The Yankees have been one of the biggest surprises in baseball this season, not because they’re winning, but because they’re winning with spare parts. The Bronx Bombers have been without many of their stars, including Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Mark Teixeira and Curtis Granderson, yet they’ve clawed their way to the top of the American League East.

Those setbacks, while major, pale in comparison to Pettitte’s injury, though.

The Yankees find themselves in first place largely because of their starting pitching, and Pettitte has been a big part of that. The overall numbers — 4-3 record, 3.83 ERA, 1.30 WHIP — aren’t eye-popping, but Pettitte has been very consistent with the exception of one outing. The lefty gave up seven earned runs on 10 hits over 4 1/3 innings against the Astros on April 29, but he’s allowed three runs or fewer in each of his other seven starts.

Simply put, Pettitte gives the Yankees a chance to win when he takes the mound, and now New York will be forced to rely on 25-year-old rookie Vidal Nuno. Nuno’s first major league start on Monday went well — he tossed five shutout innings and got the win — but replacing a proven veteran presence like Pettitte is no easy task, especially when Phil Hughes’ recent struggles leave questions about where his season is headed.

CC Sabathia and Hiroki Kuroda will need to continue anchoring the Yankees’ rotation in Pettitte’s absence, while the rest of the staff picks up the slack. David Phelps turned in another solid performance on Saturday, allowing just one earned run over seven innings, and he’ll need to continue pitching well for as long as Pettitte is sidelined — which the Yankees are optimistic won’t be long.

But even if Pettitte’s trip to the 15-day DL is precautionary, it still highlights just how thin of a tightrope the Yankees are walking. Ivan Nova could return before long, although he was hardly effective in his four starts before going down. And perhaps Michael Pineda, who hasn’t pitched in a Yankees uniform since being acquired prior to last season, will return and showcase his natural talent at some point this summer. Neither of those scenarios are a sure thing, though, so the Yankees should proceed with the mindset that any contribution from those two hurlers is an added bonus.

Will Pettitte’s recent injury kill the Yankees’ season? Probably not, especially if he only misses a couple of starts. However, if the injury bug sticks around and starts chomping away at him and the rest of the rotation, it could become awfully difficult for the Yankees to continue motoring along atop the division.

The Yankees have survived some big blows to their offense, but they simply cannot afford injuries to their rotation.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here.

Yu Darvish tossed 130 pitches in eight innings against the Tigers on Thursday despite the Rangers leading 10-4. Manager Ron Washington’s decision to leave Darvish in the game for so long has been a talking point ever since, but the whole debate is fruitless.

Baseball fans, coaches, players, pundits and statisticians have spent countless hours in recent years tossing in their two cents about the importance — or lack thereof — of hard-and-fast pitch counts and innings limits. Yet after sifting through all sorts of empirical data, bickering about individual scenarios and listening to plenty of stories about “how the game used to be,” we haven’t arrived at one universal rule or line of logic that makes total sense. We never will, and therefore making a firm determination on Darvish’s outing against the Tigers is downright impossible.

Every pitcher’s body is different. Every start, whether it be because of stressful situations or the types of pitches thrown over the course of the outing, is different. Every situation is different. Blah. Blah. Blah. Long story short: How long a pitcher stays in the game is something that should be determined on a case-by-case basis. No numbers, case studies, past scenarios or tall tales should override how a pitcher feels, how effective he’s been and what the situation in question calls for.

That’s why criticizing Washington as if he did something completely egregious is not only unfair, but it’s also ridiculous. We can hold Washington’s feet to the fire all we want, but then what is our end game? Are we simply making it a point to grill Washington on his managerial decision so that we have a leg to stand on if Darvish suddenly fizzles out in the second half?

Looking at the situation as a whole, there are a ton of people — myself included — who would have turned to the bullpen after Darvish threw 115 pitches through seven innings. That decision has nothing to do with pitch counts, per se, but a lot to do with whether rolling Darvish back out there with a six-run lead was all that necessary. Without being in the dugout alongside Darvish on Thursday, though, it’s stupid to definitively say, “Mr. Washington, you crossed the line.”

