Team Science 101

In between musings upon various subjects recently (the musings included thoughts of what it would be like if I was Greg Oden, the hypocrisy of sports pretending to break racial barriers, and the band named "Muse") I realized that I had sort of thrown in what was potentially a very good article in my last column without expanding enough on it at all.

So let the pullulation now begin, as I turn Team Chemistry into Team Science. Basically it functions like this: if team "chemistry" is so important, certainly team "Physics", team "Biology", team "Anthropology", team "Organic Chemistry", team "Quantam mechanics" and various other sciences must be equally important. So I will now give a short definition of each, and then list some teams that have particularly good showings in these sciences and some teams that are particularly poor. (Note: For the most part, I am excluding current baseball teams from these ratings because I am about to give my completely *unscientific* and nearly useless baseball preview in a few days. In fact it will probably come out a few days after baseball season starts, just to add to the utter dysfunctionality of aformentioned preview).

Let us begin then, with Team Physics:

Physics: the science that deals with everything.

If you don't believe me, go look it up. Physics is the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force. Those four things go by another name: everything. So basically, team physics is team everything. If your team is good, it has good team physics. If your team isn't good, it has bad team physics. This is a very simple equation, and a good one to begin our Class with. No, put your hand down, we don't take questions until after my lecture. And if you have a question already you are clearly a moron who should be kept out of any classroom of any kind, and you should drop this course immediately.

Teams that have good team physics: Dallas Mavericks, Florida Gators (Basketball AND football AND Ultimate Frisbee... did you know that Florida almost literally owns the Championship of every college sport in America right now?), Indianapolic Colts, etc. etc.

Teams that have poor team physics: Memphis Grizzlies, Kansas City Royals, Oakland Raiders (The Raiders stink at just about everything, so expect them to show up in the "poor" performance area quite often)

Team Biology: The science of living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially origin, growth, structure and behavior

Origin and growth? Sounds like General Managers to me! They build a team, add to the team, structure the team, etc. As for behavior of the team... well that is all on the players (unless you are Tony La Russa; then it's on you). So Team Biology has to do with how a team is built and structured, as well as how it behaves. Good structure and good behavior leads to a good workplace, but a nasty streak can get you to your Championship fast. A balance of edginess and self control gets you right where you want to be.

Teams that exhibit strong team biology: The Bulls dynasty. Jordan, Pippen, and a slew of role players perfectly willing to let Jordan dominate the game. They managed to stay out of prison but at the same time had a competitive (and somewhat insane, thanks to Dennis Rodman) personality that simply crushed everyone in their path. A team like the current Mavericks has decent Physics in that they are structured beautifully, with all the pieces you could want, but their behavior is almost *too* good at times. No one is "afraid" of the Mavericks. In the words of Billy Donovan, most teams "respect the Hell out of them" (yeah, I only used Donovan's words there because that sentence makes no sense) but no one is afraid of them. Still, I'd say they have top notch biology. The Patriots always have top notch biology because their general manager is a "genius". Last year's Saint Louis Cardinals had terrific team biology, which shows that team biology must be all-important, because the Cardinals had absolutely nothing else going for them. But then, maybe it was just the Tigers utter lack of team biology that won the Series for the Cards.

Teams that exhibit weak biology: Apparently team biology isn't that important, because the Miami Heat of yesteryear show terribly team biology. But then, that makes sense because they only won due to a leaguewide conspiracy anyway. The Raiders have terrible team biology, of course. The Yankees have had very bad team biology for the last five years, though they are getting better with the inculcation of younger talent into their team.

Team Chaos Theory: The study of unpredictable and complex dynamic systems which are highly sensitive to even tiny changes.

In other words, who can endure the crazy swings of sports no matter what? Who can win despite the ball bouncing the other way, and the refs being paid off?

Teams with good chaos defense: The Patriots Dynasty. Most of you could see this one coming. Despite the NFL being a game won and lost on the all-too-weird vivacity of the strangely shaped ball, the Patriots won 21 games in a row and 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. That is near impregnability as far as Chaos Theory is concerned. Most "dynasties" are particularly efficient in this area, given their lengthy success, but the ultimate might have been the Yankees of the late 90s. Baseball is a sport where the Best team only wins about 60% of the time, and yet the Yankees won 4 World Series in 5 years. Not easy.

