The Age 33 Fall Off

I just read an article on SI.com by Joe Posnanski in which he and Bill James banter back and forth regarding the way players fall off statistically when they reach 33. This year there are three "superstars" who have seemed to prove this true: Alphonso Soriano, Alex Rodriguez and David Ortiz. This makes all the sense in the world to me, as Soriano has taken his sub-par performances of the past two years, and multiplied them ten fold. Soriano is the unanswerable question in the Cubs lineup. Ken Rosenthal (Fox Sports baseball guy) is right when he says the Cubs just need to "get over themselves." Still, the question is what should they do with Soriano.

You can't have a left fielder, making $18,000,000 a year for the next five years, hitting .235 with an OPS of just .733. You just can't. On the flip side, when you are the proud owner of the worst contract in the history of professional sports, it's equally impossible to move him anywhere. I'm not sure what Hendry and Piniella are planning on doing, but I do know we have one heck of a left field platoon waiting to be called upon: Micah Hoffpauir and Jake Fox will both bring an improved bat to left. Will there defense be gold glove caliber? No, but then again neither is Soriano's. The best thing Soriano brings to the team right now, his cannon of an arm, is canceled out by the awful routes he takes to balls and the lackadaisical manner in which he patrols left. At least Hoffpauir and Fox would give maximum effort. With all this in mind, here are some solutions to the Soriano problem:

1) Send Soriano to the DL with some sort of issue picked from a hat

I really don't care if he "pulls" a hamstring, "strains" his back, or takes a page from Detroit's playbook for the D-Train: just get him to have 15 days of peace while we have 15 days of a real lead off option and hustle.

2) Bench Soriano for a period of time

I'll call this the Jimmy Rollins plan: you take your struggling "superstar" and you keep him a part of the team, but allow him to watch live as the team moves on without him. Ideally he comes back with a new found desire to be a part of the team, and things work out well. Or, in the case of Detroit, he'll just come back with a new haircut.

3) Trade him

I know, this sounds insane. It is insane; insanely impossible. For the Cubs to trade Soriano they would have to A) take next to nothing back in return, and B) Pay the vast majority of his remaining salary. There is always the chance we could pay less in salary if we were willing to take back an awful contract in return, but off the top of my head I can't really think of any equally nauseating contracts. Maybe we could deal him to the Nationals for a player to be named later, agreeing to pay $10,000,000 a year for the next five years. They want "star power" and we need to get rid of our "star" ... who knows.

4) Get him to agree to a buyout

This is even more unlikely, in all probability, but there is precedent in the NBA for a "star" player agreeing to a buyout when it is obvious to him that the other option is rotting on the bench. Perhaps Soriano will feel the same way if Hendry and Piniella come to him and say "look, this was a mistake for all of us, we're gonna have to bench you, because you're hitting like a AA player." Maybe then Soriano's pride (assuming he has some) will kick in and he'll agree to, say, $50,000,000 upfront to go away. This option would require the sale of the club be complete, however.

5) Release him outright

This would be a multi-step dance. You'd place him on irrevocable waivers, and hope and pray some team picks him up. Then you'd make it clear to every team in baseball that he's available for next to nothing and you'd be willing to pick up at least half his remaining contract. Then you'd offer him the buyout. Then you'd just release him and eat the $18,000,000 per year remaining. But at least you'd be done with him.

6) You go "Celtic Pride"

Only in the opposite way: instead of the opposing team's superstar to give your team the best chance to win you are kidnapping your team's "superstar" to give your team the best chance to win. You'd have to take him, preferably, to a non-extradition treaty country where you'd have to live out the rest of your years as fugitives. But, if the Cubs win because of it, you'd be remembered as heroes eventually. And General Hummel would be proud (skip to the 40 second mark).

