For David Stern This Lockout Is Personal

by Paul Knepper


NBA Commissioner David Stern is often credited with rescuing the league from the dark days of the late 70’s and early 80’s and developing it into the prosperous enterprise it is today. During his 27 years on the job, he’s overseen the boom years of the 1980’s and has been instrumental in expanding basketball’s popularity around the globe.

Stern is so well respected within the game, by fans and the media that his reputation has remained unscathed, despite a lockout shortened season in 1999, the “Malice at the Palace,” a controversial dress code and perhaps most remarkably, a referee’s admission that he bet on games.

But the current lockout is different. The stakes are greater than ever for the commissioner as he faces the prospect of adding a lost season to his resume.

Many fans see Stern’s role as NBA commissioner as that of an independent guardian of the game, someone to oversee league issues, such as marketing, television rights, rules of the game, public relations, discipline and relations with the players’ union.

In actuality, Stern works for the owners.  Essentially, he’s the CEO of the NBA and the owners are the shareholders. They decide if he stays or goes and like any investors, their primary concern is their bottom line. His concern for the quality and growth of the product is based on its value to them.

Based on Stern’s recommendation, the owners locked out the players on July 1st, claiming that under the last collected bargaining agreement 22 of the 30 teams were losing money to the tune of over $300 million a year. Currently, 57% of “basketball related income” is going to the players and the owners want to grab a larger slice of that pie. They intend to do so by among other things, lowering maximum salaries and implementing a hard salary cap.

The players have contested the owners’ accounting and raised a question as to why so many investors are buying into the league if it’s in such financial trouble. Two teams have been sold since the lockout began. Hedge fund founder Joshua Harris bought the Philadelphia 76ers last month for $280 million and this week California businessman Alex Meruelo purchased an Atlanta Hawks franchise with some of the poorest attendance numbers in the league.

In May, billionaire Tom Gores bought the Detroit Pistons and their arena The Palace at Auburn Hills for $325 million, despite the near certainty of a lockout, and the Charlotte Bobcats, Golden State Warriors, New Jersey Nets and Washington Wizards also changed hands in the past two years.

At a press conference announcing his purchase of the Hawks Meruelo stated, “this is a tremendous opportunity for growth.” That’s a curious statement given the current lockout and the owners’ claim that they’re losing money.

Meruelo, like several owners before him, based his assumption on the word of the esteemed commissioner. Desperate to lure new investors, Stern made assurances that the lockout would lead to a new collective bargaining agreement much more favorable to the owners.

The commissioner pushed hard for the lockout and now he owns it. Failure to secure a deal to the owners liking would severely damage his credibility with current and future investors and could even put his job in jeopardy.

Stern’s legacy is also riding on the results of the lockout. Over the years, it’s the commish has made it apparent that he cares about how he’ll be remembered. Ultimately, his legacy will be shaped primarily by the media and fans, not the owners. A lost season on his watch may be in the owners’ best interest, but would do irreparable harm to his pristine image in the eyes of the public.

Reported schisms within the ranks of the owners have further complicated matters for Stern. Team owners have different priorities and in some cases conflicting interests based on their specific circumstances.

Owners of veteran teams capable of competing for a championship are less inclined to lose an entire season in an attempt to break the players union. The same can be said for profitable big city teams, which also raises the divisive issue of revenue sharing between big and small market teams.

Owners who bought into the league in the 80’s or 90’s and saw the value of their franchises multiply may not be as determined as the newer owners to break with the current system at all costs. Then there’s a group of owners who owned NHL teams when the hockey league lost the entire 2004-2005 season to a lockout and are convinced that sitting out an NBA season will lead to similar favorable results.

The recent success of the league places even more pressure on Stern to make a deal. The 2011 playoffs were riveting. Ticket sales and television ratings were up this past season and with several highly marketable young stars and a marquee team/villain in the Miami Heat, there’s a solid foundation for the league to continue to build on. An extended lockout would kill any existing momentum.

Well over a month into the lockout, the players and owners appear to still be miles apart and the owners have escalated the conflict by filing a claim of unfair labor practices against the players. National Basketball Players Association Executive Director Billy Hunter recently predicted that the entire season would be lost, which appears to be the common sentiment among the players, many of whom have explored alternative options overseas.

In the autumn of his career, the commissioner faces his greatest challenge. With his reputation on the line, he must appease several competing factions while pushing through wholesale changes to the revenue distribution system for a $3 billion a year business. It’s not surprising that he’s been uncharacteristically surly lately. David Stern owns this lockout, but it may end up owning him.

You’re a Real Man Deion!

