If you couldn’t hear it, you could sense it. Red Auerbach yelling along with Doc Rivers to “D up”. You could sense Red saying to Phil Jackson as he attempted to pass his record 9 NBA Championships as a coach: “not in my house, you won’t”, this after the gods of hoopdom or conspirators of Los Angeles Lakers basketball grounded the Celtics airplane for hours at LAX. Seems like something Red would have done.

So, just before midnight last night on June 17, 2008, in the final game that lasted 2 hours and 47 minutes, the Boston Celtics defeated the Los Angeles Lakers 131-92 in Boston Garden for their 17th NBA Championship with #17 Celtics great John Havlicek sitting courtside to watch. (sorry TD Banknorth but it’s the Boston Garden and will always be the Boston Garden).

In putting away the Lakers in Game 6 last night, the Celtics did not allow the Lakers to score more than 30 points in a quarter until the meaningless 4th quarter. The Lakers averaged 23 points per quarter last night while the Celtics averaged 33 points. Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen scored 26 points apiece with Allen tying an NBA record with 7 three-pointers. Rajon Rondo scored 21 points and Paul Pierce scored 17 points with 10 assists while defending Kobe Bryant.

How about this for Celtics defense: 18 steals, 6 by Rajon Rondo, and 3 each by Posey, Ray Allen and Garnett. The Celtics outrebounded the Lakers 48-29, of which the C’s had 14 offensive rebounds to the Lakers 2 offensive boards. The Celtics blocked 4 shots, the Lakers none. The Lakers led in turnovers 19-7 which means Celtics passing was crisp, mistakes few and Rondo in charge. And perhaps the most telling line of the clinching game was that Kobe Bryant was held to 22 points on 7 of 22 shooting. He didn’t exactly have a bad shooting night in that he posted for open shots and just missed. No! He tried to post, he tried to drive and, other than the 1st quarter, could never get enough space for enough time to wreak his airness-like touch.

Speaking of Kobe Bryant, I am reminded of the days in the 1980’s when Larry Bird’s Celtics would play the as-yet-to-be-throned Michael Jordan Bulls in the playoffs. It was not uncommon for Jordan to score over 60 points in a game but it never panicked Bird, Parish or McHale. He would say (paraphrasing) that he was ok with Michael scoring 60 points a game because he was the only component of their team. There was no one on the supporting cast that could score consistently and, above all, the Chicago Bulls didn’t play Championship defense. Well, through the 2008 playoffs, it seemed that a Laker’s victory or defeat was literally in the hands of Kobe Bryant. If Kobe had a good shooting night, they won. If not, the Lakers lost. And this is how it played out in the NBA Finals against the Celtics. Kobe is still, by leaps and bounds, the only consistent scorer on the Lakers. Shut down Kobe Bryant and you can win because no one else on the Lakers can score consistently against a good defense, not Sasha Vujacic, Lamar Odom, Pao Gasol or Derek Fisher. And their defense? What appeared to be decent defense through the 2008 Western Conference playoffs emerged as sub-par in the Championship series against the Celts. The Lakers were not tall enough, quick enough or most importantly, hungry enough (see Ray Allen’s drive against Sasha Vujacic in Game 4).

On the offensive side, the Celtics had consistent and reliable scoring ability up and down the bench: if Pierce scores 10, Ray Allen will score 30. If Allen is off, Garnett steps up. If Garnett is off, Pierce or Allen steps up. If all three of the members of the Boston Three Party have a bad shooting night, they will still play stifling defense with Kendrick Perkins - who was ready to have a monster defensive series until he suffered an ankle sprain and bruised shoulder - and will defer to the a deft-scoring bench such as Rajon Rondo, James Posey, Eddie House, Leon Powe or Sam Cassell.

The problem the Lakers had was that the Atlanta Hawks and Cleveland Cavaliers did not take out the Celtics in their Eastern Conference playoff series. The Celtics needed 7 games to get by Atlanta and another 7 games to eliminate Cleveland. The more the Celtics played, the better they got. Remember, this was the first time that the Celtics, as constituted, played together in the playoffs. The team concept gelled in The Finals.

