PRESSURE FROM MEANING

The more meaning a situation has, the more pressure an athlete feels. If too much meaning is assigned, the athlete overloads and doesn't perform well. Money is an issue that makes performing difficult because of the extra meaning that it brings. When an athlete is paid an exorbitant amount of money, fans expect more, teammates expect more, coaches expect more, and the athlete expects more of themselves. The only problem is that the athlete can only do what they are capable of doing, and the amount of money that you are paid doesn't increase what you are able to do. In fact, it can bring so much extra pressure that the athlete actually does less rather than more.
To illustrate the point, consider the cases of two of the highest paid players on their respective teams in Philadelphia, Ryan Howard of the Philadelphia Phillies and Danny Briere of the Flyers. Howard is paid $39 million in 2010 and is due to make at least $125 million more through 2016. He is the clean-up hitter, the man who is supposed to hit home runs and drive runs in. On Saturday night, here he was on the biggest stage in the NLCS, two men on base, one run down, full count, in the ninth inning. It doesn't get any better than this. You have your big man in a big situation. Every coach in baseball from T-ball on up has told their players the same thing in that situation; "Swing at anything close". So what does Ryan Howard do? He takes the last pitch and hopes it is a ball. Game over, lost game and lost season.

His explanation was "I though it was low". Too bad that it was not his call to make. Why didn't he swing like he had been trained to do? The only possible explanation was that he had doubts about his ability to hit and was hoping that the umpire would bail him out. Why else would you put your faith in somebody else rather than yourself? I can only believe that the pressure of his contract and the expectations of everybody else overwhelmed him at that moment. The pressure was more easily handled by others than himself. Proof was that he blamed the umpire for the call, as he claimed the umpire hesitated before calling the pitch a ball. Blaming others for your choices is one clear example of how pressure can change a player's ability to act in any situation.

Then you have the opposite example of Danny Briere of the Flyers. Briere is one of the highest paid free agents on the team, coming over from the Buffalo Sabres for a multi-million dollar contract. In the past two seasons, he has underperformed expectations and has had a host of personal problems to distract him. While he did have an outstanding playoff season in the spring, leading all NHL scorers with a franchise record 30 playoff points, it was not clear which direction his career was going to head for the 2010-2011 season.

A day in June, 2010 changed his life forever and the meaning that he gives to playing hockey. Briere was involved in a near fatal crash on I-81 in upstate New York on the way to visit his parents in Ottowa with his son. He and his son survived without a scratch despite the total destruction of his car when he changed lanes and bumped into a tractor trailer that flipped over and sent him into the guardrail. He felt that the accident changed his life. As he said, "It makes you realize you have to appreciate everything that's going on in the moment and not waste so much time thinking about the past. Try to live in the moment as much as possible."

The prelimary results from the start of the 2010 season seems to indicate that a new Danny Briere has emerged as a hockey player. The line of Briere-Leino-Hartnell has taken up where they left off last year and is the top scoring line for the Flyers after the first 7 games of the season. Briere attributes it to a change in meaning: "I can focus on hockey and basically my job, which is a good feeling." Too bad it takes a near death accident to get rid of the pressure of making too much money.

Too bad Ryan Howard didn't have some life changing event in the past week. Maybe then he would have swung at the pitch and who knows what would have happened.....

CHARLIE MANUEL,SPORT PSYCHOLOGIST

The job of a sport psychologist is to help athletes manage the overwhelming emotion evoked by any competitive situation. Doubt, loss of confidence, trying too hard, choking, etc are all examples of the impact of anxiety on performance. Emotions come from three sources; the situation, relationships, and the athlete's history logged in their memories. Teaching athletes to manage these three sources of emotion is what I believe sport psychology is all about.

Charlie Manuel, manager of the Philadelphia Phillies baseball team, is one of the best unlicensed psychologists that I have ever seen. His training is based on some "down home" wisdom of the ages coupled with years of experience being around players and the game as a player and manager. Let me make my point about his skill by describing how he advises his players to handle each of those three sources of emotion.

