I was terrible at sports as a kid (and frankly still am today), so I spent a lot of time on benches thinking about why kids play organized sports.  Is it to keep them from becoming fat, lazy, slobs—because I’ve seen the childhood obesity rates, so let me say “Mission Accomplished.”  Is it to ingrain competitiveness—because if you’ve seen seven-year olds play soccer you already know that two of them are competitive while the other 20 stand around picking…let’s say, dandelions.  So the only reason left is teamwork.  Seems important enough, right?  Playing well with others and whatnot.  But if teamwork is really that important, if we care about it that much, if we learn about it so early, why did GMs never get the message?  We all know that General Managers and Coaches are to sports fans what airline food is to stand-up comics: if they weren’t bad what would we have to talk about?  But this really does seem like an easy lesson, so why do teams keep screwing themselves with selfish players? 

Basically this question boils down to: why do teams still want A-Rod?  Remember that this isn’t just about the steroids or the choking in the clutch, this is a guy who—if you believe Selena Roberts of Sports Illustrated, and I do—is the fundamental example of everything wrong with sports.  Allegedly, according to Roberts’ new book coming out, Alex Rodriguez was known to tip opposing players on the pitches in hopes that they would do the same thing for him.  Let me repeat that: Alex Rodriguez would rather have good stats than win the game.  Did guys repay him in April but come playoff time no opposing player was willing to do it?  Could that be why his stats were always better when it didn’t count?  If this is true, and for everybody’s sake I hope it isn’t, but if this is true than what about the guys that played against him before joining him as a teammate–did they know he tipped the opposing players?  Did word get back to Texas Ranger pitchers? 

How would a pitcher respond to finding out his shortstop was telling the other team what was coming?  This is mind-boggling to me.  Here’s what’s worse: ESPN did a poll and asked which was worse: Steroids or tipping pitches?  After 100,000 votes, steroids was voted worse by a 2-1 margin.  I’m not condoning steroids in anyway–I think I’m already on the record about them (http://lbpostsports.com/newsdesk.php?story=2203)–but are we possibly overreacting to steroids, or at least under-reacting to A-Rod throwing his pitchers under the bus?  I mean steroids broke the rules but in a way that was because players were trying to be better; tipping pitches is literally sabotaging your own team.  Steroids are like a rider in the Tour De France taking a short-cut, while tipping pitches is like that same rider getting off his bike to tackle a teammate – one is cheating to get ahead while the other is a psychological problem.  Isn’t the second one worse?  Shouldn’t we be more offended by a player not wanting to win? 

Here’s the last question- if A-Rod really was known for sabotaging his own team, why would the Yankees want him?  Why would anyone?  I don’t care if he hits 90 home runs a season, I don’t care if he somehow miraculously became “clutch”, I don’t care if he rescues orphans from burning buildings and them adopts them, why would anyone (particularly one looking to win a Championship) want Alex Rodriguez on their team?  If true, this is one possible explanation for why the Yankees insisted he move to 3^rd base.  We all assumed it was just that Jeter was their shortstop—but couldn’t they have moved Jeter to 2^nd (compensating for his less-than-average range) and put A-Rod at short?  Or were they worried about the pitch-tipping and they wanted him at third where he couldn’t do it?  Basically did they know he hurts his team and did they decide to get him anyway?

Obviously A-Rod isn’t the only selfish player in sports.  A certain backup point guard for the Celtics has quite a reputation for hurting any team he’s on (http://lbpostsports.com/newsdesk.php?story=1808).  But why were the Celtics so sure that Marbury wouldn’t hurt them too?  In game 1, Marbury played 10 minutes during which his team was outscored by 4 points.  Game 2: 10 minutes, outscored by 15 points.  In that game he scored 2 points and got 1 rebound—that’s got to be a record terrible performance right?  Give her ten minutes in an NBA game and my mother could score two points and grab one rebound (well okay that’s not true…in ten minutes she’d probably get two rebounds.)  The two double-digit Celtic wins (Game 3 and 7) Marbury played a combined 36 garbage time minutes and Boston was a +20 in his time.  But Game 4, five minutes, minus 17.  Game 5, 12 minutes, minus 1. Game 6, 8 minutes, minus 3.  During Marbury’s 81 minutes in the series the Celtics were outscored by 20 points, but take away those two garbage time performances and Marbury has 45 minutes, during which Boston was outscored by 40 points.  How is that even possible—if Boston had played four-on-five would they have been outscored by a point a minute?

Before that game 7, Stephon Marbury had zero playoff series wins in five chance, but Marbury’s playoff 0-for wasn’t the only one broken, the Houston Rockets also broke their rut.  Of course they were missing a key ingredient: Tracy McGrady.  While Marbury’s streak may have been inadvertently ended, T-Mac’s streak lives on.  McGrady is one of the most talented guards around, which makes it all the more remarkable that his teams are 0 for 7 in the playoffs.  Not one series win in seven chances!  But surely it’s not T-Mac’s fault, right?  I mean his career points per game in the regular season is 22 but his playoffs points per game is 28.5, so surely he steps up his game in the playoffs right?  Nevermind that his career FG% goes down in the playoffs by half a point or that his 3-pt shooting goes down about 4%; and nevermind that in his first playoffs his FG shooting went down 7%, the next year his 3-pt went down from 35.5% in the regular season to 20% in the playoffs.  In fact pick a postseason and watch his shooting percentages go down- of course he leads his team in scoring but what good does it do when he’s taking way more shots than everyone else? 

A quick note for all the potential GMs.  If you like stats such as: points, Tracy McGrady is your kind of player; if you like stats like Wins, he is not—it is as simple as that. 

There are a lot of lessons to learn from Little League—even for guys like me that played without ever actually leaving the bench.  Some are negative lessons (like that crazy Dad that takes the game way too seriously) but there are good lessons too—like going out for pizza after the game.  It’s supposed to be the reward but it’s more than that: it’s a reminder that everyone you’re playing with should also be your friend.  You should know these people and like them and want to do better for them.  It’s why there are teams in the first place.           

If I were ever building a Frankensport—and could mix and match my favorite rituals/traditions from all the sports—the hockey playoff beard would be at the top of the list.  There is nothing out there that symbolizes being a Team more than having 20 guys growing ugly beards.  Every time they look in the mirror they know what time of year it is and what they are trying to accomplish, and every year that they have to shave it off without having won a Championship has to be excruciating.  Basically it’s the kind of thing that you expect sports to be- team before self.  It’s the kind of thing that reminds us that individuals may win awards, but Teams win Championships.  It’s a bonding thing, a brotherhood.  It’s what we expect sports to be about; if you care about the guys you’re playing with then you will leave the selfishness behind for the good of everyone else.  So when I see so many selfish players, all I can hope is that someday someone will take them out for pizza after a game so they can learn what sports are really supposed to be about.