2008 NBA Finals - Clinching Game 6
Boston Garden
Boston Celtics 131
Los Angeles Lakers 92

2008 NBA Finals - Game 5
Staples Center
Los Angeles Lakers 103
Boston Celtics 98

2008 NBA Finals - Game 4
Staples Center
Boston Celtics 97
Los Angeles Lakers 91

2008 NBA Finals - Game 3
Staples Center
Los Angeles Lakers 87
Boston Celtics 81

2008 NBA Finals - Game 2
Boston Garden
Boston Celtics 108
Los Angeles Lakers 102

2008 NBA Finals - Game 1
Boston Garden
Boston Celtics 98
Los Angeles Lakers 88

[Read more →]

Bill Buckner
& The Hall of Fame

“I see great things in baseball. It is our game. The American game. It will repair our losses and be a blessing to us.” - Walt Whitman

Bill Buckner was drafted by the Los Angeles Dodgers in the 2nd round of the 1968 amateur draft. His major league debut came on September 21, 1969 with the Dodgers and his last game was with the Boston Red Sox on May 30, 1990, a span of 22 major league baseball seasons.

Just How Good a Hitter was Bill Buckner?

Over those 22 baseball seasons, Bill Buckner played in 2,517 baseball games. His career batting average was .289 with 2,715 hits which included 498 doubles, 49 triples and 174 home runs meaning that 27% or more than ¼ of his hits total were for extra bases. In 1980, he won the batting title – a .324 average – while with the Chicago Cubs

Throughout his career, Bill Buckner was in the top 10 in his league for most hits for 7 years, in the top 10 for doubles for 7 years, top 10 for RBI for 4 years and in the top 10 for singles for 6 years. Most importantly, he was one of the toughest outs in the game recording 10 years where he placed in the top 5 for greatest at-bat to strikeout ratio. In all, he finished his major league baseball career with 9,397 at-bats while striking out only 453 times, a ratio of 1 strikeout per every 21 at-bats.

The strikeout per at-bat ratio increases to 22 if you count the number of walks he was awarded. He walked 450 times so if you add Buckner’s walk total to his total 9,397 at-bats, his on-base to strikeout ratio (at-bats + walks : SOs) increases from 21 to 22.

Compare Career Statistics of Bill Buckner to Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth

Let’s compare Bill Buckner’s career ability to hit the baseball and get on base with two of the greatest living professional baseball players of all time, Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth. Once you compare the numbers, you may be persuaded that Bill Buckner was a special ball player and deserving of Hall of Fame consideration.

Comparing him to Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth, Bill Buckner ‘s on base:strikeout ratio was 2-3X that of Aaron and Ruth. Buckner had almost 3,000 less plate appearances than Aaron and walked 1,000 less times, as well.

Also a telling statistic, he committed only 128 errors in 22 seasons, less than 6 errors per season.

Compare Bill Buckner’s Hitting Statistics to Current Baseball Hall of Fame Members

I’ve compared Bill Buckner’s career baseball statistics to those of 19 Hall of Fame members and he stands tall.

• On-base : Strikeout ratio (AB:SO) Buckner is 1st with 22. DiMaggio posted a 21 and the closest to them both is Wade Boggs at 14. Babe Ruth posted an 8;
• Total career hits – Buckner places 12th out of 20 members ahead of Joe DiMaggio, Johnny Bench, Harmon Killebrew, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell, Gary Carter and Ryne Sandberg;
• Longevity - Buckner played 22 seasons. Twelve Hall of Fame members on the list played less than 22 seasons. Joe DiMaggio played 13 seasons. Carlton Fisk topped the list at 24 seasons;
• Walks - Buckner had the fewest walks of the group: 450 bases-on-balls meaning most of his on-base statistics are a result of the base hit;
• Total Career Strikeouts – only DiMaggio struck out fewer times: 369 vs. Buckner’s 453. However, Buckner played 9 more seasons. If DiMaggio played 22 seasons, he was slated to strike out 625 times, still a great achievement yet 172 more strikeouts than Buckner;
• Fielding Percentage - Bill Buckner had the highest fielding percentage (.991) in this list except for Eddie Murray (.993), a fellow first baseman;
• Hits : At-Bats (H:AB) – Buckner got a hit once every 3 at-bats along with 7 other Hall of Famers on the list, including Eddie Murray and Carl Yastrzemski. Those above 30% included Ruth (34%), Boggs and Carew (33%), DiMaggio (32%), and Molitor (31%).