In honor of Deion Sanders’ induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame this evening, here’s a highlight reel of vintage “Prime Time” from his early years with the Atlanta Falcons.

And who can forget this classic confrontation with announcer Tim McCarver…

Is Brandon Marshall the Only Wide Receiver With a Personality Disorder?

by Paul Knepper

A week ago, Brandon Marshall was considered just your average egomaniacal wide receiver; self-centered, attention seeking, demanding, aversive to authority and inclined to engage in risky and/or violent activities off the field.
On Monday, the Miami Dolphins wide receiver took the courageous step of publicly revealing that he suffers from a serious psychiatric illness called borderline personality disorder (BPD). The diagnosis helps explain his history of domestic violence and disruptive behavior in the locker room.

But what does that say about all the other wide receivers in the league who share many of Marshall’s personality traits? Are several of the NFL’s elite wide receivers mentally ill?

The common characteristics of BPD are: a pervasive pattern of affective instability, severe difficulties in interpersonal relationships, problems with behavioral or impulse control (including suicidal behaviors) and disrupted cognitive processes. This instability often disrupts family and work life, long-term planning and the individual’s sense of self-identity.

There’s a long list of wide receivers who have severe difficulty with interpersonal relationships and problems with impulse control. I could rattle off countless examples of domestic abuse, confrontation with coaches and impulsive acitivities like running over a police officer or attempting suicide.

Perhaps more revealing is BPD’s not-so-distant cousin, narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). A diagnosis of NPD is based on the existence of at least five of these qualities:

·         Grandiose sense of self-importance

·         Preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, love, etc.

·         Believes that he/she is special

·         Requires excessive admiration

·         Has a sense of entitlement

·         Is interpersonally exploitive

·         Lacks empathy

·         Envious of others

·         Shows arrogance

People suffering with NPD often have unreasonable expectations of special treatment and tend to react to criticism with rage, shame or humiliation.

Of course, it’s possible to be narcissistic without having NPD. Narcissism is rampant in our society and appears to be more prevalent among athletes in general. We’ve grown accustomed to athletes speaking of themselves or “their talents” in the third person, referring to themselves as a brand or coming up with their own nicknames. Yet, wide receivers appear to take the concept of the narcissistic athlete to another level.

Their narcissistic tendencies have been enhanced by increased media exposure and reinforced by an escalation of in number and value of endorsement opportunities, however, the concept of the narcissistic wide receiver is not a new phenomena.

In 1973, Dr. Arnold Mandell, a team psychiatrist for the San Diego Chargers, created personality profiles for every football position. His analysis of the wide receiver was spot on and still rings true thirty eight years later.

“The wide receiver is a very special human being,” Mandell wrote. “He shares many features with actors and movie stars. He is narcissistic and vain and basically a loner.”

He added, “They love to be the center of attention. They need to be noticed. They have an imperviousness in that they don’t seem to mind criticism about being like that. All players want the respect of fellow players. Showing off usually is not an admired characteristic by most players, but by wide receivers it is very admired.”

“They are interested in looking pretty, being pretty. They are elegant, interpersonally isolated. Wide receivers don’t group, they don’t mob out. They are actors, uninflected about showing off, individualists, quite interested in their own welfare, their own appearance.”

Sound like somebody you know? How about Brandon Marshall, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Keyshawn Johnson, Braylon Edwards, Chad Ochocinco and Michael Irvin, to name a few.

Some may argue that there are players with big egos at every position in the NFL, it’s just more noticable with wide receivers because they play a high profile position. The hole in that argument is that quarterback and running back are also high profile positions, in fact, quarterbacks draw more attention than wide receivers, yet they don’t come across nearly as narcissistic.

Of course, that’s not to say that all wide receivers are narcissists. Jerry Rice and Marvin Harrison never drew attention to themselves on or off the field (prior to Dancing With the Stars) and the two top current wide receivers, Andre Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald, project an air of humility. Still, the percentage of narcissistic wide receivers seems disproportionately high.

So why are wide receivers so narcissistic?

There’s a chicken or the egg aspect to this question. Does the wide receiver position create narcissism or are narcissistic athletes drawn to wide reciever because of the nature of the position? It may be a little of both.

The wide receiver’s profile in relation to the quarterback may be part of the problem. Wide receivers are generally the best athletes on the field, yet they don’t receive as much attention or credit as the quarterback. Their production and profile is actually to a large extent dependent on the quarterback. Both of those facors can lead to resentment, which may manifest as narcissism. Consider Terrell Owens, who has thrown one quarterback after another under the bus, seemingly because he wanted to be the star of the team.

