Referencing:
Which player did a better job of elevating the play of his teammates than any other?

Bill Russell. Michael Jordan and Gretzky are close behind.

=====

I don't always go by "just stats", but I think they're a good indicator for a question like this. Take a look at Gretzky's Edmonton teammates while he was there, and after he left - they didn't really miss a step. When looking at a hockey guy like that, I think of Mario Lemieux, who seemed to turn every other player's stick into gold. Anyone who got a few minutes with him on the ice had their numbers inflated. Truly remarkable.

Vancouver fans would disagree with you regarding Gretzky. In Wayne's rookie NHL season, he had a winger named Blair MacDonald with him, who scored 46 goals playing alongside Wayne. Midway through the following season, ol' Blair got traded to the Canucks, where, err, he didn't score 46 goals. In fact, he didn't even get 20, and that was back in the day when almost anyone playing a regular shift up front got 20!

As a NY Ranger fan, I agree with you about the lack of bile in the Ranger/Islander rivalry. I think for me it's a combination of seeing the Rangers win the Cup, moving to California, and growing up. In fact, my passion for hockey in general is basically gone. Which is sad, but a relief in a way. But man, there was NOTHING like that rivalry back in the 1980's.

The EPL is a gift. I grew up playing and watching soccer in the 70's, and got hooked on English soccer by watching the one game that was televised each week on channel 13 in NY on Saturday afternoons - with Mario Machado doing the play-by-play. I stopped playing and following it closely until about 5 years ago, when I started doing both again. Now I'm hooked...when I turn on the TV, FSW is the first place I go.

Happy New Year, Eric - keep up the great work.

"Who is the greatest hockey player of all time -- Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr or Wayne Gretzky?"

My opinion: Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Orr, in that order. I know our friend Charles Tupper will disagree, but...

My question - one of your sponsors buys and sells tickets and yet you put your tickets on eBay - why?

Sorry - couldn't resist.

;)

Thanks for the link.

Here are five questions I'd like to ask bloggers like Hewitt:

1. Given the current atmosphere in which half the country tunes you out if you're labeled as "left" or "liberal" (to an extent, that's true if you're labeled as "right" or "conservative" as well), do you really think it's in a reporter's best interest to tell you everything he or she thinks?

2. Why do you want to know? If someone who opposed the Gulf War reports that eco-terrorists were NOT responsible for the Charles County fires, will you ignore that person and listen to Rush Limbaugh instead?

3. How old were you when you decided you were smarter than everyone in the media?

4. How well would your blog hold up if every mistake (or every supposed mistake, or every difference of opinion) were pulled apart by a bunch of amateur critics?

5. If you know everything about journalism, why aren't you a journalist?

Down with snark in 2005!

Gee, Beau, you and your friends in the MSM don't feel too threatened by blogs, now do you? [insert evil grin here] Seeing someone writing from a USA Today account ripping into a successful blogger is too delicious for words.

Ok Matt, I'll bite. Howe is the greatest HP. Why? Both Orr and Gretzky played in an expansionist era which, especially during the 80s, lowered the competitve quality of the game. And the revolutionary nature of Orr's play, with all due respect to Eric, is myth. Look at Kelly and Doug Harvey in the 50s. If you want revolutionary play, Franz Beckenbauer would qualify in that category when he single handedly shaped the roll of libero.

Greatest athlete really depends on the definition but usually disqualifies single sport luminaries. Mildred "Babe" Diedrickson Zeharias may even outshine the likes of Jim Thorpe, Bob Mathias or Daley Thompson. Mathias wins the dec at 17 in London on a cinder brick track made from the rubble caused by German bombs, with a bamboo pole to vault with, and running and hurling the javelin and discuss in the dark. He scores the touchdown that beats USC to put Stanford in the Rose Bowl and he does it all as an amateur and then goes on to join the USMC. The "Babe's" story is also incredible, especially when she beat a twenty women track and field team from Illinois(?) single handedly. Emile Zatopek was another iron horse who won the 5,000, 10,000 and Marathon all at the '52 Olympics. One sport but multiple events. Simply amazing.