Compare Buckner’s Hitting Statistics to Baseball’s Best Contact Hitters: Wade Boggs and Rod Carew

Buckner’s on-base ratio (AB+BB:SO) stands tall at 22. Boggs scored a 14 and Carew a 10. Buckner, on two bad knees, aggregated a fielding percentage (.991) greater than Boggs (.965, mostly at 3B) and Carew (.985).

Oh, ironically, Buckner could field his position aptly, as well. He had the 2nd highest fielding percentage in the group to Eddie Murray. Bonds’ fielding percentage (.984) is above average yet far below Buckner’s (.991).

Compare Buckner’s Fielding Percentage to Other Respected and Great First Basemen:

Summing up Bill Buckner’s Hitting and Fielding Milestones

He had longevity (22 seasons) playing 2 seasons longer than the average Hall of Famer (20 seasons).

Bill Buckner proves to be one of the greatest contact hitters of all time. He had 2,715 hits, about average in the group, but did it with less at-bats than the average Hall of Famer.

He had the fewest amount of walks, the fewest amount of strikeouts (assuming DiMaggio plays 22 seasons), the highest on-base : strikeout ratio and got a hit every 3 at-bats.

Barry Bonds, an active Major League player and a sure Hall of Famer gets a hit every 3 at-bats also. Ok, so Bonds is walked a lot. So, let’s look at Bonds’ on-base : strikeout ratio which includes walks in ones’ ability to get on base. Bonds scores and 8, still 3x lower than Buckner’s 22.

My intention here is to quantify for myself what my baseball instincts have been telling me all these years. Is Bill Buckner greater than the Hall of Famers mentioned here? Not important. Important is the question of belonging: does Bill Buckner belong in the Hall of Fame? You decide.

Most important, however, is recognizing Bill Buckner for the great player he was. Herein lay no doubt.

I remember watching Bill Buckner periodically throughout his career, then quite frequently when he played for my hometown team, the Boston Red Sox. I remember thinking throughout his stay in Boston that he had to be one of the toughest outs in baseball and that I would choose him to bat if I, as manager, needed a hit. If there were 2 outs and a runner on 2nd or 3rd, I wanted Bill Buckner batting. I didn’t want Reggie Jackson, Johnny Bench or Mike Schmidt. Not even Carl Yastrzemski. The aforementioned were all great players. I would pay to see Reggie Jackson bat whether he hit a home run or struck out. But, I knew that there was noone comparable to Bill Buckner’s ability to make contact with the baseball. That was my intuitive, un-empirical judgment.

Now, the comparative numbers above back up my judgment, at least against 20 of baseball’s greatest ballplayers. What’s more, Bill Buckner persevered in the latter part of his career with two damaged knees, both requiring ice pack applications after each game. It got so bad that the knees that made him look fleet of foot and allowed him to steal 31 bases for the Dodgers in 1974 in latter years made him waddle the base paths like a football lineman in retirement years.

I played first base growing up and continued right through college. I also spent 7 years as a general manager in professional minor league baseball. Playing first base does not demand the agility of a third baseman or shortstop. It does, though, require exceptional skill. Only a few excel. Bill Buckner, a converted outfielder, performed quite well and had a high fielding percentage that underscores his skill. One error on a cold October night does not aptly typify his career.

If it is even justified to forgive, then we should have forgiven Bill Buckner long ago. However, I don’t have anything for which to forgive him. Baseball fans, especially those in Boston, and baseball commentators, those at ESPN for example, continue to disparage his name and his accomplishments by focusing on one error instead of a career of wonderful achievement. Is it not time to recognize Bill Buckner for all that he contributed and judge him accordingly? We would ask to be treated equitably. Remember the mistakes we’ve made in our lifetimes and wonder our reaction had we been judged so unfairly. One trait, value or behavior does not define us. Rather, it is in the aggregate that we define ourselves and are/should be defined .

