Category Archives: Sports

Day 60 of the NHL Lockout: Learning From the Past

Previously, I’ve written about my interest in history and how I think it’s important for us to have some semblance of an understanding of the past, so that we can make more informed decisions about the future. That is, the past can certainly help in forecasting the future (to some extent). This is part of the reason one of the categories I write about is “history,” and it’s also one of the reasons why I was so keen to watch John Green’s Crash Course in World History.

One thing that has baffled me recently is the inability of the NHL and the Labour Union to come to some agreement. No, that’s not true. The thing that has baffled me is that this is not new. This has happened before. There was a lockout in 2004/2005. There was a lockout in 1994/1995. There was also a strike in 1992. All things being equal, one would think that these two sides would have learned something from the first lockout that could have helped prevent the second lockout. And then one would think that these two sides would have learned something from the first two lockouts to have prevented the third lockout. I guess not because as you can see from the title, we’re into Day 60 of the lockout.

I should say that part of my bafflement with this situation may be a bit colored by my disappointment in the cancellation of the 2013 Winter Classic, which was to feature the Toronto Maple Leafs (!) and the Detroit Red Wings. I grew up watching the Leafs and the Red Wings duke it out in the Western Conference Playoffs, so I was pretty excited (and strongly considering traveling to) see them play at the Big House in Michigan.

Getting back to the lockouts…

Before I sat down to write this post, I had the sense that the NHL Labour Relations were going to be worse than those of the other 4 major sports in the USA and Canada. So, I was a bit surprised to find that the other sports have also had some poor labour relations (in recent history):

  • NBA: Locked out in 2011, 1999/1998, 1996 (only for 3 hours), and 1995 (well before the season and no games cancelled)
  • NFL: Locked out in 2011. Strike in 1982 and 1974.
  • MLB: Locked out in 1990 (no games cancelled), 1976 (no games cancelled), 1973 (no games cancelled). Strike in 1995/1994, 1985 (no games cancelled), 1981, 1980, and 1972.

In looking at the number of lockouts and strikes, it certainly seems like, while the MLB has had a number of labour relations issues, most of them had no ramifications on the games. The NFL has only had a few labour relations issues, though I wonder if there may be some more on the horizon. The NBA has had a couple in the last decade (and a bit), but that’s about it. So, we might conclude from this that the NHL has had more labour relations issue than the other major sports.

Regardless of when this lockout ends, I sincerely hope that the NHL can find a way to keep (at least) the next decade strike- and lockout-free!

Shutting Pitchers Down Early: A Creative Lesson in Long-Term Sustainability

I’d been meaning to write about this for the last few weeks. In fact, I first got the idea after the Washington Nationals made the playoffs for the first time in a long time. I immediately knew that there were going to be a number of articles written in trying to sway the management of the team to let Strasburg (the star pitcher) pitch in the playoffs. However, management had already decided that this particular pitcher had “reached his limit” and would no longer be pitching this season.

There are pros and cons to this, but I wanted to look at it for: “short-term gain vs. long-term sustainability.”

When we look at companies that have failed, often times, it’s because they sacrificed long-term sustainability for short-term profits. That is, they took a shortcut to make a quick buck without due consideration for how it was going to affect the company in the long-term. Or, maybe they did consider it, and just chose the short-term gains instead.

As I watched — painfully — the Nationals be eliminated from the playoffs a bit ago, I couldn’t help but reflect on this idea of short-term gains and long-term sustainability. Those folks who screamed for Strasburg to pitch kind of have a point. It’s possible that he Strasburg may get hurt at some point next season or the season after or that the Nationals will never get that opportunity to return to the playoffs. And it’s because of this that Strasburg should have been allowed to pitch.

Though, if I think about it from a ‘business’ perspective, the argument can be made that it’s best to “take care of your assets.” That is, if your company had a Ferrari, you wouldn’t necessarily overuse your Ferrari simply because you had a Ferrari. No, you would want to take care of that very expensive (and valuable) asset to reap the benefits over the long haul.

In sum, I don’t know how I would act if I were the General Manager of the Washington Nationals. However, I do think that this is a creative example in illustrating the difference between pursuing short-term gains or long-term sustainability.

Every Game Counts The Same: Does It Really?

In most sports, there is a “regular” season and a “post” season. That is, the teams play against it each other for a set number of games to jockey for position in the playoffs. As I write this, I’m thinking about in particular, as it is getting very near to the end of their season. As the season comes to a close, many teams are either jockeying for position in the playoffs or they are struggling to remain one of the teams that will get to play in the playoffs.