A possible explanation for the high rate of narcissism among wide receivers as compared to the other high profile positions is that narcissists are weeded out due to the demands of those positions. The quarterback is the team leader and if he puts his concerns and ego ahead of the team he won’t be in the league very long. Running backs are humbled by the constant pounding they take throughout the game. Narcissists are unlikely to seek that position or last at it if they do.

The wide receiver’s positioning on the field may be a factor as well. They line up alone on an island, which can foster a sense of distance from teammates or a feeling that one’s special. On the flip side, it’s very possible that loners or narcissistic personalities prefer wide receiver because of the isolation or high profile of the position, without the pressures or pouding that come with touching the ball more frequently.

Regardless of the cause, it’s diffficult to argue with the premise that narcissism is a common trait among NFL wide recievers. I’m not qualified to speculate as to whether the personality traits of specific receivers rise to the level of a disorder, or which disorder they may have. It’s an interesting subject for a psychological study.

Brandon Marshall deserves credit for recognizing his illness and seeking help. Maybe some other receivers will follow his lead. Then again, that wouldn’t be very narcissistic of them.

Clutching to Clutch

by Paul Knepper

A few days ago, members of my fantasy baseball league engaged in a heated discussion over whether there’s such a thing as “clutch” hitting in baseball. It’s been an ongoing debate within baseball circles since the sabermetrics revolution became mainstream in the past 20 years.

It’s a fascinating argument, beginning with how to define “clutch” – a word often loosely used to describe a player’s dependability or productivity in high pressure situations – then agreeing on a measurable criteria based on specific game situations. Once a definition is established a clash ensues, with proponents of statistical analysis on one side and those beholden to memory and perception on the other.

Even more intriguing than the debate itself (For the record, I’m not completely sold either way) is the passion it evokes in the debaters, especially those who believe that there are “clutch” hitters. Their outrage is a revealing window into the nature of fandom and the role that sports, in this case baseball specifically, play in the lives of sports fans.

I’m not talking about casual fans who watch or even attend a few games a year and check in on the standings now and then or fantasy leaguers who are more concerned with their imaginary teams than the real ones. I’m talking about the real fans, the die-hards.

For them sports are a religion, a source of structure and escape, a connection with other people and a feeling that they belong to something greater than themselves. Like any religion, sports have their own rules, regulations and etiquette, mantras and superstitions. They even have the requisite mythology and heroes to worship (think of all the plaques, statues, monuments and retired jerseys), along with villains to demean and disdain.

Mythology plays a greater role in baseball than any other major American sport because of its history. It wasn’t just America’s favorite pastime during the early and mid 20th century, it was more popular than all the other American sports combined. Before television and internet, radio and print shaped our images of giants of the game in a way no longer possible due to increased access to information.

Those heroes shared certain common characteristics, chief among them the almost super-human ability to raise their level of play in crucial situations, in other words, to be clutch. The concept was supported by references to specific instances or images, many of which have become imbedded in our collective memory, like Bobby Thompson’s home run or Carlton Fisk waving the ball fair.

Reggie Jackson rose to the occasion to hit three home runs in Game 6 of the 1977 World Series, earning the moniker Mr. October. More recently, he’s been joined on Mount Clutchmore by another Yankee, Derek Jeter.

These heroes have been passed down from generation to generation, along with the magical numbers, records and streaks which have been used to define greatness and shape “conventional baseball wisdom.” Williams .400 season, Henderson’s stolen bases, triple crown winners, DiMiaggio’s hitting streak, Ryan’s no-hitters and the greatest of them all, Aaron’s 755 home runs, represented the pinnacle of success.

The media continues to create and enhance these legends. The drama of heroes and goats make for great headlines and compelling story lines. The press caters to what their audience is comfortable with, the old myths and wisdom. Most television broadcasts still display a hitter’s batting average, home runs and RBIs when he comes to the plate, even though we now know there are more telling statistics than batting average and RBIs.

It’s important to note that fans follow the game for different reasons. Some are infatuated by the mythology, records and statistics, as they understand them. Others love the intricacies of the game itself, the grip on a curveball, a perfectly executed double play or a batter working the count. The vast majority of fans incorporate a little bit of both schools of thought; it’s a question of which way they lean.

The great myth buster, sabermetrics, represented a revolutionary way of examining a player’s productivity and worth, based on objective analysis of empirical evidence. Its followers ruffled many feathers by pointing out inefficiencies in conventional baseball wisdom and questioning the significance of many of the holy numbers associated with the game’s patron saints.