Baseball is a game, a passionate game of entertainment that we love because it adds life to hot summer nights and warmth to cold October moons. But, it is a game. To Bill Buckner, it was a game and a job. He made money and he performed his job admirably, better than most baseball players of his and my generation.

His error was not one of character nor of judgment, in the way you define values. It was a physical and mental error. He did not steal. He did not kill. He did not spit in one’s eye or remonstrate lewdly against a segment of the public. A total fielding percentage of .991, close to 3,000 hits, a .321 on-base percentage and one of the best contact hitters in the game. And this is the best we can do? This is what we offer him?

We are a country torn asunder by our weakest link. Most any group is. If we fail to forgive, we fail to honor ourselves and we thus stain the foundation of our souls and our national pasttime.

Somehow, I think Bill Buckner is fine with his life. The laugh is on us. But, we have a chance to rescue ourselves. You see, it’s not for him but for ourselves that we forgive and celebrate.

“Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball”
- Jacques Barzun, writer

[Read more →]

A correspondence between father and son

Hello Family:
Time for Baseball Trivia:

1. Regarding the Red Sox inability to beat the Yankees in
pennant races for so many years, do you believe that there really was a curse?

2. Assuming that there was a curse (for discussion purposes) do you
feel that the curse is now over or do you feel that the curse will not
be over until the Red Sox win a World Series?

P.S. Yesterday and in today’s Boston Globe, Dan Shaughennesy
wrote that the curse is still there until the Red Sox won the World Series.

What do you think?

signed,
Babe Ruth
Ted Williams
Joe DiMaggio

1. No and Yes. Technically there was never a curse
but the mindset of Redsox nation (incl players)produced an
attitude that went a long way in contributing to past failures.

(Compare the dour and solemn look of Yaz vs. the love
and confidence exuded by Ortiz)

I think Halberstam compared the Sox to the New
England culture saying that a life was not complete without a
fair share of struggle, sacrifice, suffering, some success, some misfortune. Success was good but too
much would spoil the soul, i.e., World Series win, financial independence.

His implication, I think, was that alot of our misfortune is (was) self-induced … willingly,
both in our culture and on the field of play, and that, somehow, life is ok if the Red Sox fail in the
end. We, as Puritans of the Northeast, get to remain
grounded while our cousins to the South exult in
greed and gluttony, all attributes anathema to
God-fearing peoples.

On the other hand, the Yankees believe they deserve to
be champions and act like they are champions. It’s
their mindset and the mindset of New York. They are
not embarrassed with winning and dont believe that
life has to be a struggle.

Proof: since 1918, Yankees have won 26 championships.
Red Sox have won none. (well, one now but none when this correspondence took place)

2. The curse is over when Red Sox nation accepts
winning the World Series without guilt. I think
the Red Sox need to win the world series which will
enable all of New England to re-evaluate itself. Is it a
curse to lose? Or is it a curse to win? Or is it neither?

Love, Me

Thank you for a well thought out explanation. Quite logical.
It seems to bear out how gullible the “flock” is when a few keep repeating the same message.

My question is: Who had the power or touch to cast
the “curse”? As you say, it was based on a mindset
imposed by a few as well as the fans themselves.

I remind myself of one of my football coaches in
high school who told the players: “In any given
game, the team or individual who wants the win most
will prevail” In other words, are you willing to pay
the price to prevail?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Amore, Papa

I think I have a couple of answers for you:

1. As you said, the flock mentality - most of society
wishes to follow and will allow others to create
truths for them.

If the Times or Globe states it, it must have
credence.

If a journalist writes it, it must be true.

If someone says there’s a curse, then most will
believe it. It’s an excuse for thinking we can’t
control destiny and, after time, becomes convenient
and ingrained. The excuse becomes thought which
becomes energy which translates to action. The action
is borne from the thought.

2. If we believe as a society that we are borne into
sacrifice, challenge and suffering then it would be
easy to accept a curse. Again, fatalism is convenient.

If you ask Jeter why the Yankees lost, he will most
likely answer that his team was not good enough THIS
year. He will not blame the Yankee plight on bad luck,
umpiring (he’d better not!) or curse reversal. This is
why he is a winner and will remain one.

As you said, he knows that to win requires competence
and will, not voodoo.

Love you.

[Read more →]