Required Reading - Big Russ & Me

It's hard to believe that it has now been over a year since Tim Russert was taken from us. In the middle of the most exciting Presidential campaign of my short life, the campaign it seemed Russert had been made to cover, he was suddenly gone. On my old site I wrote at the time that "In the midst of a life changing, possibly political landscape changing election this country has lost its preeminent political-journalistic figure." Russert certainly was just that: the preeminent figure in this country when it came to politics. But he was also much more, which is why I'm going to feature his first book today as my first "Required Reading" recommendation. Although Father's Day has just passed, I'm sure if you read this book you will come out with a new found appreciation for your own father. I know I did.

"Big Russ & Me" is a memoir written by Tim Russert about, and ultimately for, his father. It takes you through Russert's life; his modest upbringing in South Buffalo, his education in the Jesuit system, his early jobs, the decision to pursue a law degree, and ultimately his latching on into the political world, ending with him at NBC. Russert tells his story through the story of his father. He explains his views on the man who he affectionately calls "Big Russ," and he shows how the further he got in life the more he appreciated all his dad did for him.

We all can use a little perspective from time to time, and this book gives you that. It causes you to rethink your views on parenthood, and to appreciate the little sacrifices that end up making such a huge difference. Russert may be gone, but many of his virtues live on. This book exemplifies how special the man was, and how fortunate we were to have him as a part of our lives.

(Click on the title of this post to be taken to Amazon.com to view or purchase this book)

Online Poker - What Gives?

(Edit: I thought I made this pretty clear in the post below, but this is play money I'm talking about. I'm a recent college graduate, and I went to school for a degree in political science. If I had $20,000 laying around you should be concerned that I robbed a bank or kidnapped Alphonso Soriano. Maybe both. But I certainly wouldn't be putting it into poker. I'd be paying off my car so that it can die and I can get a new one.)

I enjoy playing poker; I play for fun, rarely getting into games with more than a five dollar buy in. I play a pretty tight style of poker, waiting on premium hands and betting them up, but I also like to limp with suited connectors, ace - weak, and any other number of marginal to poor starting hands.

I recently have started playing online, a decision I made out of curiosity for how the game changed when you didn't have to read anyone, just play the cards. We all see TONS of commercials for various online poker communities, but I decided to sign up for fulltiltpoker.net, mostly because the name sounded much cooler than others. Today, while watching the Cubs do their absolute best to cause me to drive to Chicago and beat up a Gatorade cooler myself, I decided to up the stakes I've recently been playing online. Consider:

- You start with 1,000 play chips
- I began today with just over 30,000 play chips
- I have been playing in 5/10 tables, which have a maximum buy in of 1,000 chips

As you can see, I've worked up a bit of an imaginary bankroll (considering I play maybe an hour a week, and have for a month, that's not too bad). I decided today to go to the 100/200 table, buy in for the max of 20,000 chips, and see what happened. The following ensued:

3:11 PM - I buy in for 20,000 chips. The table is full (9 people), and the chip stacks vary greatly from the chip leader (the aptly named "PimpPlayer31") who sits at 55,200 chips, to the small stack sitting at 3,600. I sit across the "table" from PP31, and begin to play some hands. From here on out the following system will be used to describe hands: H = Hearts, D = Diamonds, C = Clubs and S = Spades. Also, A = Ace, K = King, Q = Queen and J = Jack. PP31, clearly, is our chip leader and nemesis, PimpPlayer31.
3:12 PM - I post the big blind (200) and am rewarded with a 4S and a 10D. There is a raise to 400, I fold.
3:13 PM - I get a 4-9 H and then a 6H and 9C; I fold both.
3:14 PM - Bets at this point are typically running between 1,000 and 2,000 chips pre-flop, or in other words they are going between 5 and 10 times the big blind, while requiring between 1/20 - 1/10th of my chip stack. Needless to say, I fold my K h 7C.
3:15 PM - PP31, the awe inspiring man (I assume) he is, is playing excellent big stack poker, raising the 200 blind to 2,200 chips. I fold my 10C 4H; others don't. He takes down a decent pot.
3:16 PM - I'm the big blind, and I can't tell you how excited I am to play a hand. Once my blind is in my world is ROCKED by ... a 5C 2H. I get to check with no raises ahead of me, but after a flop featuring Jd Kc Ah I am quickly rushed out by a 2,400 chip raise. Jacks full of Aces win this one; in other news, this is why it isn't a good idea to limp with crap hands like 5C 2H. Some people will maintain you need to "see the flop" but over the long haul it will not pay out.
3:17 PM - Small blind (100) ... I'm dealt a 6C 7H. At least these are connected. I'll limp if I get the chance, but it is raised to 400 ahead of me, so I fold.
3:18 PM - I have a hand for the first time today: Ah Jd. I call the big blind (200), and watch in dismay as the Cubs fall behind 3-0. K Q J show on the flop, all clubs. It's raised to 600, and I get out of the way.
3:19 PM - These are dangerous hands for me: K-5 H is dealt to me, and I limp in. The flop hits Ks As 2H. I hit mid pair (K's), but would be behind to any Ace as well as any King most likely, due to the weak nature of my kicker. The 2H leaves open a small chance for runner-runner flush, but that's not worth betting on. The bet is 200, however, and I can't help but call, seeing as how this is the first hand I've had all day that hit. 4th street gives me a Kc, making me 3 of a kind. I'm feeling pretty good now, hoping someone has hit their Ace, allowing me to take a big pot. The bet fires to me at 5,800 chips, which is at least 2.5x the pot. I fire back double that (11,600), pushing my opponent all in. They call, and show K-J. They have the same 3 of a kind, with a much higher kicker. Danger Will Robinson, danger! Luckily for me, a Queen comes on the River, allowing me to chop the pot! Luck is better than being good sometimes.
3:21 PM - After that crazy hand I now sit a whole 100 chips above my buy in, at 20,100 chips. I celebrate by folding Kh-6c.
3:22 PM - I'm dealt my best starting hand yet: A-Q of spades. I raise the blind from 200 to 400. I get 5 calls, and there are six of us to the flop, which goes 8d Kd Ks. Not exactly an awe-inspiring flop for A-Q spades. the bet is 200, I call, although I'm not sure why. 4th street gives me an equally helpful 9c, leading our friend PP31 to fire 3,400 chips at me. I meekly fold, and am now oh for two on good starting hands.
3:23 PM - Now we're talking! I get Kh-Kc, and I'm determined not to let someone limp on me here. I raise to 800 chips, and a few calls. The flop seems harmless (3d Qh 6d), but I want to see what's out there so I bet only 200, and get a few calls. 4th street makes me think I misplayed, as a 6s comes up. It's raised 5,200 to me, I raise another 7,000 to push my opponent all in. He calls, and the river doesn't matter: my kings hold up over his queens. Best case scenario here.
3:25 PM - I get a Kh and 5c. I feel like I might be getting hot, so I call. The flop comes in as 4s 5s Jh, and I decide that my mid pair is good, so I raise 500. I am reraised to 45,000+, and I meekly fold. He shows his trip fours.
3:26 PM - I'll get over that, but I need to stop limping. This hand I'm on the big blind, with a 7-10 of spades. I check, and the flop comes 2s 9s Jc. I'm 4 to the flush here, so I call a 200 chip bet. 4th street is a 9d, and in the face of a 1,700 chip raise I fold.
3:27 PM - 9h Jd is my small blind hand. I limp for the additional 100, and am rewarded with a flop of 7c 6d 2s. I check, the raise is to 1600, and I fold. If I had stayed I would have ended up with the 9 high straight, and chopped the pot. If I had stayed I would have been insane. Good fold on my part, even if it's a basic "duh" fold.
3:28 PM - 3:34 PM - I go into an awesome run of hands here, all of which I folded pre-flop: 5-2c, 5h Qs, 6h 8c, and 4h 10d. I would have flopped the straight in the first hand, but lost to a full house. In other news, PP31 is sitting at over 87,000 chips right now.
3:35 PM - K-10 of hearts; I'm so excited to see a moderate starting hand that I might cry. I call 200, and get a flop of 9 9 8 with no hearts to be found. It checks around, and a Qs joins the fun. I call a 200 chip bet on the outside chance that a Jack will show. It doesn't; a 2d plus another bet leads to my fold.
3:36 PM - Q-4 diamond to start, and I'm on the big blind so I check. The flop is very promising: 10s Jd 9d. Open ended straight draw, 4 to the flush. I bet 400 and get only one call. 4th street is Ace of spades, a card which helps me none. I fire a pot bet of 1,400 chips, and get my desired result as my opponent folds.
3:37 PM - I'm in the small blind and I get Ac As. I want to isolate this hand as much as possible, so with a number of calls ahead of me I raise to 6x the big blind, or 1,200 chips. I get 1 call. The flop hits, I fire another 800 out, and my opponent folds. I'm up to 31,300 chips.
3:38 PM - I fold the next two hands; in other news, the Cubs suck.
3:39 PM - 10c Ks. I call, and there are 3 to the flop, which is 10 - 4 - Q. I hit mid pair here, and bet 200 at it, which is called. A J shows on 4th street, and I fire another 200, getting another call. Ah comes on the river, making me the Ace high straight. I am raised 200, I bet the pot of 2100, he goes another 400 to move all in, I call. He has two pair; I take it down.
3:40 PM - chasing a straight here (I had Q-9 of hearts, the flop came A8J with a 6 on 4th), I end up calling a pot bet of 900 chips, and miss. I fold the next hand.
3:42 PM - I'm the big blind, and I get a 10-3 h. What follows is an example of how bad hands find ways to lose. The flop is Q 2 Q. It checks around. A 10 shows, I bet the pot (700) and get a call. A Jack shows on the river. I bet, he calls, I lose to a pair of Jacks with the pair of Queens.

