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.

Oh, brother(s)!

Today I had the chance to interview three brothers that are playing on the same high school varsity baseball team. I don't think they're in any danger of being drafted when they graduate (you never know), but it got me thinking about brothers in the Bigs.

It's amazing enough when any one individual is good enough at a sport to reach the highest professional level, and it's especially so in baseball where there are multiple professional levels to wade through before reaching the top. But for more than one person in the same family? Amazing!

From the 12 minutes I thought about it, I came up with the following brother pairings in baseball. Any others worth mentioning? Who are the best?

Alous - Felipe, Matty, and Jesus played together in the Giants' outfield.
Niekros - Phil and Joe combined for 539 career wins. Not too shabby.
Ripkens - Cal had a heck of a career, but Billy wasn't the greatest.

Cansecos - Jose and Ozzie. Moving on.

Some up-and-coming combos...

LaRoches - Adam is a very solid first baseman for the Pirates, and his brother, Andy, is a top prospect for the Dodgers.

Drews - J.D. and Stephen are both in the bigs, but time will tell how impressive a duo they are. Fun fact: according to Wikipedia (must be true...) J.D. and another brother, Tim, were drafted the same year. You can guess which was the better prospect.

Youngs - Dmitri is nearing the end of his career with the Nationals, but Delmon (the bat thrower) is just getting started.
Uptons - B.J. and Justin were both taken in the top two of the 2005 and 2003 drafts, respectively.

So, you think you know way more about baseball than me? You might be right. But I just googled "brothers combinations in baseball" and got this neat little quiz on the subject. If you take it, post your score!

Bonds Away!

I was looking for a picture of Barry Bonds, and stumbled across this one. Thought you might enjoy it.

Barry Bonds, steroids, "the cream" and "the clear" have all been discussed to no end. But now it's time to focus the discussion on the merits of the record he is about to set.

Bonds hit career home run no. 740 today, leaving him only 16 away from the record. Unless he's indicted or his leg breaks off at the knee, the record will be his by the end of the season.

But what is the signifcance of the record? I, for one, am in the camp that believes baseball history should be divided up into two eras: the pre-steroid era and the post. Where the line should be drawn to delineate the two is beyond my grasp.

Am I impressed with Bonds' career? Certainly. I'd even say without hesitation that Bonds is the greatest player of the two generations his career has spanned. But the greatest home run hitter that ever lived?

Hammerin' Hank and the Babe would contest that, as might Willie Mays -- if it wasn't his godson in question.