I was having a conversation with someone the other day about the relative importance of each game, ie. “every game counts.” Some people like to say that games at the end of the season “count more” than games at the beginning of the season. They’ll tell you quite a fancy story about how and why the games at the end mean more to a team than the games at the beginning of the season. And I want to believe them. I want to believe that there’s a formula that accounts for “time” in the relative importance of games. To my knowledge, there isn’t and a game won in the beginning of the season is equal to a game won at the end of the season.

Looking at it mathematically: there are 162 games in a season. So, every game is worth 1/162nd of a team’s record. If a team wins a game on May 6th, that game is worth 1/162nd of that team’s record. If a team loses on June 12th, that game is still worth 1/162nd of that team’s record. And if a team wins the last game of the season (!) that game is still worth 1/162nd of that team’s record.

I think where a lot of people get confused or misled when it comes to games at the end of the season meaning more is because of the cultural bias. It is often written of and spoke of that games at the end of the season mean more than games at the beginning of the season. As a result, people begin to believe this and say it themselves (creating a bit of an ). At the end of the day (literally), the last game of the season has the same weight on a team’s record as a game at the beginning of the season.

Note 1: this line of thinking doesn’t apply to those sports that use a more sophisticated way of measuring the success of their teams. For instance, some sports, like soccer, often use “goal differential” as a way of distinguishing the relative placement of their teams.

Note 2: for sports that have such relatively “short” seasons like the NFL, one could argue that a game later in the season is worth more because of the various tiebreakers that are used for Winning percentage, etc., but the sentiment of every game counting the same still holds.

Even The Best, Fail

In the “West,” there’s definitely a preoccupation with success and perfection. Some may say there’s good reason for that, but I thought it would be enlightening to remember an example when someone, widely considered the best at what they do, failed. The person I had in mind: .

Mariano Rivera is the closer for the New York Yankees. During his , he’s become MLB’s all-time regular season leader in saves, the all-time  postseason leader in saves, been chosen for the all-star team 12 (!) times, won the World Series 5 times, and he is most assuredly going to be elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. Without a doubt, a conversation about the best closer of all-time would have to include Mariano Rivera.

Now that I’ve set the stage for just how good Mariano Rivera is, I want to take you back to the . In particular, . Every young boy (and some girls, too!) dream of getting to be the hero in Game 7 of the World Series. For some little boys and girls, that’s about being up to bat in the Bottom of the 9th with the bases loaded and 2 out and the team losing by 3 runs. A grand slam would win the game and forever immortalize them! For other little boys and girls, those who are pitchers (like Mariano Rivera), it’s about being on the mound in the bottom of the 9th. It’s about being the pitcher that the manager and the rest of the team is counting on to finish the game.

This is exactly what happened for Mariano Rivera. In Game 7, the Yankees were playing the Arizona Diamondbacks. The Diamondbacks took the lead in the 6th inning, but the Yankees came back with runs in the 7th and the 8th to take a 2-1 lead. In the bottom of the 8th, Joe Torre turned to Mariano Rivera. Mariano did not disappoint in the bottom of the 8th — striking out the side. And then came the 9th inning. Instead of creating a narrative in print, I thought I’d embed a video I found (courtesy of MLB.com) that replays some of the drama/heroics of game 7. It’s only about 4 and a half minutes long and I highly suggest watching all of it, but if you want to skip to the “Mariano Rivera” part, it starts at around 2:20.

~

This moment was extremely shocking. Even having seen the game live and knowing what’s going to happen, it’s still shocking. One of the best relief pitchers of all-time and widely considered to be at the , failed. It just goes to show us that no matter who you are or where you are in life, fallibility is inescapable.

Why I’m Considering Not Watching Football

For the better part of my life, I have been a football fan. I’ve seen every since 1991 and seen quite a few between then and now, too. However, I’m strongly considering not watching football anymore. Based on my previous fandom, this may seem strange. The obvious question follows — why?

Well, I had planned on doing a rather lengthy post (in the same fashion as my series or series), but instead, have decided to keep this quite short. Most people know about the injuries that can come from playing football. The more noted injuries are concussions. Of course, concussions happen in sports other than football, but it seems pretty clear to me that of the 4 major sports in America, football is by far the most dangerous.