I played for another 10 minutes or so, folding about 11 hands and limping on the small blind with 2-7 of spades, only to hit trip twos and scoop a small pot. By the time I was done PP31 was down to 79,000 chips, I was sitting around 35,000. I was tired of mindless playing, but at least I was more successful than the Cubs.

So what have I learned? Good question.

1. Playing poker online greatly speeds up your decision making in real life. You've got nothing to focus on besides pot odds, card odds, and things of that nature.
2. What felt like an eternity online (folding a few bad hands in a row) would go by in the blink of an eye in real poker. This is because you get to socialize at a poker table, and you get to focus on people. Online you're just kind of ... waiting ... for a decent hand.
3. Playing online is like playing with a bunch of loose players in real life. They will raise a ton with nothing. They'll go all in with nothing. And just like in real life, if you want to win just wait. They may get lucky, but you'll probably prevail.

So, I'll leave you with this: if you're looking for a fun way to kill 20 minutes or a little more, try online poker. Fulltilt's site is accessible, and the pace moves pretty quick. But don't expect to pass an afternoon doing it; even I was ready to watch the Cubs get killed rather than keep on playing by 3:55. If only Soto hadn't grounded out with the bags full...

What the Cubs need to do

Like most Cubs fans, I suspect, I am conditioned on expecting the bad things to happen. I'm only 23 and yet I've already seen:

- 1998's "magical" (steroid induced) summer come to a crashing halt when the Atlanta Braves swept us in the playoffs
- 2003's run, a team with the perfect balance of youth and experience, with power pitching up and down the rotation, come to an abrupt end when Alex Gonzalez screwed up a tailor-made double play ball and Dusty decided to let Prior pitch his way out of it. (I should also note we still had Sammy "steroids been berry berry good to me" Sosa on this roster)
-2007's team catch fire, steal the division, then get swept by the ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS (who have not been heard from since; it's like they went into hiding after that homicide).
-2008 ... a year which will sting for quite awhile: the Cubs surge early, hold the division lead most of the year, lead the NL in wins, have a dynamite offense and solid pitching with a dynamic 1-2 in the bullpen (Woody and Marmol) ... and they get swept by the 'roided up Manny and Co. from Dodger town.