Sabermetricians argued that it never makes sense to bunt, that errors are an inadequate means for measuring a player’s defensive ability and that stolen bases are over-valued. They concluded that batting average RBIs are relatively ineffective means of evaluating a hitter and that a batter’s worth should be determined by more meaningful statistics, such as on his on-base percentage and to a greater extent, OPS (on-base percentage + slugging percentage.)

Most egregiously, the sabermetricians have produced study after study claiming that “clutch” hitting does not exist. They argue that there’s no empirical evidence to demonstrate that certain players elevate their performance in crucial game situations. Sure, some players’ numbers are greater in the post-season, but that’s based on a small sample size.

To delve into sabermetrics takes a curiosity to explore another way of thinking, devoid of myth and memory. Those who have embraced the statistical revolution and still enjoy baseball either love the game as played on the field, statistics in general or both. They may succumb to fairy tales now and then, but it’s not the essence of their connection to the game.

Many adherents to conventional baseball wisdom have laughed off sabermetric findings, choosing to rely on myths, memories and perceptions instead. Like any extremely devout person, they don’t pick and choose which parts of the religion to follow, they adhere to every aspect of it. They cling to the concept of “clutch” because to do otherwise would be to question their faith.

Baseball the religion, goes to the core of their very being, so their reaction to someone questioning the tenets of the game evokes a visceral response. It’s a defense mechanism against what they perceive as an attack against their sense of self.

If they were to explore sabermetrics, they might not like what they find. When the preconceptions and myths fade away, they may realize that they don’t love the game itself as much as they thought they did. Then they’d have to find a new religion to clutch.

Government Dropped the Ball On Steroids

In 2005, the House Government Reform Committee conducted a public hearing regarding the use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball (MLB). Yesterday, a trial against former MLB star Roger Clemens based on his alleged perjury during that hearing ended in a mistrial, just a few months after a mistrial in the Barry Bonds case a few months ago, leaving the government looking incompetent and imprudent.

Contrary to popular opinion I believed that the unusual step of Congress intervening in the affairs of professional sports league was warranted. I didn’t buy the argument that Congress shouldn’t have gotten involved because they had more important things to do than hold congressional hearings on the use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in baseball or that the U.S. Attorney’s office had more pressing cases to try than perjury charges stemming from those hearings and other investigations.

Obviously, Congress had more important issues to deal with, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rising national debt, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have addressed the use of PEDs in baseball as well. Should a physician refuse to treat a patient with a cough or a sprained ankle because he has other patients with more severe conditions like chest pains or pneumonia?  Should the police ignore domestic violence and petty theft claims because they have rapes and murders to deal with? I’m sure there were also members of Congress who pushed the issue as a way to gain favor with their constituents, but that doesn’t mean their actions were unjustified.

The PED problem in baseball needed to be addressed by Congress. Their involvement was necessitated by the unwillingness of the people running MLB, from the commissioner’s office to the team owners, to deal with the problem. Steroid use in baseball is a serious issue, not only because of what PEDs do to the athletes’ bodies, but also because of the influence professional athletes have on children and the culture at large.

The major problem with the Congressional hearing was that six players testified, compared to just four baseball executives and zero team owners. The players who used PEDs were certainly culpable, but they received a disproportionate amount of the blame from Congress and the media. In order for an epidemic to become institutionalized, as PED use in baseball was, those in charge must be complicit in the conspiracy and should be held accountable.

The suggestion that the commissioner’s office and team management had no idea this behavior was going on is ludicrous. The players’ appearances changed, from their muscles to their hat size. Mediocre middle infielders began hitting 30-40 home runs a year and there were rumblings about steroid use inside several locker rooms. Jason Giambi’s agent insisted that the Yankees remove a boilerplate clause from his contract stating that it could be voided in the event that he tested positive for steroids.

Once the hearing was over, I believe the U.S. Attorney’s Office was warranted in pursuing a case against Roger Clemens and Miguel Tejada for lying to Congress (Clemens at the above-mentioned hearing and Tejada when speaking to the house committee later in 2005, regarding his connections to Rafael Palmeiro’s PED use. Tejada pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in 2009 and received one year of probation) and Barry Bonds for lying to a grand jury.

I’m well aware that trials such as the ones involving Clemens and Bonds require a substantial allocation of money and man hours, which could be used for other things, but the analogies I used earlier of the doctor and police officer still apply. Both alleged crimes were a direct challenge to the authority of institutions which are essential to the stability of our society and the perpetrators need to be held accountable in order to maintain the credibility of those institutions.

The catch is that the prosecution must be sure they have enough evidence to prove the charges before they bring a case and then try the case effectively. The U.S. Attorney’s Office typically clears those hurdles. With the power of the federal government behind them they have a tremendous number of resources at their disposal and don’t bring a case to trial unless they’re extremely confident they can secure a guilty verdict. According to the Department of Justice, 94.1 percent of federal prosecutors’ cases resolved in 2009 ended with a conviction.