Regarding the management of the situations that develop each game, here is what he says: "We're creatures of habit and routines play a big part." He advises his players to have a normal routine to set their expectations and remind them of their history of success. A practical example of how this idea is put into practice involves the decision Charlie made to restore the original batting order for Game 6 of the NLCS against the Giants. In the prior games, he had flip flopped his number 2 and 3 hitters, Chase Utley and Placido Polanco. For this last game, he is going back to the usual routine. Familiarity and routine is calming to a player, as it is to any human being. The ability to predict an outcome reduces the anxiety of change. That is true for baseball players and people in general. Charlie's life experience has taught him this little fact about people.

Another one of Charlie's truisms is his emphasis on "playing in the moment." Fear drives players to predict outcomes of their actions, like "what if I boot the next grounder!" or "what if they score another run!". The "oh-no, here we go again" reaction reflects the fear of losing the game. Staying in the moment means that the player focuses on doing their job the way that they do it best. Roy Oswalt, reflecting Charlie's approach, said: "You always have adrenaline when you go out there, especially in games like this....Sometimes I think guys get caught up and try to do too much and get out of their game. I think the biggest thing is to stay within your game and pitch like you normally do."
Charlie sends his pitchers this message by the way he manages them. He rarely makes decisions without consulting them first, including leaving a pitcher in to finish a game that he has earned the right to finish. This decision often puts him at odds with common baseball wisdom that dictates that the closer of a game gives you the best chance at winning a game. As a sport psychologist, Charlie knows better.

Charlie also knows about managing the emotion from relationships. Human emotion is contagious. So is hitting in baseball for the same reason. When one guy gets a hit, the other players relax and expect to do the same thing. Ryan Howard's hitting in the NCLS series with the Giants is one example. Despite batting .294 up to the 6th game, Howard has yet to hit a home run or drive in a run. Charlie explains it as the effect of the team on his player:" I think he's definitely trying too hard....I think that he wants to feel like he's part of something." So what is Charlie's advice? "He needs to slow down and just hit a couple of balls good and things will happen for him." In short, Charlie says that he needs to focus on the mechanics of his swing rather than worry about hitting a home run. Focus on making good contact and good things will happen. Don't predict what will happen. Just hit the ball hard and trust that the right outcome will happen from a good process. Sounds like the advice of a good sport psychologist.

As to the last source of emotion, the player's history of emotional reactions, Charlie doesn't have much to say about that one. I guess that one is best left to the doctors with real training and licenses. As to Charlie' rating as a psychologist, I will defer to some of his down-home wisdom and say: "Two out of three ain't bad."

END THE VIOLENCE

I watched the collision between DeSean Jackson of the Philadelphia Eagles and the Atlanta Falcons Dunta Robinson on Sunday and instantly felt sick to my stomach. The hit seemed to epitomize all that is wrong with football recently. The glory given to the biggest hit of the week all seemed about money and macho, and nothing to do with respect for the sport and the players. The push seems to be for the bigger and the better, regardless of who pays the price.

Then I read the article about a Rutgers player, Eric LeGrand, who is paying the ultimate price. Eric is paralyzed from the neck down. He injured his spine in a violent collision on a kickoff return with an Army player during the game on Saturday. LeGrand is currently in Hackensack University Medical Center following surgery to stabilize his spine.

I worry that football is becoming unreasonably violent because it sells tickets and creates drama for the TV audience. The NFL has outlawed helmet to helmet hits, but the player only gets fined for the infraction. If they really meant to outlaw it, they would suspend players for several games for a first offense and banish them from the league for multiple infractions. It would reduce the violence but also the size of the TV audience, and the amount of money advertisers would pay for the ads. To be serious about reducing violence, owners and players would need to make less money. I can't imagine that happening, anymore than I could imagine the owners and players coming together to avoid a strike for the 2011 season. There's way too much money involved, and I guess that money is more important than people.