Now, being a Cubs fan forces me to focus on the negatives, but on the plus side I could note that:

- From 1945 through my year of birth (1986) the Cubs made the playoffs exactly once (1984)
- From 1986 through the present, however, they have made it five times (1989, 1998, 2003, 2007 and 2008) and the appearances are getting more frequent!

Still, our team is getting older by the day, we are saddled with the worst contract in the history of professional sports (Alphonso Soriano, who we have the joy of paying $18,000,000 a year for the next five stinking years!), and we apparently have an offense that can only score if Aramis Ramirez is in the lineup.

So, how do we right this ship? I mean outside of forcing Soriano to retire, shipping Kevin Gregg to the minors, and getting a shipment of HGH in for our entire lineup. Here's how:

- Admit we made a huge mistake and bring Mark DeRosa back. Look, we get it: we tried to sell high, and we needed Milton Bradley's bat. We had to cut some payroll. And I understand that the sale isn't going perfectly, which further makes this an issue. But find a way to bring him back. And see if you can get Cleveland to take Aaron "I'm a turncoat LaRussa spy" Miles back with him.
- Come to grips with the fact that we don't need another starter, we need someone in the bullpen other than Angel Guzman who can get an out. Marmol will probably come around, although Lou has used him so much in the past two years that he may just have a tired arm (I'd shut him down for a couple of weeks just to see). Demote Kevin Gregg to middle relief, and try to be creative in finding a closer. Maybe you call up Samardzija, have him start and move Harden to the pen. Maybe you sign Pedro and give him a little extra to be the closer, pointing out to him what a move to the pen did to Smoltz' career. Maybe Guzman can handle it. I don't know. But you've got to do something, and if you're going to sign Pedro it better not be for the rotation. So find an answer, because the only thing Kevin Gregg is the answer to is "what is going to cause Mike to have meltdown this year?"
- Finally, go to our old friends in Pittsburgh and see what it would take to get Freddy Sanchez. I know I already advocated getting DeRosa, but Mark could then be the super utility man we know and love. He could give everyone (especially Soriano) days off. Pittsburgh is always willing to sell, and they already shipped McClouth out for pennies on the dollar. Sanchez is a batting champion, so he'd cost more, but try to get him.

At the basic level we need bullpen help (lots of it) and someone who can actually play second base. How we didn't sign Orlando Hudson this offseason is beyond me, as is how anyone thought that taking a closer with a penchant for blowing saves was a good idea. But this season can still be salvaged if Jim Hendry is willing (and, perhaps more importantly, able) to make some big moves. Let's hope he is.

PS - Here's a shot of Gregg walking off the field last night after blowing the game, courtesy of ESPN.com. Well done sir. Well done.

A few good articles on Iran

For those of you who are interested in the Iranian election, and its fallout, here are a few brief articles that help to put some of it into perspective.

This first article explains how the initial rational given by the conservative elements in Tehran for Ahmadinejad's victory just doesn't hold through, and how the old guard is divided:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/14/iran-election-ahmadinejad-ayatollah

The second article, also by Ali Ansari, briefly goes through the voting irregularities to show the issues with the reported outcome:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/22/iran-election-voters-numbers

Finally, if you are interested in a longer analysis of the votes, check out:

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf

With reports today that Rafsanjani is trying to garner enough Clerical support to mount a charge at Khamenei I think it is safe to say this is far from over.