We can debate pitch counts and innings limits until the cows come home, and then keep a watchful eye on the cows’ workload once they enter the equation. But the topic, especially as it pertains to Darvish’s outing, is way too subjective to lay the hammer down on Washington.

Agreeing with or disagreeing with Washington’s decision is one thing. Making a big stink about a few extra pitches is another.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here.

During his rookie season, Hightower leaned heavily on Mayo for direction and leadership in how to acclimate to not just the NFL but more importantly to the Patriots’ program. By season’s end he still didn’t feel 100 percent integrated, but the now second-year linebacker says the veteran leadership is what helped him find his way.

“Definitely learned a lot,” Hightower said of the 2012 season. “I learned a lot when I first came in. I learned a lot during, and then even now. Learning just little smaller tricks. Things from Mayo. The linebacker corps as a whole, we’re all pretty close. We all work together. So we all take tips and tricks from everybody.”

Hightower, who turned 23 during the offseason, used the examples of those veterans as a framework for his own game as the season wore on — and the results were noticeable. His presence as a consistent run stopper and capable pass rusher helped in the Patriots’ development on defense and was a major cog in their run to the AFC Championship Game.

With that successful season now behind him, Hightower is looking solely toward the future, which now includes a new class of rookies. Hightower has spent the early stages of offseason workouts with some of the new rookies, getting to know them as people and offering them a hand in the development process. Much like Mayo did for him as a rookie, Hightower is now trying to be a resource for some of his new teammates — namely second-round pick and fellow linebacker Jamie Collins.

“Yeah, me and Jamie actually hung out the other night and watched the basketball game,” Hightower said of the Patriots’ new defender. “He’s a real cool dude, he works hard. I don’t think he’s going to have a problem at all jumping in, fitting in. Whether it’s at linebacker or defensive end or wherever he’s going to be at. He’s going to bring athleticism and versatility to the team. That’s why we got him.”

A versatile linebacker himself, Hightower fully understands the sort of value that Collins can add to this defense. He’s got great speed, an incredible vertical leap (41 1/2 inches) and a NFL combine record-setting broad jump (139 inches), giving the Patriots exactly the type of athlete they need to help out in coverage. Hightower recognizes that and is doing all he can to impart wisdom onto the young linebacker, even offering sound advice.

“Just pick out notes, mental and just do everything they did,” Hightower said of following the veterans’ lead. “That’s the biggest thing once you have somebody older. You just copy whatever they do and you’ll be fine.”

Normally, second-year players are still developing both on and off the field, but Hightower seems to be well ahead of the curve. He sounds ready to contribute in a much bigger way on the field this season, but he’s clearly taking on a more active role off the field, as well.

“I’m trying to graduate a little bit more than that, trying to become a little bit more of a leader,” Hightower said. “Not necessarily the Vince Wilforks or the Mayos, but just one those guys that everybody looks up to and sees their work ethic.”

While he’s actively ready for a more prominent role in leading the Patriots this season, Hightower won’t be the leader of the Patriots defense — and he’s more than fine with that.

“That’s going to be down the road, hopefully,” Hightower added. “Hopefully, Tom [Brady] and Vince and Mayo [are] going to be here for a long time. But if I was ever asked to step up and do that role, I’d be honored to do that.”

His time will come soon enough. But, for now, at least Bill Belichick knows he has yet another leader to rely on.

Have a question for Luke Hughes? Send it to him via Twitter at @LukeFHughes or send it here.

The future seemed bright.

Yet after that Warriors team fell to the Utah Jazz in the Western Conference semifinals in 2007, a loss that itself came after an improbable six-game victory as an eighth seed over the top-seeded Mavericks in the first round, their state was never quite as golden again. The Warriors won 48 games the following year, but that was good for no better than ninth place in a brutal West that boasted eight teams with at least 50 wins. Within two years, team leader Baron Davis was gone, dynamic youngster Monta Ellis was battling injuries and the Warriors were back in the high lottery, where they have been ever since — until this season.