The case against Barry Bonds stemmed from his grand jury testimony in 2003 regarding charges against a suspected steroid dealer, in which he allegedly lied about his use of PEDs. When the allegations against Bonds first became public he was viewed as a villain and Americans was engaged in the issue, but while the government took eight years to build their case, even sports fan grew indifferent towards the steroid scandal and the pending Bonds and Clemens trials.

The case against Bonds began to fall apart pre-trial, when crucial pieces of evidence were deemed inadmissible. Perhaps, the government should have cut their losses and dropped the case then, but they decided to go forward. Though Bonds was convicted on one charge of obstruction of justice, the prosecution failed to convince all 12 jurors that he was guilty on three counts of lying to the grand jury. The hung jury and resulting mistrial was a public relations nightmare for the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The government’s second big perjury case against a baseball icon fell apart due to incompetence. The Clemens trial, which began on Wednesday, was declared a mistrial by U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton yesterday morning after the prosecution introduced evidence which had previously been deemed inadmissible by the court. We may never know how strong the government’s case against Clemens was.

One has to wonder if real or imagined pressure from Congress, the Justice Department, or a superior at the U.S. Attorney’s office influenced the attorneys on these cases to bring them to trial against their better judgment. Now they’re left to decide whether they should pursue a re-trial of Bonds, Clemens or both, as public opinion continues to mount against what’s perceived as a waste of time and taxpayer money during a recession.

The government’s immersion into the MLB steroid scandal did reap some positive results. Baseball was forced to adopt more stringent PED testing and disciplinary measures. It was the scope of the investigation and the botched aftermath which backfired in their face. Only the federal government could jump into a situation with the best of intentions and public support behind them and come out looking like fools.

Why No Golf?

by Paul Knepper

Over the past several weeks, a number of people have asked me why I don’t write about golf. I’ve heard, “You cover basketball, baseball, football , even tennis, but never any golf.” So, I’m setting the record straight; this site does not provide any golf coverage because it is a sports site and it’s this blogger’s position that golf is not a sport. All sports are games and athletic competitions, but not all athletic competitions and games are sports.

Before you golf lovers throw a fit, relax, I’m not going to go all George Carlin on you, ranting about golf being an elitist, silly waste of valuable real estate. I understand that it’s an extremely difficult game which requires tremendous skill, hand-eye coordination and years of practice in order to perform at a high level. I recognize that it can be very competitive, even addictive for some, and respect its value as a relaxing get away from the wife for a few hours.

I don’t begrudge those who enjoy playing and watching it or appreciate the technical, competitive and historical aspects of the game. I may even join you one day.

I’m also aware that golf is a “sport” as defined by standard dictionaries. Dictionary.com defines sport as, “An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature such as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.”

But practically speaking, that definition is inaccurate and overinclusive. As it states in the examples provided, bowling, hunting and fishing are athletic activities which require skill or physical prowess and are often of a competitive nature, and they are certainly not sports.

My definition of a sport includes two key attributes which distinguish it from a game or competition: 1) There must be significant physical exertion and 2) There must be direct head-to-head combat, typically involving defense. By “direct head-to-head combat” I mean that one player or team’s actions is directly affected and countered by the opposing player or team’s actions.

Golf meets neither of those criteria. According to my definition, ping-pong is more of a sport than golf. At least ping pong involves direct competition, though it likely falls short on the physical exertion side.

On a side note, most sports involve a puck or ball, though it’s not required. Boxing and wrestling are sports. Track meets and competitive swimming are a bit tricky. Both require extreme physical exertion, but they don’t involve direct combat in the traditional sense of defense. Participants are confined to their own lanes and may not interfere with other competitors.

However, runners and swimmers do compete simultaneously, directly next to one another, so that the performance of one athlete is likely to evoke a mental and physical response from another athlete, which in turn affects the performance of the original athlete. At one time in our lives we’ve all run a little faster when we realized that somebody was running next to us or after us. Ultimately, given the indirect nature of the competition, I lean towards categorizing swimming and track meets as athletic competitions, rather than sports, though I leave that up for debate.

Golf fans are quick to argue that walking 18 holes, while carrying a bag of clubs is quite tiring and swinging an iron requires significant force, which takes a toll on the body. I don’t doubt that, but in the realm of athletic competition, walking a few miles and swinging a club several times is pretty minimal exertion. Any activity during which participants may smoke cigars while discussing a potential business deal cannot be too strenuous. 