Teams with bad chaos defense: UConn basketball of a year ago. They were the best college basketball team by leaps and bounds, yet lost to a puny George Mason squad in one of the most pathetic games of all time. Besides proving that basketball is better when good teams play good teams (as in this year's tourney) that game was incredibly difficult to watch. UConn had the six best players on the court, yet they all Rudy Gay'd there way through emotionless, fundamentally unsound basketball. They couldn't handle the bounces going the other way. Yankee teams of recent history are also designed such that on a good day the Yankees blow the best teams out of the water, but when the Umpire is a bit off his mark or the wind is going the wrong way, the Yankees can lose to anyone (i.e. last year's pathetic Tigers team). The Raiders, of course.

Team Exobiology: The study of aliens.

Basically, if your team can handle an absolutely foreign presence, they are good with exobiology. If they can't, they are the Raiders. What do I mean by alien presence? I mean Terrel Owens, Ron Artest, Pacman Jones and their ilk.

Teams with good exobiology: The Bulls Dynasty, again. They won Championships with Dennis Rodman. I'm not sure if anyone has that kind of exobiology. The Patriots are pretty good here, though, surviving and thriving with Corey Dillon.

Teams with bad exobiology: The 49ers, the Eagles, the Cowboys, the Pacers. Yeah, that pretty much says who the aliens are. The Titans are doing what few other teams like doing but usually ends up being for the best: getting rid of their alien.

There we have it, people. Is your team good with the sciences?

Minor Rants

Usually I have a couple rants in my minor rants section, but today I have only one. Now, I have never thought much of a certain writer over at ESPN's "Page 2" (which is the exception, since most of Page 2 is hilarious, brilliant stuff). She seems to over-simplify things, has very little knowledge of just about anything sports related, and has nothing funny to say about anything. But I never knew she was this putrid. She recently claimed that Kobe is Better than Michael.

I could simply stop right there and most people would agree that Jemele Hill now has no credibility in anything, even how to make a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwhich. But let's just mention a few things.

This isn't even close. MJ took a cast of role players and won six titles without breaking much of a sweat. Kobe only won titles because Shaq handed them to him. So what if Kobe can score? Anyone can score in this day and age. You can't guard people anymore (no hand checking). And the ability to drop into zones to protect against big men at times opens up the perimeter even more. And Kobe doesn't score as much as MJ anyway. And let's not forget that Kobe is still barely over .500 with this team.

But the most outrageous claim she makes is that the NBA is better now than it was in MJ's day. I have no clue what she is smoking, but only because I have never smoked anything, and so I'm not sure whether pot, niccotine, or some other drug happens to affect your sanity the most. the NBA of the early nineties blows this NBA out of the water. At best, the current NBA has three teams with a title shot. THREE! Back then... oh boy. If you scroll down his latest article, Bill Simmons wrapped it up most succinctly:

"MJ played in the most competitive era in the history of the league (1987-93) and emerged with three titles from 1991-93. Jemele argued that Kobe's current competition is tougher than the teams from 1991-93, which is just plain wrong. There's no comparison. The league sucks right now. Back in the early '90s, you had Magic's Lakers, Drexler's Blazers, Riley's Knicks, Isiah's Pistons, Price's Cavs, Hakeem's Rockets, Robinson's Spurs, Malone's Jazz, the TMC trio in Golden State, some underrated Celtics teams (they averaged 52 wins a year during Reggie Lewis' prime), some great Suns teams (including a 62-win team in 1992-93 with Barkley) and a Sonics team that was just taking off with GP and Kemp. It was a top-heavy league back then, unlike now, when 80 percent of the teams are mediocre and there are only four good teams (Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio and Detroit)."

The Sports Maunderer was created so that I had an outlet for my frustrations, and this is exactly the kind of thing my blog was created for, so it is blissful and ecstatic that it is fulfilling its purpose. Instead of ranting to whoever would listen, I now ramble for everyone to read.

I don't blame Hill for making an assertion and then arguing for it. Except that I do, because this assertion is just that dumb.

So I rephrase: I wouldn't normally blame anyone for making an assertion I disagree with and attempting to support it. Unless it is one of the hundred dumbest things ever asserted. This is one of those.

One last tidbit: Has anyone actually ever used the word "antidisestablishmentarianism" without putting it in quotes? Ever?

Well have fun, peoples, and maybe next time I'll let you in on what it is like to be Greg Oden.

The Sports Maunderer, signing off.