We bring this up not solely to rain on the Warriors’ parade. In the wake of their six-game loss to the Spurs in the semis, the Dubs’ bandwagon only seems to be growing. They are the team of the future. Every player of consequence is likely back next season, including a fully healthy David Lee and Brandon Rush. They gave substantial minutes to three rookies in the playoffs. Meanwhile, Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson and Harrison Barnes presumably are only going to get better.

Forgive us for being a bit tentative in joining the chorus, though, because we have seen this before from this franchise and others. Yes, the ownership group is different, as any dedicated Warriors fan reminds us. Joe Lacob is (mercifully) not Chris Cohan, and there is legitimate hope for a new era with a young core of talent and a new arena on the horizon.

But …

There is always a but.

Things were actually pretty bright for the Warriors when Cohan took control in 1995, too. The team was a year removed from a 50-win campaign and plans were in place to renovate Oakland Arena. Yes, Lacob and Peter Guber seem more personable and accessible than their predecessor, but look back at the glowing profiles of the Maloof family shortly after they purchased the Kings in 1998. It now seems clear that Rick Adelman, Chris Webber and the rest of the upstart Kings were able to excel in spite of, not thanks to, the influence of the Maloofs. If the next few years end up being anything like the Maloofs’ first eight years in Sacramento, Warriors fans will take it, but that is far from the only possible scenario.

Ask the Sixers how things look in Philadelphia. This time last summer they were coming off a surprise trip to the Eastern Conference semis, two years into an ownership change and ready to do brave, new things. Joshua Harris and the Sixers were so confident, they hopped in on a four-team trade that brought them All-Star center Andrew Bynum. Now, they are in the process of replacing their general manager, coach and possibly Bynum as well.

The point is not that Lacob and company should not be trusted. There is nothing so far to suggest they will be as incompetent as Cohan or the Maloofs. But as the Bynum trade attests, seemingly wise decisions can backfire. Curry’s ankles continue to be a concern. Andrew Bogut has to prove he can avoid his annual freak injury. David Lee must continue to prove he is worth making north of $13 million through 2016, when he will be 32 years old and have a history of hip trouble.

Nobody in Golden State’s “core” is older than 29, and there is a big gap between Lee, 29, and Bogut, 28, and the next key player, 24-year-old Curry. If all goes well, the Warriors should be in the Western Conference title conversation for the next two to three years, at the least.

All seldom goes well in the NBA, however. No matter how favorable the circumstances, the Warriors still face tough odds to make this memorable season more than just a flash in the pan.

Have a question for Ben Watanabe? Send it to him via Twitter at @BenjeeBallgame or send it here.

George Hill

All joking aside, Hill would much rather have been on the court than spend the latest edition of this Eastern Conference slugfest perched on a porcelain throne. Post-concussion symptoms forced him to retreat to the soothing blackness of the bathroom on Thursday, though, and his status for the rest of the series throws everything into flux.

The Pacers were rolling along through the first four games against the Knicks, winning in their own ugly, yet convincing, fashion three times. When Tyson Chandler delivered a hard screen to Hill in Game 4 on Tuesday, the Pacers point guard seemed jarred, but nothing more. Hill canned a game-high 26 points in that game, the Pacers took a 3-1 series lead and Indiana looked to be headed to its first conference finals since 2004.

Sometime on Wednesday, though, Hill apparently began to experience headaches and dizziness. The team’s athletic trainer held him out of Game 5 on Thursday, and the importance of this one-time role player out of IUPUI suddenly came into stark focus. Without Hill, the Pacers struggled to do things as simple as make a post-entry pass and Raymond Felton, whom Hill had helped bottle up for the most part, reverted to his pick-and-roll mastery against the outmatched D.J. Augustin and Lance Stephenson.

Hill’s situation is not just uncharted territory for the Pacers. It is uncharted territory for the NBA. Since the league instituted its current concussion policy prior to last season, there have been numerous instances in which the policy has been used. Celtics swingman Mickael Pietrus, for one, had a long, hard recovery back from a concussion after falling onto his neck in Philadelphia.