Supporters of the game also claim that a golfer engages in direct combat with the rest of the field. A golfer may even choose to alter his approach based on the actions of a competitor. I recognize that there is a competition taking place, but the athletic interaction is indirect. There’s not another player in the golfer’s face attempting to block his shot, or prevent him from hitting it altogether. There’s not a goalie on the green trying to stop the ball from going into the hole or somebody on the other end of the course hitting the ball back at him, forcing him to react and counter.

I’ve even heard golf enthusiasts make the ridiculous argument that the number of sports fans who follow and play golf, combined with the coverage it receives from the sports media, is evidence that it’s a sport. The game’s popularity shouldn’t affect its classification. Poker is one of the most preferred games in the country, yet it’s not a sport, regardless of how many hours of air time ESPN2 fills with it. Nascar is another very popular competition which involves skill, but is not a sport.

My classification of golf isn’t based on my personal interest, or lack there of, in the game. I don’t follow hockey or volleyball, though I consider both of them sports. Nor is golf’s reputation as a “country club sport” a factor, since I believe tennis is a sport.

I’m not saying that sports are inherently superior to other types of games and competitions. I love watching Usain Bolt run and was a sucker for Hungry Hungry Hippos as a kid. I’m simply pointing out that there’s a difference between games, competitions and sports, and golf is a competitive game.

If you disagree with me, that’s your prerogative. I’d love to hear arguments for both sides. But if you’re looking for coverage of the upcoming British Open, new wonderkid Rory McIlroy or speculation as to whether Tiger used performance enhancing drugs, you can putt-putt your way to another website. This one’s reserved for sports.

Top 20 NBA Free Agents

The NBA has locked out its players and it may be a long time before we see NBA basketball again. In order to maintain my sanity, I’m trying to remain optimistic and focusing on what will happen once play resumes, so I came up with a list of the top 20 free agents available once the lockout ends. This free agent class lacks the star power of the summer of LeBron and a 2012 class that will likely include Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Dwight Howard, though it has several solid contributors who can help put a good team over the top.

The list includes both restricted and unrestricted free agents, assuming there are still restricted free agents under the new collective bargaining agreement. Unrestricted free agents may sign with any team they choose. Teams retain the right to keep their restricted free agents by matching any offer made by another team. I’ve indicated (UR) for unrestricted or (R) for restricted next to the players’ names.

These are the top 20 NBA free agents of 2011.

20) Yao Ming (UR)

Yao’s career may be over, though there have been big men who have contemplated retirement after multiple lower leg injuries only to return for a few very good seasons, Bill Walton and Zydrunas Ilgauskas being two of them. Yao has made it clear that he only wants to play for the Rockets. It will be interesting to see how much money Houston is willing to gamble on his fragile legs.

19) Rodney Stuckey (R)

Pistons’ President of Basketball Operations Joe Dumars viewed Stuckey as the point guard of the future when he traded Chauncey Billups to Denver a few years ago, but now it seems that the organization believes he’s more of a hybrid than a point guard. The team’s selection of Brandon Knight in the first round may be an indication that Stuckey’s run in Detroit has come to an end.

18) Carl Landry (UR)

Landry is one of the more underrated players in the NBA. He’s a solid low post scorer and hard nosed defender who’s probably best suited to come off the bench, but can step into the starting lineup if necessary. The power forward should see a significant bump in his salary from last season of $3 million.

17) Tayshaun Prince (UR)

The glory days of the Pistons seem like a l0ng time ago. Prince has been forgotten amid the chaos within the franchise, but his productivity has remained steady. He’s a very good defender who can stretch a defense and will bring a championship pedigree with him wherever he ends up.

16) Caron Butler (R)

Butler is highly respect among his peers as an intense competitor, though he’s 31-years-old and coming off of knee surgery. The Mavs would like to retain him, but Tyson Chandler is their number one priority and it’s doubtful that they’ll have the money to sign both.

15) Wilson Chandler (R)

Chandler was one of the key components of the Carmelo Anthony trade and was the odd man out on a deep Nuggets team come playoff time. His greatest asset is his ability to defend multiple positions. He’s expressed an interest in returning to the Knicks and they’d love to have him, but it’s unlikely they’ll be able to make the money work.

14) Aaron Brooks (R)

Brooks’ last two seasons have been a bit perplexing. In ’09-’10 he averaged 19.6 points per game and was voted the league’s most improved player. This past season his shooting was atrocious and his attitude questionable, so the Rockets shipped him to Phoenix. He’s a shoot-first point guard with an inconsistent shot, though his quickness provides a nice change of pace off the bench.

