity with which Division I programs are now recruiting takes the problem to a whole new level.

Most student-athletes say they don't mind, and why would they? It must be nice to get dozens of reminders about how great you are on daily basis. But fortunately, this ban isn't about what the students want. It's about what's best for them.

I'm hoping -- and it's wishful thinking, probably -- that high school students will take this opportunity to leave their phones in their pockets and keep their heads in the classroom.

The ban doesn't begin until August, though, coaches. So in the meantime, let your fingers do the talking.

Wimbledon: Watch it like a HawkEye

The All England Club (a.k.a. the people who run Wimbledon) announced, among other things, that it will be using the HawkEye instant replay system for future tournaments.

On the surface (tennis pun intended), this is great; it reduces the role of human subjectivity in the outcome of the match. Just as the NFL introduced the instant replay in 1999 and baseball began implementing QuesTec to ensure accurate strike zones, All England Club officials are doing their best to ensure the fairest game possible.

This ruffles my feathers, and here's why.

As long as sports have been played professionally, human subjectivity has been part of the game. Someone, an unbiased yet imperfect person, is responsible for determining what's a foul, a touchdown, a ball or a strike.

Should we remove that element of professional sports just because we can? I think not. Aside from the fact that thousands of referees, line judges, and umpires could eventually be put out of work, automating the officiating process of sports removes a key part of the game itself.

Bad calls happen and I'm glad they do. That means that sometimes a team gets a lucky break. That means that sometimes a team is forced to dig deeper to see if they can score that extra run or convert a fourth down when they shouldn't have had to. Luck -- good and bad -- is a part of competition anyway, so who's to say that eliminating one element of subjectivity will change that?

And who's to say that HawkEye or QuesTec would never break down or have glitches?

So for the sake of the purity of sport, I cast my vote for the abolition of machine-aided officiating.

Besides, it's always nice to have someone to blame when your team loses.