This is a unique situation, however. A relatively high-profile player’s head injury will affect how his team needs to gameplan for a do-or-die playoff series. No one is going to tell Hill to sniff some smelling salts and get back in the game, nor should they. But there is no real, time-tested plan in place for the Pacers here. How they proceed will influence how teams treat concussions in the playoffs in the future, for good or ill.

Hopefully, no one is naïve enough to believe this is the first time an NBA player has suffered a concussion in the playoffs. This is simply the first time in this new environment, where head injuries get more scrutiny in all sports, that an apparent concussion could cause an NBA player to miss playoff games. In announcing its new policy in 2011, the NBA itself allowed that the process for a player getting cleared to play after a concussion “will likely take at least several days, if not weeks.” Of course, that is a problem in the playoffs, when a couple of weeks constitute an entire series.

Players’ reactions to the concussion tests have been mixed, mostly because athletes do not like to be told they cannot play. After the cognitive tests, players need to clear a series of physical exertion tests to assure concussion symptoms do not return after athletic activity. Hill’s life right now probably consists of a lot of sitting in dark rooms and riding a stationary bike.

Hill may not enjoy that life, particularly if his team continues to crumble in his absence. But it is hard to feel too badly for him. Like it or not, this is best for his long-term health, and the NBA should be commended for making this an institutional focus after years of treating head injuries with a shrug and orders to rub some dirt on it.

In the meantime, Pacers coach Frank Vogel has his own headaches, like teaching Gerald Green to make a post-entry pass.

Have a question for Ben Watanabe? Send it to him via Twitter at @BenjeeBallgame or send it here.

Now, eight months later, the Nationals are faced with a bit of a health situation involving their other superstar, Bryce Harper, who ran into a wall at Dodger Stadium during Monday’s game. The whole situation involving Harper hardly matches the magnitude of the Strasburg debate, which started early last season and lingered through October and into the offseason, but the dichotomy between the two predicaments is interesting.

Tests apparently indicated that Harper didn’t suffer a concussion — and he’s in Thursday’s lineup — yet it’s hard to dismiss the whole incident because of what we’ve heard since the collision. Harper looked dazed, had no idea where he was and has thrown out words like, “crappy,” “terrible” and “carsick” when describing how he’s felt over the last few days. This isn’t to say the Nationals are lying about Harper, but for a young player who goes full steam on every play and who has a tendency to be candid with the media, shouldn’t some red flags be raised? Shouldn’t Harper’s status be handled carefully rather than simply chalking it up as him getting his bell rung?

The obvious answer is “yes,” but manager Davey Johnson‘s comments don’t exactly suggest that there is a great deal of alarm when it comes to Harper’s status.

“I wasn’t worried about the concussion. He got hit on the chin,” Johnson said. “Nobody gets a concussion from getting hit on the chin. You might get knocked out. You don’t usually get a concussion from that. He’s got a few aches and pains, but he’s young. He’ll probably be alright [Wednesday].”

Maybe Harper really is OK, and delving deeper into the topic is thus a waste of oxygen. It’s just hard to overlook the whole Harper situation, especially knowing the criticism the Nationals faced last season for being too “soft” with their other superstar. If the Nationals truly wanted to shed their “soft” label and become a team more synonymous with characteristics such as “gritty,” “tough” and “driven,” wouldn’t handling their 20-year-old phenom in an old-time baseball sort of way help do the trick? (Get up and dust yourself off, kid. We’ve got a division to win.)

Again, maybe this is reading too much into Harper’s comments about not feeling quite right. It’s just ironic that the Nationals are steadfast on his injury being nothing serious despite his comments, whereas last season’s oft-criticized shutdown of Strasburg came regardless of the right-hander feeling 100 percent fine physically.

If the Nationals are trying to adopt a tougher culture, risking the health of one of the franchise’s cornerstones — when he’s actually banged up and not the victim of some ill-advised innings limit — isn’t the way to go about it.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here.