Plenty has been written about concussions and football over the last couple of years. Here’s a smattering:

— Time, 2010

— Amarillo [Texas] Globe-News, 2012

— The Sporting News, 2012

— Niners Nation, 2012

— Niners Nation, 2012

— Bleacher Report, 2012

— Washington Post, 2102

Some may point to the injuries in other sports and say that it’s only natural for there to be injuries in football, too — it’s a contact sport. While that’s true, football is a contact sport, how much are we — as spectators — willing to put up with? It’s probably a bit over the top to compare the football of today to what they did in .

The last point I want to make about this: consider that when you watch something on TV or when you  buy something at the store, you are, in a sense, endorsing that program or that product. I realize that for some, there can sometimes be restrictions on what they can or cannot buy. I’d like to think, however, that we can all choose not to watch a sport that we think does not espouse the values we hold to be true.

The Theory of Relativity and the 2012 London Olympics

A few hours ago, I was in the for the mid Atlantic watching  in Women’s Soccer in the quarterfinals. The reason I mention that it’s the flagship Whole Foods is because they have an area where there’s 12 (maybe more?) big screen TV’s playing an assortment of sports. As the are currently “the thing” right now, that’s what was on almost every TV. (Aside: I was actually surprised not to see them on every single TV.)

Anyway, as I was watching Canada salt away the second half, I was also keeping tabs on a few other events. There was , , , and . It was really cool seeing badminton because, well, for one, I haven’t seen it since the and for two, it was ! While it was a bit dizzying to keep tabs on all these sports, I started to notice something — tennis started to look veeeerrrrryyy sloooowwww. This seemed odd to me because tennis players 180+ km/h. For those of you reading this in the US, that’s approximately 112 mph. So — not slow.

Why did it look slow? The badminton players could hit the birdie (or ) back and forth over the net 4 or 5 times before the second tennis player can hit the first tennis player’s shot. Incredible!

As you’ll note from the title of this post, I mentioned the . Why? Because the Theory of Relativity can explain why the  gameplay of tennis looked slow in relation to the gameplay of badminton. There’s a that sums up the theory of relativity quite nicely:

When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it’s longer than any hour. That’s relativity.

Is it Time for More International Sports Events?

I’m that I haven’t written more about , but I’ve got a couple of posts (including this one) coming on the subject.

Having been born and raised in North America, the sports that are ‘native’ to me are very different from the sports that would be native to me had I been born and raised in a different part of the world. I grew up watching the (hockey) and (baseball). I played baseball all the way up to (and for part of) university. The weird thing to me is that when I visit places abroad, it’s not that these sports are foreign (or looked down upon), but that these sports aren’t played and revered in the same way that they are in North America.

For example, when I was for a few months, it was all about the (rugby). In fact, the country kind of “shuts down” when the All Blacks are playing. This doesn’t usually happen in North America. Well, maybe more accurately, it doesn’t usually happen in the US. I know that it definitely happens in Canada. Remember the in Vancouver? More specifically, remember the game? (22 million people of the 33 million living in Canada) watched Sidney Crosby score the overtime winner.

This whole post was sparked by a couple of ‘global’ sports events. The first, the . I happened to be in Munich on the day of the game (I’ve never seen so many uniformed and undercover police in one place!) From what I understand, the UEFA Champions League Final is like the Superbowl in the US, but only 5 times . More noteworthy for me is that the Champions League Final usually draws more viewers internationally. This is due, in part, to the teams that play in this league not all being from the same country. Nonetheless, when I’m watching a game like this, I feel like there’s more of a shared community. I can imagine people in Spain watching the game at the same time that people in Russia and Australia are watching the game. Of course, that may be the case with the Superbowl, but I don’t feel it as much.

The second sports event that helped spark this post was . Having an Italian lineage (my last name is STANGHINI), I feel a sense of connection to the country and by extension, the . I was really excited when they tied Spain during the group play and then a little worried when they tied Croatia. They went on to beat Ireland to advance to the knockout stage where they then beat England on PKs and handily defeated Germany setting up a rematch of their first game in the group play with Spain in the final. The game seemed close in the 1st half (even though Spain was up 2-0), but once , Spain dominated control of the ball.