Russell was great but he did have a marvellous supporting cast. John Havlicek and Sam Jones later on but in the early days Frank Ramsey, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharmin, and Tommy Heinsoln were no chumps. I'd give the nod to the Dipper who, along with Hal Greer, really elevated the play of those Philly teams.

Dennis -- Threatened by people who would run out of material if my colleagues all called in sick? Nah, not really. Besides, he who steals my job and doesn't even collect the meager salary steals trash.

Hey, I love blogs -- Eric's and a few others, anyway. I even have a poorly advertised one of my own. I just find it amusing when bloggers think they've descended from the mountain with virtual stone tablets. Even more amusing when they have such giant chips on their shoulders that typing must be a tremendous accomplishment for them.

That's "delicious"? OK, but I'd bet the ice cream bar I just had was better.

Beau,

Why is it true that half the country would tune out a liberal, but it's only true "to an extent" for a conservative?

As for how well he'd hold up if pulled apart by amateur critics...well, that's the whole point, isn't it? There's nothing stopping those "amateur" critics...or professionals, for that matter...from pulling him apart right now. So...have at it.

Finally...why don't you consider him a journalist?

Seth -

1. Just going on my experience. I've been the lone voice arguing in favor of capitalism and free trade in a grad-school discussion, I've spent plenty of time defending the bits of the media worth defending, and I've moderated message boards. Take it for what it's worth, but my experience is that the lefties -- even the ones I would consider somewhat freaky and self-parodying -- are more willing to hear you out.

2. The limiting factors are time and interest. No one's going to dissect every word of someone's blog unless it becomes so prominent that someone else finds it worth the effort. It's a different story at, say, the NY Times, where some folks are willing to deconstruct every caption, headline and photo placement. Same reasons we'll all second-guess Joe Gibbs' clock management but won't say a word about a guy coaching a Division III school, whether that guy is talented or not.

3. Is he a journalist? I don't know the guy. Does he consider himself a journalist? Is he part of the growing band of mainstream-media guys with a blog on the side? Is blogging his full-time job?

I know it's a murky definition these days when there are bloggers who do a better job of news analysis than a lot of people who are paid to give opinions on ESPN, CNN, MSNBC, Fox and even the occasional newspaper op-ed page. I suppose the point I was going for was that if he thinks it's so easy to cover a political campaign first-hand for a news organization with a sizable number of readers, why doesn't he do it himself?

The point is this -- I think we lose something when we define ourselves by our political ideology. When I went through school, I rarely knew the political thinking of the person teaching my class, and I believe quite strongly that the classes were more open to a free exchange of ideas because of it. In other cases, we all knew the professor's political leanings, but no one really cared. These days, when a best-selling book labels left-wingers as traitors, I wonder if we could pull that off.

When I worked in news, I often didn't know the political leanings of my co-workers. Occasionally you'd come across an outspoken believer in some sort of ideology, but if they let that ideology affect their work, their careers were shortened. That's the way it should be. Don't walk into a newsroom expecting to exchange political views with anyone. Good journalists (and I promise there are a few left) don't talk about their politics while they're working. That makes Hewitt's questions irrelevant.

Besides, if Hewitt thinks a journalist is biased, how could a journalist answer his questions in a way that could possibly change his mind? If he wants to believe that so-and-so favors partial-birth abortion, he's not going to believe any response to the contrary. And if the journalist has no scruples about such things, why would he or she answer the questions honestly?

In sports, where things are often more light-hearted, questions like Eric's are good for entertainment value. In chats, people will often ask writers about the players they admired as a kid, and the writers will usually answer. No rational person will turn around and say someone's World Series coverage is messed up because a writer grew up as a Dale Murphy fan. I mean, I've disagreed with Charles on any number of things, but he's absolutely right about Beckenbauer.