Doc Rivers

Any Celtics fan looking for a deeper silver lining to this news, however, will be disappointed. Rivers will remain, giving the Celtics a decided tactical advantage on a solid three-quarters of their opponents in the league, but any definitive movement on Paul Pierce or Garnett’s situations is still mostly independent of Rivers’ decision.

Rivers’ return is promising news, so far as it goes, for those hoping for at least one more year with Pierce and Garnett. The coach’s departure probably would have meant Garnett, who makes no secret of his preference to play for Rivers and nobody else, had played his last game as a Celtic. In that, at least, they can take solace. Garnett is not definitely gone, so that is something.

Still, there is a massive difference between Garnett not being gone for certain, and Garnett unequivocally being back. Keep in mind that Garnett also had some strong things to say about Pierce after the Celtics’ Game 6 loss to the Knicks. If Pierce’s presence is not quite the deal breaker Rivers’ was, it clearly looms large in Garnett’s choice.

From the perspective of Danny Ainge, the Celtics’ president of basketball operations, retaining Rivers is a no-brainer. Rivers is one of the top five coaches in the NBA, without question, and unlike Pierce, his contract does not count against the salary cap or the luxury tax. Even if Rivers’ coaching acumen falls off slightly, he is still more than worth the roughly $7 million in average salary he is reportedly making over the life of his deal. Whether the Celtics trot out for the opening tip next season with a familiar lineup or one that features new faces and more youth, that team will be better off with Rivers leading it than it would be with just about anybody else.

Pierce and Garnett’s situations are trickier. Unlike their coach, their salaries do impact what types of other things the team can do personnel-wise, and Pierce’s performance in the playoffs is not sufficient for a player due to earn more than $15 million. Ainge and the other members of the Celtics’ front office have far more difficult decisions awaiting them there.

Looking at this logically, there should not have been any real doubt whether Rivers was coming back. The argument that he might not want to keep coaching a team that does not include Pierce, Garnett or Ray Allen seemed to have a faulty premise. After all, Rivers signed his current extension following year four of what was supposed to be a three-year project with the “Big Three” — if he was afraid to coach without those three Hall of Famers, he probably would not have committed to five more years when said Hall of Famers were 35 (Allen), 34 (Garnett) and 33 years old (Pierce).

Allen is gone, of course, but the remnants of that championship era live on as long as Pierce and Garnett are still in green. Whereas Rivers’ exit would have shut the door on that era completely, his return leaves the door the slightest bit ajar. Whether Garnett and Pierce will be walking through that door remains as open-ended as it was before.

Have a question for Ben Watanabe? Send it to him via Twitter at @BenjeeBallgame or send it here.

Still, there was no way Wade could miss this one. He may have been hurting. It may be a little grotesque that he is reportedly manually pushing his right kneecap into place, then taping it into position, to lessen the pain enough for him to play. But he could not sit out. Not against the Bulls.

Since LeBron James took his talents to South Beach three years ago, the Heat have been tested by grittier, gutsier opponents than themselves. They were bested by Dirk Nowitzki and a Mavs team on a mission in 2011. They barely outlasted an ornery Celtics squad in 2012. They got by on their unique talent and just enough veteran savvy from role players like Shane Battier.

From a pure heart standpoint, however, the Heat may never have faced a foe as determined as these Bulls.

Forget Derrick Rose for a moment and how his absence could have helped or hindered the Bulls’ cause. Focus more on Luol Deng and Kirk Hinrich, key players Chicago had come to lean on this season, who were unavailable in this series. The Bulls were not merely missing a former NBA Most Valuable Player. They had moved on, regrouped, learned to rely on other guys, and at the most crucial time of year, two of those “other guys” were taken from them. And yet they played on.

Carlos Boozer, who has been in Chicago fans’ doghouse for years, posted a remarkable turnaround this season and spent chunks of the Eastern Conference semifinal series as the best player on the floor not named LeBron. Joakim Noah made a mockery on Rose’s continued absence by playing through painful plantar fasciitis. Jimmy Butler almost literally never came off the court. Nate Robinson did what Nate Robinson does, shooting the Bulls to victory one night and essentially shooting them into defeat the next night.