Both of these events made me think more about sports on a global level. They made me think (and wish?) for more coverage and (excitement!) from North American countries of international sports events. Yes, baseball is fun and it’s great to see the Blue Jays play the Red Sox or the Yankees, but I really liked the when Cuba played the Dominican Republic or the USA played Japan. I really like it when there’s more of an international engagement. Yes, I enjoy a good Leafs game, especially if it’s against the Canadiens, but I get even more excited to watch a Canada-USA game or a Canada-Russia game. The one problem I can see with all of this is that North American countries are simply responding to their customers. That is, the customer wants to watch the NFL or the NHL, so that’s what gets put on the .

Although, there has been a decided shift to show more international sports events on TV. For instance, I notice that there is a lot more coverage of cricket on Rogers Sportsnet. Maybe North American countries are moving in this direction. Only time will tell.

Watch Your Favorite Team: From The Other Side

Truth be told: when I first started blogging here and I wrote down a bunch of categories that I thought I would write about, I thought I would have a harder time writing articles that weren’t about . Today’s post will be my 10th in the sports category, which is still 7 behind the and categories (both have 17 each), and last among the 11 categories here at Genuine Thriving.

Six or seven years ago, I was at a sports lounge watching one of my favorite teams play. There was something different this time, though. Instead of watching my team on the “home” network where I usually watched them, I was watching them on the network of the other team. At first, this might not seem like anything special, but as I continued to watch the game on this network, I noticed something: a home-team bias. The odd thing: it wasn’t a bias for ‘my’ team.

It was a home-team bias for the “other” team. And it was pretty blatant, too. There was a controversial call (and it was really close), but the announcers were saying that it was an “easy” call in favor of their team. At first, I was a little surprised that they could be so biased. I always thought that announcers were supposed to be “unbiased” or at least not display their biases, while on-air.

A little while back, I wrote about . The quote to start that post was from a scientist who has won a Nobel prize for his work in this area: “You will learn from others around you being skeptical more than you will learn by becoming skeptical.”

This may take a bit of abstraction, but let’s think about how we can apply this to the scenario of watching your favorite team from the ‘other’ side. Typically, the announcers for your favorite team will develop a relationship with the players on said team. When announcing, they may display (unintentional) biases towards your team. However, if you were watching on the other team’s network, the announcers just might see things that the home-team announcers won’t (because of their biases).

I realize that it’s not always possible (or easy) to get a hold of the opposing team’s broadcast of the game. However, I would encourage you to try it once or twice. The first few times I did it, I learned some interesting things about ‘my’ team. Why? Mostly because announcers like to supply “interesting facts” about the opposing team. As a result, I learned things about ‘my’ team that I wouldn’t have ever heard had I only ever listened to the regular broadcast.

I know that for some sports, this really isn’t possible. For American football, the games are usually nationally televised on either FOX or CBS, so there isn’t a blatant bias by the announcers for one team or the other. However, for sports like hockey, baseball, and basketball, there are usually local broadcasters for the game.

Usain Bolt False Start: Evidence for Heightened Awareness?

The are nearly over, but not without a little bit of controversy. Particularly, in the men’s 100m final that is. I’ve embedded a short 2-minute clip of the false start.

After watching the video, it’d be pretty hard not to agree with the decision that did false start (and based on the , should be disqualified). While some people , some other people took a little closer look at the footage of the race. In fact, some people don’t think that Bolt was the first one who moved! Take a look:

You might find it a little difficult to see on the video (on the TV), but what this fellow is saying seems to be accurate to me. You can watch the actual footage from the race () and pay close attention to the 0:13 mark. You can see the runner on the (left-side of the screen) flinch before Bolt false starts.

You can read about the running implications on some of the articles I’ve linked to earlier in this post or even in the video of the fellow attempting to exonerate Bolt. I’m more interested in the implications of this for heightened awareness.

There’s a concept in psychology that’s known as “.” There are other “colloquial” terms for this concept. : “on the ball; in the moment; present; in the zone; wired in; in the groove; keeping your head in the game.” Flow is often something associated with sports, but it is a concept that can be transferred to any human activity where one “is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity.” Music is often cited in flow studies, along with religious/spiritual experience. Gamers and coders often describe experiences that could be considered “flow.”

I can’t say this with certainty, but in my review of the literature, I haven’t come across a journal article on flow that specifically studies the body. Most flow studies I have read focus on the brain (of course, a part of the body) and what’s going on in the mind. This is logical given the definition we cited earlier. However, when I first saw the Usain Bolt video, the first thing I thought of was flow. Usain Bolt is a rather gifted athlete and many gifted athletes, whether they know it or not, participate in their sport, while in a state of flow.