Quick question for Dennis before the New Year strikes (I've resolved to avoid such discussions in '05): Why exactly DO you find it "delicious"? I mean, you don't know me, and all you can find of me online is that I wrote a soccer column for a while, I've interviewed a bunch of athletes and I'm cited in the occasional research paper on online journalism.

I didn't accidentally cut you off in traffic the other day, did I? (If so, I'm quite sorry.) Or did a USA TODAY delivery person toss the paper through a window like the kid in Better Off Dead?

Charles, I can certainly buy that expansion adversely affects competitiveness, but the overall skill level has also increased sinced Howe's prime. In general, players are just better now than they were 30 or 40 years ago.

Part of the reason may have to do with improvements made in everything from curved blades to skates to better ice, but also from player speed and technique. It's a natural progression that's true for all sports, I think. There are more people playing the game with year-round training, knowledge gained from past greats, etc. In short, I don't think expansion discounts Gretzky's greatness vis-a-vis Howe's.

Beau, I believe Hewitt is a lawyer with a radio show in California. While I probably agree with him on most political concerns, he sort of lost me after the first presidential debate when he declared on his blog that Bush won "in a landslide." I wish that were true, but, um... no.

Anyway, I don't really have an opinion of his set of questions except to say that anyone who pays attention to ideology can usually guess how a reporter would answer them after reading a single article, or sometimes a single phrase. Some writers are less predictable than others, of course, and after reading Hewitt's take on the first presidential debate I think I know what kind of "straight news" reporter he would make. Perhaps that's why he's a pundit and not a reporter.

P.S. You wrote: "my experience is that the lefties -- even the ones I would consider somewhat freaky and self-parodying -- are more willing to hear you out." Nonsense! I'll hear no more of that!

Beau,

Fair enough. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Clearly Hewitt and others like him are basking in the glow of success, much of which has come at the expense of people and institutions with which they disagree - and which were certainly ripe for getting knocked down a peg, know-it-all-wise. Which of course makes it all the more enjoyable.

For the most part I think that's been a good thing, and I think that Hewitt is smart enough not to get too caught up in the schadenfraude of it all, although that is certainly a risk.

I think the bigger issue, however, is how the MSM will react to all this. So far, the reaction has been pretty pathetic, consisting mostly of blind disregard, smug condescension, or juvenile attacking (note the current PowerLine/Minneapolis Star Tribune fracas, which is not looking too good for the "journalist").

You wrote a soccer column? That's very cool - I grew up playing, played in college, and after a 15 year layoff started up again about 5 years ago.

Beau - you wrote "Just going on my experience. I've been the lone voice arguing in favor of capitalism and free trade in a grad-school discussion" - where did you go to grad school - Cuba?

Seriously - maybe you can't see how much you've been immersed in Left-Think.

Lawrence -- Thanks for the background on Hewitt.

At a reunion of my school paper (100th anniversary), an alumnus who was covering politics described what it was like to cover the debates. I can honestly say I couldn't do that job. People from both campaigns were sending him instant messages and dropping paper over his shoulder, all while he was trying to write and, yes, pay attention to the debate itself. The only time I've ever had my head spun that much was on an amusement park ride, and I was not better off for the experience.

Yeah, I knew a few Greenpeace types. While I'm sure the right wing admires their efforts in fighting France, their ideology was pretty much out to sea. But often well-intended, at least, and they would listen to you if you objected. I even did so quite rudely once, and they still listened.

Seth -- I guess the impression I get from people like Hewitt is that they're all schadenfreude, no insight. They seem to enjoy proving superiority through generalization -- "Hey, here's a reporter who messed up! See how much smarter I am than the media?"