The 50 Greatest Players in NBA History Revisted - Who's on the verge, and why Reggie doesn't fit

** All statistics in this post are courtesy of Basketballreference.com **

I have often wondered about the NBA's list of the 50 greatest players. It was released in October of 1996, and included Shaquille O'Neal (the having played four seasons in the NBA), but didn't include Dominique Wilkins, among the most prolific scorers of my young life. Wilkins and Shaq at that point had the same number of NBA titles: zero. Wilkins was an 8 time All-Star, Shaq was a 4 time All-Star. Shaq was unquestionably on his way to a great career, but Wilkins had already had a great career.

In hindsight, the NBA got it right: Shaq is now a 14 time All-Star, a four time NBA champion, a 3 time NBA Finals MVP, and earned a league MVP for his 1999-2000 season. Wilkins was out of the league during the 1995-1996 season, but came back to play a forgettable year for the Spurs in 1996-1997, and an even more forgettable one for the Magic the following year. Still, the fact that Wilkins wasn't on the list bothered me, and still does to this day: how could a man who averaged 25 points per game, who was as iconic as any secondary star of the era, not be on this list?

And so today I will being to break down my list of the 50 greatest as they stand today. I am going to count down from the honorable mentions, then 50 through to number one in my opinion. Yes this means I will be ranking them. I will use statistics in some instances, but also opinion and gut feelings as well. And I will, hopefully once and for all, put to rest the myth that Reggie Miller is an all time great worthy of enshrinement in the NBA's Hall of Fame. So, without further ado, here is the first installment of my new 50 greatest list.

Five who might crack the list someday:

5. Yao Ming - Yao is something the league has rarely, perhaps never seen. At 7'5" he is a giant even by basketball standards (he is listed at 7'6" in some places). He has a soft shooting touch, shooting 83% from the free throw line for his career. He was the number one pick in the draft in 2002, and since then he has made all seven NBA All-Star teams (even if it was in part to the foreign vote). His career numbers thus far even place him on par with some of the NBA's greatest centers of all time: 19.1 PPG, 9.3 RPG, 1.9 BPG. If he were to continue this level of production for another five to eight years he would undoubtedly be on par with a Ewing, Schayes or Thurmond. The question, however, is if he will remain healthy enough. Since playing at least 80 games in each of his first three seasons Yao has been injury prone. He played between 48 and 57 games in years four through six, and while he played in 77 games last year, he suffered a severe foot injury in the playoffs. Health seems to be the biggest obstacle (along with the Chinese national team) in the way of Yao ascending this list.

4. Carmelo Anthony - The number 3 pick in the 2003 NBA draft, 'Melo will forever be tied to two people: LeBron and Darko. He has been a bit on the immature side since leaving Syracuse after only one year, but in college he won a national title, and in the pros he has shown some ability to become a team player and a deadly scorer. Through six years he is averaging 24.2 PPG, 6.1 RPB, 3.1 APG, as well as a little over 1 SPG. If Carmelo continues to improve as a teammate, and if he continues to have talent around him in Denver, he may be able to ascend to the top of the Western Conference as Duncan and Bryant age. He certainly has the skill set to make this list in the future.

3. Dwayne Wade - What a draft 2003 was: LeBron, Carmelo, and Wade. To this point Wade has the only NBA championship of the three, and his stat line is on par with the greatest of all time: 25.2 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 6.7 ASP, 1.8 SPG and just under 1 BPG. He shoots an impressive 48% from the field, and has the ability to create his own shot better than almost anyone in the league. As with Yao, however, he has had injury issues, and his style of play will do nothing but continue those concerns. If Wade can stay healthy, as he did last year whey he played in a career high 79 games while putting up a stat line of 30 - 5 - 7.5, then he will easily make this list in five to ten years.