I suspect that when humans experience a state of flow, not only are they in an energized focus (mentally), but physically, too. And when this physical focus arises, I would bet that their senses are heightened. Baseball players who are on a hot streak (at the plate) often talk about being able to see the ball really well. Almost as if the ball is slowing down when it gets to them. We could say that this is a heightened sense of awareness. In a way, it (sounds) like they are able to slow down time. In essence, this could be as a result of their heightened awareness.

Because of Usain Bolt’s chosen sport of sprinting, there is a hyper-focus on quick movements, especially at the starter’s block. The runner’s have to wait for the sound that signals the start of the race and then go! As humans are complex systems, it is unreasonable to expect that runner’s rely solely on their auditory ability to know when to go. In fact, I would almost guarantee that runners also take in visual cues from their neighboring runners. “If the person next to me goes, then I better start running.” Of course, this is not something that is taking place cognitively. That is, the runner isn’t consciously deliberating as to when to go because of when the person next to him goes.” This is something that has to take place in the subconscious.

One more piece to add to this is the body. I mentioned this briefly earlier, but then went on to talk about the visual cues. Not only are we (as humans) taking in information through our eyes and ears, but it could also be said that we also take in information through our body. (Some may argue that this information is actually entering through our eyes/ears, but just at a level that is immeasurable with the current scientific tools, but I digress.) Taking in information through our body — through sensing the space around us. For a tangible example, you could think of a blind person. Yes, they rely on their ears to help them navigate the world, but there’s also an intangible that allows them to know what’s around.

Tying this into the race that we have witnessed: Yohan Blake flinches (ever so slightly) and I would argue that Usain Bolt, as a result of being in a state of flow, and with a heightened sense of awareness, noticed this movement, and consequently, began the race.

Golf is a Sport

I’ve been in Toronto and Ottawa for the last couple of weeks and have had the opportunity to experience some of the “” hitting this region. During this time, I had the chance to ‘hit the links.’ While I wouldn’t consider myself ready for the , I like to think that I can hold my own and at least keep up with the pace of the average amateur golfer. The thing that struck me the most: golf – by nearly any definition of the word – is a sport.

In preparation for this post, I looked at a number of definitions of the word sport:

– A sport is an organized, competitive, entertaining, and skillful activity requiring commitment, strategy, and fair play, in which a winner and loser can be defined by objective means. Generally speaking, a sport is a game based in physical athleticism.

– An athletic activity requiring skill of physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.

– Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.

– (1) Physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2): a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in

From my perspective, any one of these definitions would qualify golf as a sport. As a matter of fact, one of them even uses golf as an example!

It seems that I’m not the first person to consider whether or not this particular activity should be qualified as a sport. A few years back, someone wrote an article for the Huffington Post titled: “” While his title was a bit of a giveaway, I still read through to try to understand his opinion. There is also a scientific angle to this debate, which was taken by the author of the article entitled: “.” From the article:

Subjects walking and carrying their clubs burned 721 calories per round, while the lazy folks in the carts burned just 411. Surprisingly, there was no difference in carrying clubs versus using a push cart, so save your back and rent the cart.

These numbers are important because the article later cites the calories burned of other activities that are less than those burned while playing golf.

As I think back to carrying my clubs for 3000 yards (and that’s a small course), I couldn’t imagine having to do this for 4 straight days (typical weekend tournament for golf) and still having the energy and focus to play well on Sunday afternoon. Golf is a sport. Golf requires a practicable skill and physical exertion. I can’t imagine someone who is (really) out of shape trying to play in a weekend golf tournament where they are required to carry their clubs. Playing 72 holes is a whole-body experience. Everything from your head to your toes is used to ensure you are playing your best.

I suppose there may be some folks who think that the pro golfers (who have caddies) have it easy, then, right? Because they don’t have to carry their clubs, they really aren’t getting the full effect of “golf as a sport.” Well, that might be the case. They might burn a bunch more calories if they carried their bags, but even to walk 7000 yards [A typical professional golf course of 18 holes will have around 7000 yards and that’s just the yardage from the tee to the pin, which wouldn’t include all the other walking to the ball (if it’s not in a straight line to the hole), around the ball, etc.] and multiply that by 4 days… that’s nearly 30,000 yards. If we include the other extraneous walking and bump the number to 40,000 yards, that translates to more than 22 miles walked in a Thursday-Sunday tournament. All the while, these golfers are stopping to hit their ball and mentally plan their shots.

Golf is a sport.