13) Jason Richardson (UR)

J-Rich has lost a step since his early days in Golden State and his failure to help the Magic advance past the first round of the playoffs doesn’t help his cause. He’s not going to make any where the $14.4 million he received last season, though he can still be a complimentary shooter on a playoff team.

12) Thaddeus Young (R)

Young is a remarkable athlete who thrives in a fast-paced offense, but right now he’s no more than a high energy player off the bench. Still, he’s only 23 and has time to develop into a more reliable shooter if  he’s willing to reconstruct the awkward release on his shot.

11) Greg Oden (R)

Oden is the wild card in this free agent class. His injury history is well documented and it seems unlikely that he’ll be able to remain healthy, though he was the number one pick in the draft just four years ago. The Blazers demonstrated that they still have some faith in him when they extended him a qualifying offer of $8.8 million.

10) Jeff Green (R)

Green’s stock has plummeted over the past few years. Once viewed as a potential wing man for Kevin Durant in Oklahoma City, he played sparingly this past post-season after being traded to the Celtics. He can still score from the perimeter and in the post against smaller forwards and defends well on the perimeter.

9) Jamal Crawford (UR)

Crawford will be in high demand this off-season, even though his scoring average dropped from 18.0 to 14.2 this past season. The ideal sixth man can fill it up in a hurry and has proven that he can be a number one option at times on a very good team.

8)  J.R. Smith (UR)

Crawford is more consistent than Smith, but J.R. is six years younger and has many productive years ahead of him, assuming he keeps his head on straight. The Nuggets guard provided George Karl with punch off the bench with his infinite range and tremendous athleticism.

7) Kris Humphries (UR)

Call it the Kardashian effect. After bouncing around the league during his first six seasons, Humphries found his niche in New Jersey last season, averaging 10.4 rebounds per game. He’s a solid rotation player on a playoff team, possibly even a starter at the power forward position.

6) Aaron Affalo (R)

Afflalo has improved significantly in each of his four seasons in the league and has become an efficient shooter and excellent defender. He’ll never be a star, but he’s a solid role player who would make a nice addition to a team like the Bulls that is seeking a shooting guard.

5) DeAndre Jordan (R)

Blake Griffin isn’t the only talented young big man on the Clippers. Jordan was moved into the starting lineup when Chris Kaman was injured and made the most of the opportunity, averaging 7.1 points, 7.3 rebounds and 1.8 blocks per game. It’s highly unlikely that L.A. will allow this budding big man to get away.

4) David West (UR)

West is the best player available through free agency, a versatile scorer who grabs eight boards a game, but he turns 31 this summer and is recovering from a torn anterior cruciate ligament in his left knee. There are reports that the Nets are interested, though West has expressed his desire to return to the Hornets.

3) Nene (UR)

Legitimate centers are difficult to find and Nene is one of the best in the league, in the prime of his career. His numbers aren’t staggering, at 14 points and 7.5 rebounds per game, but he can score in the post and bang with any big man in the league.

2) Marc Gasol (R)

The Grizzlies and their fans are revved up after a deep playoff run this past year without one of their best players, Rudy Gay. Management wants to keep the core of the team intact and is almost certain to match any offer for Pau’s younger, assuming they’re able to remain under the new salary cap.

1) Tyson Chandler (UR)

NBA general managers saw how Chandler transformed the Mavs into a tougher, better defensive team this season. He’s been in the league for ten years, but is still just 28 years-old, and seems to be past the toe injury that hampered him earlier in his career. The Mavs have some difficult decisions to make this off-season, though keeping Chandler will be their top priority.

Other notable free agents: Glen “Big Baby” Davis (UR), Nick Young (R), Andre Kirilenko (UR), Reggie Evans (UR), J.J. Barea (UR), Michael Redd (UR), Grant Hill (UR), Shane Battier (UR), Kenyon Martin (UR), Tracy McGrady (UR), Mario Chalmers (R), DeShawn Stevenson (UR), Samuel Dalembert (UR), Nenad Krstic (UR), Brian Cardinal (UR, Chuck Hayes (UR), Marcus Thornton (R), Daequan Cook (R)

Vin Scully On Impermanence

Over the course of his 62 years in the booth for the Brooklyn and Los Angeles Dodgers, legendary broadcaster Vin Scully has covered some of baseball’s most memorable moments and uttered a bevy of indelible calls and insightful quotes. This famous line about “the Hawk” during a 1991 game between the Dodgers and Cubs is my favorite.

“Andre Dawson has a bruised knee and is listed as day-to-day.  Aren’t we all?”