2. Chris Paul - CP3 is less accomplished than Wade, but he is a rarer commodity: a small guard who can dominate the game by himself. The only thing we've seen close to him is Isiah Thomas, and it's because of that he is number two on this list. Four years into his career Paul makes triple doubles at six feet tall, he drops 30 points, he's capable of 20 assists, and he plays defense that makes him a total nightmare. With a statline of 19.4 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 9.9 APG and 2.4 SPG he is on his way, but what makes it even more impressive is how rapidly he is improving. His three point shooting and selection are rapidly improving, and along with that last year Paul hit over 50% from the field, all while averaging a stat line of 22.8 - 5.5 - 11 - 2.77. If he keeps his production near that level for another five years he will shoot up this list.

1. Dirk Nowitzki - Dirk's statline and unique skill set has him on the absolute verge of this list. He doesn't crack the top 61 because he doesn't have a ring, and he's not quite to the iconic level necessary to carry a spot without a ring. He has eight All-Star appearances, an MVP and a finals appearance to his credit. His stat line (22.7 - 8.6 - 2.7) is good, and he averages around 1 block/ 1 steal per game. His defense will never be the best, but it's very rare to have a seven footer knock down threes with 38% accuracy. If Dirk gets his ring or plays at this level for another four years he'll be hard to keep out.

4 who won't crack the list - why Reggie doesn't fit:

Reggie Miller ... is he even a Hall of Famer? He certainly doesn't crack the list of the 50 greatest, but here I'd like to make a broader point about his HoF candidacy: he doesn't belong. Look at the following six stat lines:

Player A) 20.9 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 3.8 APG, 1.21 SPG, 9 All-Star appearances
Player B) 21 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 3.5 APG, 1.24 SPG, 6 All-Star appearances
Player C) 18.2 PPG, 3 RPG, 3 APG, 1.08 SPG, 5 All-Star appearances
Player D) 16.2 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 4.5 APG, .89 SPG, 6 All-Star appearances
Player E) 17.9 PPG, 2.1 RPG, 4.4 APG, 1.53 SPG, 1 All-Star appearance
Player F) 18.3 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 2.1 APG, .96 SPG, 3 All-Star appearances

Now, these six stat lines look pretty similar, but they begin to come into more focus if we add the following numbers:

Player A) 1 NBA championship as a "star"
Player B) 1 NBA championship as a "role player"
Player C) 0 NBA championships
Player D) 2 NBA championships as a "star" and in the HoF
Player E) 0 NBA championships, in the HoF
Player F) 1 NBA championship as a "role player"

So who are the elite six here? In order: Ray Allen, Mitch Richmond, Reggie Miller, Joe Dumars, Calvin Murphy and Glen Rice.

Allen and Dumars had big roles in championship teams, and Allen's numbers are far and away better than Reggie's. The player who Miller most closely aligns with statistically is player B, Mitch Richmond, who actually had better numbers than Miller. Richmond isn't a HoF caliber player. Neither is Miller. Players B through F aren't on this list; we'll discuss Ray Allen later.

1 player who defies logic:

Robert Horry ... what gives with this man? His stat line (7 - 4.8 - 2.1) is that of a role player, which he was. He also was solid on the defensive end, averaging close to one steal and block per game. But, outside of MJ, who in the past twenty years has hit more big shots that Horry? Horry also has an astounding SEVEN (!) NBA championship rings. Statistically there is no way that Horry makes this list, but I would be shocked if he didn't make the HoF. He kept finding a way to be a huge part, a crunch time player, on team after team that won the title.

Next time I'll look at numbers 61-51: those who just missed the cut.

Iran: what now?

There has been quite a bit of talk in the past week about what role, if any, the United States should have in the current situation in Iran. Some, including Senator John McCain, have indicated that they feel the US should come out strongly in defense of those now protesting in the streets of Tehran. “He (Obama) should speak out that this is a corrupt, fraud, sham of an election” McCain told NBC’s Today Show. Meanwhile, Fox News reported that “top Republicans … called on President Obama to make a more “forceful” statement in support of Iranians protesting last week’s election” while accusing the President of “stubbornly holding on to hopes for negotiations” with the current regime.