Deng subjected himself to a spinal tap, for crying out loud, in an attempt to get back on the floor. We hear those things are pretty painful. We hope we never find out.

In other words, no, Wade was not going to take it easy on Wednesday. Perhaps his team would have found a way to make do without him, but when the Bulls battled back from an 18-point deficit and refused to go away in the fourth quarter, the Heat were happy Wade was in the lineup.

After Boozer missed a free throw that would have pulled Chicago within one point, Wade was there for a floater to give the Heat some breathing room. When Butler tried to get off a 3-pointer with Miami protecting a five-point lead, Wade was there to block Butler’s shot. When Norris Cole missed a jump shot on the ensuing Heat possession, Wade was there for a putback dunk. When Boozer appeared to corral Battier’s miss with 45 seconds remaining, Wade was there to knock the ball off Boozer and out of bounds. (Wade probably hacked Boozer on they play but, hey, nobody is perfect.) If not for Wade making those plays, the Heat might not have gotten their 94-91 victory and they might not be moving on to their third conference finals in as many years.

As Heat coach Erik Spoelstra loves to say: “Nobody said this would be easy.” It shouldn’t be. If the Heat were in the process of waltzing toward a third straight NBA title — as many observers assumed back when James made “The Decision” in 2010 — they might have rings, but they would not be “champions” in the classic sense of the word.

Being a champion involves more than just winning a lot of games and getting an obnoxiously oversized ring. It takes tough opponents to pull out that extra something. Three years into a crazy experiment in team-manufacturing that still has no non-corny nickname, the Heat discovered that the Bulls proved to be as gutsy as any previous postseason opponent, if nowhere near as talented.

Only now, these Bulls are headed home. Hey, nobody ever said toughness was everything.

Have a question for Ben Watanabe? Send it to him via Twitter at @BenjeeBallgame or send it here.

There is nothing cool or fashionable about what the Pacers are doing to the Knicks. In the fourth quarter of Game 4 on Tuesday, with the Pacers building their lead in what would become a 93-82 victory to take a 3-1 lead in the Eastern Conference semifinals, Lance Stephenson drained a 3-pointer and commenced some sort of growling, flexed-muscle conniption. Whatever it was meant to be, it looked out of place. That sort of preening is not the Pacers, typically, and it is not how they have dominated the Knicks thus far.

With the Knicks now one game from elimination, it has become clear that for all their talent, they have difficulty enforcing their style of play on opponents. It was a struggle for them in their opening-round series against the Celtics — which they barely survived — and it has become a crisis in the second round. The Pacers have imposed their identity on the series. Game 4 made that as brutally clear as any of Indiana’s three wins.

The point total, of course, spoke for itself. Any time the winning team reaches 90 solely because its opponent had to resort to fouling in the final minutes, offense clearly is not the focal point. In a shooting contest, the Knicks win at least four out of seven times. They know this. Carmelo Anthony knows this. J.R. Smith knows this. The Pacers know this, too, but unlike New York, they are capable of doing something about it.

If you watch a lot of college games between mismatched programs, you are familiar with teams that will … just … not … shoot. They walk the ball up the court. They eat all 35 seconds before taking a shot. They defend and box out like demons, but they are also not afraid to commit a foul when necessary. They can make a 40-minute game feel like 40 hours.

The funny thing is, extending the game this way in real time actually shrinks it in game-clock time, and this is entirely by design. Asheville Polytechnic (a spunky little program in the Blue Ridge Mountains I just made up) knows that the more possessions it allows North Carolina to get, the more likely the Tar Heels’ superior talent will gradually begin to win out. While the talent disparity is not as great between the Pacers and Knicks, this series has demonstrated the same set of principles.

Smith missed seven of the 10 threes he took on Tuesday and his percentage actually went up to 28.3 percent. Anthony finished with a respectable line of 24 points on 9-for-23 shooting and 2-for-6 from three, but he missed every meaningful shot he took against Paul George‘s hounding defense. The Knicks had the fifth-best 3-point shooting percentage in the regular season and took the most threes of any team in the NBA this year, but the playoffs have been a different story. Only Steve Novak (who cannot get off the bench), Pablo Prigioni (who hardly played on Tuesday) and Iman Shumpert (who is dealing with knee soreness and went 0-for-5 from deep in Game 4) have shot 37 percent or better in the postseason.