Ask anyone who's been in the reporting and editing trenches, and you're sure to find that they have quite a few colleagues and overlords they'd love to see knocked down a few pegs. But the generalizations, aside from being personally insulting, can be quite harmful. I think the industry is actually getting worse as it attempts to compete with and respond to its critics -- it's focusing so much on "breaking news" that it fails to check facts or provide important context, it's lowering costs by hiring pundits instead of reporters, etc., etc. Granted, you can't blame the media critics if the media respond by lowering the bar, but I fear for the day in which there's no difference -- in perception first, and then reality -- between a news-gathering organization and one guy sitting in a radio studio or in front of a computer.

Still, there are a fair number of people who do decent work. And it's probably getting too late for me to pack it in and go to law school.

Chris -- Or maybe it's the other way around, and you've been immersed in right-think? Pointless argument, basically. All I can tell you along those lines is that I grew up a Republican and dislike ideologues of all flavors.

Of course, free trade isn't really a left-right issue anymore. Come to think of it, a lot of things I used to think of as "left," particularly involving the role of the federal government, are now "right," and the "left" spent the better part of the 90s lurching to the "right." Makes me wonder why people even bother to argue politics any more.

(Sorry to hog the comments area -- it's been a weird afternoon involving phone repair ...)

Seth -- Yes, the Minneapolis incident is a hot topic in journalism right now. One interesting take is on the Editor's Blog at news-record.com, where I used to work and where the editor of the past few years has encouraged staffers to do blogs on and off the site. (Blog on the Run, by a Republican who crosses party lines with almost every post, is my favorite non-sports blog.)

I'd love to get back into playing soccer, but my foot skills have dropped from slim to nil. I used to be a decent keeper, though.

Chris -- The "pointless argument" wasn't intended as an insult, just a comment that the argument wouldn't go anywhere.

I don't know, Beau. In two years with the US EPA my experience in dealing with environmental activists was the opposite, and I wasn't even taking a political position. They didn't want to hear scientific conclusions that were at odds with their ideology. And actually, the Right admires France for their efforts fighting Greenpeace, not the other way around. Though I admit it's a tough call.

"Blog on the Run, by a Republican who crosses party lines with almost every post..."

Maybe I should start calling myself a Democrat and boost my creds the same way.

Beau - I'm first generation Irish American, both my parents had union jobs and I went to UMass - so even thinking that I've been immersed in Right-Think would be off base.

From the outside a foreigner would be hard pressed to find significant differences between Democrats and Republicans (besides abortion and school vouchers) but inside the US those differences are beginning to resemble Swift's smallenders and bigenders.

I think that MSM - especially print - must be alarmed at the exodus of talent to Internet sites. Most of the top sports writers are being goobled up by on-line sites or ESPN 6. I think that traditional media is a bit ticked at this (even if they won't admit it) and they resent being fact checked by blogs (hint - if you get your facts straight - no worries).

BTW - when's the last time a capitolist society suffered a famine? That should be the end of the argument on that subject unless of course you went to grad school in Cuba. :)

Lawrence -- I've encountered a few people like that, and I feel your pain. But on the flipside, large segments of the right wing these days ignore scientific consensus on a number of things, ranging from the feds' position on global warming to a smattering of school boards' views on evolution.

Yes, it's absolutely unfair to lump all of these folks together as "the right," which illustrates the danger in dealing in such generalities. If I were a newspaper editor (the big one, not an underling), I'd ban the words "left," "right," "liberal" and "conservative" from the paper. Then I'd be fired, because political writers have no idea what to do when they're not defining politics in terms of a conflict between two sides. They all want to be sports writers, of course.

Check out Blog on the Run if you get a chance. Basically, he doesn't let his politics stand in the way of his job as a curmudgeonly journalist. There's something admirable about that.

Chris -- Man, I wish you'd been in that discussion with me so you could've brought out the line about famine. I kept hitting them with comparisons of life expectancy -- equally valid, I suppose, but not as dramatic. If I'm ever in a similar discussion, I'll borrow that.