TO ADJUST OR NOT TO ADJUST

Imagine being inside of David Akers mind on Sunday. For those of you who aren't familiar with David Akers, he is the field goal kicker for the 2010 Philadelphia Eagles. He is obviously good at what he does and has done well for many years. He is the highest percentage field goal kicker of all time for the Eagles. That's what made it so significant that he missed three field goals in a row this past Sunday in a game against the Atlanta Falcons, a first in his All-Pro career.

He missed his first field goal of 37 yards just slightly to the left. The winds were swirling, and it looked like he overcorrected for the wind. A small time later, he was faced with the same situation, only this time the field goal was 10 yards further out. He must have decided to make the same adjustment, and hoped that the wind would even out over the longer distance. Again, he missed the field goal just slightly to the left. In the third quarter, he faced the same kick from the same distance as the first field goal. Should he adjust again or follow the same approach? He went with his initial plan and ended up with the same result, again wide to the left.

When he came off the field, he threw his helmet in disgust. He had tried to make some adjustments, only to become confused by whether to adjust or not to adjust. Doing the same thing did not work for him. When he finally got another chance in the fourth quarter, he went back to the tried and true. Not only did he go back to what got him here, he also got rid of the pink shoe that he was wearing to honor breast cancer, and put back on his normal black kicking shoe. He kicked the 30 yarder right through the middle of the goal post. Must have been the pink shoe.....

Contrast Akers adjustments with Charlie Manuel's decision to stay with Jimmie Rollins as his shortstop for the second game of the NLCS series against the San Francisco Giants. Rollins had been hurt much of the season and was returning to the lineup only recently after re-injuring his calf. Charlie decided to make no adjustments, kept Rollins in the lineup, and was rewarded by his hitting a two out 3 RBI double in the 8th inning that iced the game for the Phillies.

To adjust or not to adjust is the riddle for the athlete in any sport. From both these stories, seems the common theme is your best shot is to go with what got you there. Worked for Manuel, Rollins and in the end, Akers too.

MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL

I have always believed that if you want to know why something occurred, follow the money trail. Money gives you the power to get whatever you want. Little wonder that money can bring out the best or the worst in people. Several stories recently made me disgusted with the greed that feeds off sports and athletes these days.

Turns out that the Reggie Bush scandal with agents paying him while in school that rocked USC's football program and caused him to return the Heisman Trophy was only the tip of the iceberg. A sports agent, Josh Luchs said that he routinely payed players, over 30 at last count, from 1990-1996. Too bad that it only took 20 years to break the story. And during those twenty years, we naively assumed that football players played for the love of the game and the opportunity to play professionally. Wonder how those payments affected the outcome of the games and the draft order of the players in the NFL draft. I can only believe that an agent who is willing to go to those lengths to sign his players would be capable of paying off team or league officials to position his players to make the most money possible. Wonder how money is ruining the game right now, and we will not find out for another 20 years.

I guess this 20 year thing is the window of opportunity for greed and cheating to occur before you are caught. Took about 20 years for the steroid scandal to hit baseball. Took probably the same time for the doping accusations to emerge in cycling. Wonder what we will find out 20 years from now.

Speaking of greed, looks like there is a real possibility for the 2011 football season to be canceled. The NFL owners and the union can't seem to find a way to share the billions that they make together. The owners claim that the league will lose up to $1 billion if they cannot negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement before March 3, 2011. Something seems wrong that the players need a union at all, but you only have to look at the underfunding for the retired players with all their medical conditions to understand the distrust the players have for the owners. Seems like the owners only care about the players when they can make them some money, and cast them aside when they are finished with them. What ever happened to the idea of responsibility to account for the human cost of playing the game that makes millions for owners and players alike?

Guess that falls under the same idea as post-war funding for the mental and physical needs of soldiers. Nobody wants to consider those costs. If they did, maybe there would be less wars and better rules to reduce the violence in sports.