We could, of course, find plenty of people on both sides of this debate. Many feel strongly that the US should sweep in and save the day, while others would have us do nothing. In my time at Indiana University I studied Middle East Foreign Policy, and my final year was devoted almost exclusively to the Iranian nuclear program. What I learned, above all else, is that Iran is an incredibly complex country. Even Iranian experts, including noted author Kenneth Pollack*, will readily admit that we don’t know nearly as much about Iran as we wish we did. Still, there are a number of things we know about Iran which we should consider as we ponder the situation that is unfolding.

Iran is home to one of the world’s youngest and most rapidly liberalizing populations. According to Slate’s Caroline Berson, roughly sixty percent of the Iranian population is under 30 years of age; by comparison, the USA has forty percent of its population under the age of 30. Furthermore, we have seen the impact that technology has had in Iran. In the past week the government of Iran has tried to suppress the voice of the protestors. They have shut foreign media down, they have periodically shut down text messaging, but they have failed. Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube have allowed the Iranian people to have the voice heard world round, and have enabled them to continue to communicate between one another. The population of Iran is modernizing, and they wish to be a successful and accepted part of the world. The Iranian leadership can no longer hide this fact.

It is also important for us to consider who is really waging this battle in Iran’s political community. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has drawn much ire from the world community, but what is often lost in the shuffle is how inconsequential he is. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is the true power behind the old guard in Iran. Ahmadinejad has been useful for Khamenei, as he has drawn the attention of the international community as a whole, but the President is little more than a figurehead. He has control over many important government offices, but those same offices give their ultimate allegiance to Khamenei.

On the other side of this debate you have the “reformist” candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi. Moussavi, once the Prime Minister of the Parliament in Iran, is a man with revolutionary credentials, and has spent his post-revolution life identified with the conservatives in power. Some reports indicate that as the people supported him he has transformed, but as with Ahmadinejad, Moussavi is not the key player on this side of the battle. The puppeteer for the reformist political establishment is a man as well entrenched in Iran as Khamenei himself: Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. This is a man who was considered to be Ayatollah Khomeini’s right hand man, a man who was President of Iran, and a man who by all accounts put Khamenei into power after Khomeini passed away. Rafsanjani is as entrenched in the political establishment as anyone, but now he finds himself on the side trying to usurp power from the Supreme Leader. What no one knows for certain is why.

Given all of this, the US government has some tough questions to answer. Why is Rafsanjani pushing against Ahmadinejad and, by extension, Khamenei? If Moussavi (and by extension, Rafsanjani) were to come to power would we really see much change in Iran’s foreign policy? Is it really worth supporting a “reformist” movement which is headed by two major political insiders, men who are far more of the establishment in Tehran than even Ahmadinejad himself?

There is little doubt that Moussavi and Rafsanjani are more pragmatic than Ahmadinejad is. To that end, we would much rather have them in power than he. Still, the key to this equation, in my estimation, lies with the people themselves. If the Iranian people demand change, and if they are willing to die for it, then change will come. It is their fight, not ours. Revolutions have to come from within, not from a foreign land. When the US overthrew Mossadeq to install the Shah in Iran (1953) we made an error that is costing us to this day. Obama is right to not want to repeat that mistake. We should look at Iran and see a nation awakening, a nation enraged by their basic rights being taken from them. We should see that Supreme Leader Khamenei is on weakened ground, evidenced by his position vacillating in the post election turmoil. And we cannot ignore the tragic loss of life that is occurring in Iran. When the time comes, we should be ready to help, because Iran is in many ways the key to the Middle East. But until that time comes we must remain patient, and do our best not to be more of a nuisance to the Iranian people than a help.

*To those who would like to learn more about the complexities of the US-Iranian relationship I highly recommend Kenneth Pollack’s book The Persian Puzzle.