Missing the King

When baseball fans think of the great Yankee teams of the late 1990s, players such as Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera, Paul O’Neill and David Cone quickly come to mind. Yet, it was seldom used backup catcher Jimmy Leyritz who kicked off the dynasty with a memorable blast in Game 4 of the 1996 World Series.

The Yankees faced the defending champion Atlanta Braves in that series and looked over-matched during the first two games in New York as the Braves took a commanding 2-0 lead. They bounced back to win Game 3, but found themselves in dire straits after falling behind 6-0 early in Game 4. The Yanks scraped together three runs in the sixth inning and, with the score 6-3 going into the eighth inning, Atlanta manager Bobby Cox called on his closer Mark Wohlers to shut down the Yankees over the final two innings.

Wohlers was an All-Star that season, armed with a 100 mph fastball, he was one of the most intimidating closers in baseball. He began the inning by surrendering back-to-back singles to Charlie Hayes and Darryl Strawberry. After Mariano Duncan grounded into a fielder’s choice, Leyritz stepped to the plate with one out and two men on.

At the time, Leyritz was better known for his loquacious personality and idiosyncrasies at the plate than his production on the field. Since being called up by the Yankees in 1990, he’d platooned at third base and served as a backup catcher. He was an average hitter who never smacked more than 17 home runs in a season.

The Ohio native often arrived at the ballpark wearing a cowboy hat and boots. His teammates nicknamed him “The King,” due to his large ego, and on a team composed of reserved professionals, he was the one Yankee sportswriters turned to for provocative quotes.

The right-handed Leyritz had a unique batting stance, which many fans tried to emulate. He kept his front leg straight and stiff, while placing his weight on his back knee, which was slightly bent. As he waited for the pitch, he dangled the knob of the bat in a circular motion behind his head. Then, after each pitch, he twirled the bat at waist level, like a baton.

Leyritz had entered Game 4 of the ’96 Series in the sixth inning as a pinch hitter for catcher Joe Girardi. He looked confidant, as always, as he stepped into the batter’s box to face the hard-throwing Wohlers. “The King”  worked the count to 2-2, then fouled off two blistering fastballs just to stay alive. In the seventh pitch of the at-bat Leyritz caught up to Wohlers’ heat and jacked a hanging slider over the leftfield wall at Atlanta Fulton County Stadium, tying the game at 6-6.

With one swing of the bat, “The King” completed the Yankee comeback and shifted the momentum of the series. It was the biggest home run by a Yankee since Bucky Dent’s blast against the Red Sox at Fenway Park in 1978. The Yankees won the game 8-6 in the 10th inning and finished off the Braves in six games. They went on to win three more World Series over the next four years.

Leyritz’s sensational shot wasn’t the only dramatic postseason homer of his career, either. The previous year, he hit a walk-off shot against the Mariners in the 15th inning of Game 2 of the ALDS. As a member of the Padres in 1998, he launched three long balls in the NLDS, one of which tied the score in the ninth inning of Game 2 and another in the seventh inning of Game 3 that turned out to be the game winner.

In a second go-around with the Yankees, Leyritz let fly a solo bomb in the eighth inning of Game 4 of the ‘99 World Series. It was the last major league home run hit in the 20th century.

The Yankees had a young Jorge Posada in the farm system so they let Leyritz sign a free agent deal with the Anaheim Angels after the ’96 season. He went on to play for the Rangers, Red Sox, Padres, Yankees again and Dodgers, before hanging it up after the 2000 season. During a career that spanned eleven seasons, Jimmy Leyritz compiled a .264 batting average and hit 90 home runs, though “The King” earned his ransom when the games mattered most. He retired with eight post-season home runs.

Saturday was Old-Timers Day at Yankee Stadium, one of the more glorified traditions in sports. There were several Hall of Famers on hand, including, Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford and Reggie Jackson. Joe Torre received a rousing ovation for his first appearance at Old Timers Day and many of his former players participated, such as, Bernie Williams and Tino Martinez, who took his former teammate David Cone deep. But the man that kicked off the most recent Yankee dynasty was conspicuously absent.

Leyritz has spent the last few years fighting serious criminal charges. His blood alcohol level was above the legal limit when he was behind the wheel during a car accident in 2007 that resulted in the death of the other driver. In November 2010, he was acquitted on a charge of DUI Manslaughter, but convicted on the misdemeanor of driving under the influence. Perhaps the Yankees are letting the dust settle before they invite him back.

Despite his mistakes he’s sure to receive a thunderous applause the next time he appears at the stadium. “The King” remains a crowd favorite in the Bronx and his home run in Game 4 of the ‘96 World Series will forever be a part of Yankee lore. Old Timers day isn’t the same without him.