This is about more than just Mike Woodson refusing to play his shooters, although that is a factor. It all starts with George cutting off Melo, the head of the snake. George Hill has challenged Raymond Felton, both offensively and defensively, as Avery Bradley and Jason Terry failed to do in the first round. Most significantly, Roy Hibbert and David West are creating the matchup problems Boston could not, forcing the Knicks to play undersized with Anthony defending one of the behemoths or to go against their nature and play two big men at a time to match Indiana’s size.

Increased size, when the Knicks have gone that route, has not made much difference at the defensive end, where the Knicks were marginally successful contesting shots but were helpless as the Pacers racked up 16 offensive rebounds and 19 second-chance points. On the offensive end, it has been an unmitigated disaster. With Kenyon Martin logging 29 minutes, Amar’e Stoudemire pitching in 11 minutes and Tyson Chandler continuing to play below his standards, the Knicks missed 56 of their 87 shots overall and 20 of their 28 threes.

So if the Knicks are getting trounced at both ends of the court, why did they only lose by 11 points in Game 4? How come their Game 1 win, which was generally considered an utterly dominant display, only came by seven points? That takes us back to shrinking the game. When the Pacers play their ugly, deliberate style, possessions are at a premium. A four-point edge for the league’s best defensive team is like a 10-point advantage for most other clubs. In other words, that 11-point disparity might as well be 30.

When Tyler Hansbrough is flopping around on defense or George spends more time rolling around on the hardwood than seems fit for a reigning NBA Most Improved Player, it might look like the Pacers are losing their footing. Do not be fooled. They live for referee confusion, loose balls and offensive rebounds leading to extended possessions. They are playing exactly the way they want to, and so far there is not much the Knicks can do about it.

Have a question for Ben Watanabe? Send it to him via Twitter at @BenjeeBallgame or send it here.

Roberto Mancini

Mancini was fired as Manchester City’s manager on Monday, exactly one year after ending the club’s 44-year quest for domestic supremacy. He departs after three-and-a-half years, two major trophies and one long-running saga about his job security.

“Despite everyone’s best efforts, the club has failed to achieve any of its stated targets this year, with the exception of qualification for next season’s UEFA Champions League,” a club statement said.

“This, combined with an identified need to develop a holistic approach to all aspects of football at the club, has meant that the decision has been taken to find a new manager for the 2013-14 season and beyond.”

Two words in City’s statement, ”failed” and “holistic,” are more important than all others, for they sum up Mancini’s exciting, yet turbulent, reign at the Etihad Stadium.

Overall, Mancini was no failure as City’s manager. Winning the Premier League and FA Cup ensures that label can’t stick. The tangible success City achieved on his watch ended generations of fans’ suffering, and his reputation remains intact in England, Italy and beyond. He won’t see out the last four years of his £7.5 million-a-year [$11.5. million] contract, but he’ll begin his job search with a pocket stuffed with one year’s salary severance pay. Napoli, AS Roma, Inter Milan, AC Milan, PSG, AS Monaco and Chelsea are just a few of the clubs that are reportedly interested in hiring him. Others will emerge in the coming weeks.

But Mancini’s time at City wasn’t exactly successful either. He joined the world’s richest club in December 2009, spent close to £300 million ($458 million) assembling his squad, won and lost leagues and cups and couldn’t advance past the group stage of the UEFA Champions League … before he lost his job.

The real failure is that the 2012-13 campaign will go down as a missed opportunity for both Mancini and City. They stunned Manchester United and other domestic rivals by winning the league last season. Had they built on that success and progressed on the field, all the talk would be about City’s looming era of domination and its bright future under Mancini. Instead, both club and manager must assess what happened, reset themselves and put things right next season.

City’s stalled for a number of reasons, many of which concern the second keyword: “holistic.” There was a fundamental disconnect between how Mancini behaved and how he should have behaved in these unique times and circumstances.