I hadn't noticed an exodus of writing talent to Web sites. The only person I can think of off-hand is Rachel Nichols, who left the Post to report for the ESPN family and do unusual interviews on ESPN.com. A lot of pundits are enamored of the yap-yap cable shows, and as much as I like Woody Paige, I think that's probably a step backward for journalism.

I don't mind the fact-checking on blogs, and I think most journalists don't. What gets me is the assumption of "bias" with little understanding of what that word means. I've had plenty of conversations with people who seem to think we all have little earpieces through which we are controlled by a group of DNC operatives in an underground bunker just outside New York. (Oops ... I've said too much ...)

Everyone knows what bias is. And I know of nobody who believes that liberal bias in the media is the result of a conscious effort on the part of the powers that be. In contrast, look at what the lefty kooks say about Rupert Murdoch (See Bill "Right-Wing Media Machine" Moyers).

Rather, the bias that is evident in most of MSM reporting is the result of nearly uniform ideology in the press corps. When almost 90% of reporters belong to the same particular political party, bias seeps through and shows itself in the their work. This is almost unavoidable. What's funny, is hearing them all proclaim how they're not being biased. The evidence is pretty clear that they are.

Terry -- "It's true because my buddies say it's true" isn't an effective argument. Bias is much more complex than that -- see http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm for a good primer.

I'm not denying that bias exists and seeps out, and you can find plenty of examples, many of which will make a good journalist cringe. I'm saying, as the link above will describe in detail, that there are other factors that far outweigh "liberal" bias.

But it's a comfortable thing for people to believe. It's a seductive way of thinking. You can simply ignore news you don't like as the work of the "liberal media." Blaming the messenger is quite appealing, even in cases in which there's no empirical evidence that the message is false.

The funny thing is this: The worst blunders faced by the NYTimes and WashPost over the past decade -- Wen Ho Lee, Whitewater, Iraq, Jayson Blair -- had nothing to do with boosting the Democratic cause. Quite the opposite in many cases.

The reason I get so annoyed with bloggers who focus so relentlessly on political bias -- and I'd suggest I'm hardly alone in this -- is that it distracts us from fixing problems that are far more pressing. Also, that focus prevents people from believing us when we are right. One classic example: In 1994, the country was not in recession. Yet many voters believed it was. Why? They were paying attention to talk radio, not newspapers. (I have data to back this up somewhere in my files.)

A couple of questions to answer:

1. Why do you suppose so many reporters vote Democrat? (One hint: It has nothing to do with hiring practices. Believe me -- politics aren't included in job interviews.)

2. At one point in the development of a thought does "bias" start? If someone grows up in a Republican family and starts challenging those beliefs after a few years on a reporting beat, is that person "biased," or is that person making an objective decision based on the facts?

Because I've resolved to deal only in constructive discussion in the new year (let's see ... 11 hours, 45 minutes left), I'll close with this thought: There is an effort to diversity newsrooms in the sense of recruiting people from different backgrounds. They're hoping to get people from business backgrounds (yes, salary will be a problem), science backgrounds and other areas outside the traditional liberal arts/J-school crowd. That to me is the best way of getting people of different schools of thought into a newsroom.

But they're not going to ask whether applicants are "liberal" or "conservative," and that's a good thing. First of all, the terms are meaningless -- "conservative" used to imply opposition to government intervention. Second of all, when you walk into a newsroom, you're a journalist first and everything else second. Believe it or not, I've worked with plenty of people whose political beliefs I still don't know, and I've worked with others who surprised me when they told me their affiliations.

Frankly, I wish the rest of the population did as well in keeping their ideology from overrunning the rest of their lives. We need to think more about what unites us as Americans and a little less about the junk the political parties and the media (yes, us) do to divide us.

Good discussion, but I promise Eric I won't launch into media theory in the comments boxes in 2005!

Thanks for signing in, .