Mancini’s job was under threat as late as April 2012 when it looked like United would win the league. United collapsed, City surged to victory and Mancini was rewarded with a lucrative, five-year contract extension. Normally, this would have strengthened his position, as the new deal represented the full support of owner Sheikh Mansour and chairman Khaldoon Al-Mubarak.

But everything changed — first in August when Ferran Soriano was hired as City’s new CEO, then in October when Soriano recruited another former Barcelona administrator, Txiki Begiristain, as director of football. The club started moving forward and Mancini wasn’t the one driving. He acted like he was, and that won him few friends when (and where) it counted.

Mancini’s man-management shortcomings saw him clash with star players — including captain Vincent Kompany and goalkeeper Joe Hart – both publicly and privately. He repeatedly blamed City’s failure to strengthen in the summer transfer market, particularly its fizzled pursuit of Robin van Persie, as the main reason for its weak title defense (doing so both in public and in private).

Mancini’s inability (or unwillingness) to strengthen ties between City’s youth and senior teams is another oft-cited reason for his dismissal. The same can be said about his personal relationships with senior officials, especially youth director Brian Marwood in addition to Soriano and Begiristain.

By most accounts Mancini was aloof and abrasive with players and bosses inside the walls of the club, while he came across as combative and domineering when discussing them in public. Could he still train players, prepare for opponents and manage egos in the dressing room? Yes, but his attempts at exerting total control at the very time when he lost itleft him isolated, an island unto himself. Mancini either would not or could not adapt to changing circumstances. Players and bosses saw this months ago. It was made clear to the public Monday.

Some say Mancini’s firing was too harsh or ruthless and that he should have been given another year on the job. City was out of the Champions League in December, Mario Balotelli (Mancini’s troubled but talented “son”) was sold to Milan in January and United all but wrapped up the league title by late February. City bosses would have been well within their rights to fire him two months ago. They might have looked better had they done so before news of their courtship of Manuel Pellegrini turned Mancini into an object of sympathy. Mancini’s clandestine 2009 arrival creates a strange symmetry to the whole affair.

The end of Mancini’s era is holistic failure on his and the club’s part. There’s a thin line between success and failure at the elite level of the game, and Mancini’s final season shows what can (and often does) happen when all members of an institution aren’t pulling in the same direction. City finished second in the league, runner up in the FA Cup — a record which fails to meet the demands of the club’s 10-year plan.  Blame the owners. Blame Soriano, Begiristain and Marwood. Blame Kompany, Hart and the other players. Certainly blame Mancini. For years, City has had a reputation as a bit of a madhouse. The estimated $1 billion Mansour has poured into the club since 2008 hasn’t really changed that perception, and that is one expensive and holistic failure in itself.

Have a question for Marcus Kwesi O’Mard? Send it to him via Twitter at @NESNsoccer, NESN Soccer’s Facebook page or send it here. He will pick a few questions to answer every week for his mailbag.

You should still put some long, serious thought into trading for Pierce. And it has nothing to do with his abilities as a player.

As the Celtics weigh whether to bring back Pierce next season, the decision has largely been presented as pair of two-choice scenarios. First, the Celtics have to determine whether to bring back the 35-year-old forward or to part ways. Then, the Celtics either will buy out Pierce’s $15.3 million contract for $5 million, or they will trade him to a team in need of one last, expensive, veteran player to put it in the championship conversation. (Many people, with the notable exception of CelticsHub’s Brian Robb, have overlooked the fact that the Celtics could waive Pierce before June 30, however unrealistic and unpractical that may be.)

Near-contenders are not the only teams that could find some use for Pierce, however, thanks to another option that expands the possibilities and should make Pierce an intriguing trade target to just about everyone in the league.

The new collective bargaining agreement kept a lot of the provisions that allowed a traded player to carry virtually all of the rights and stipulations from his contract with the previous team onto his new team. So any team that trades for Pierce also acquires his “Bird rights,” which allow greater flexibility in signing him to an extension, as well as — ready for this? — the right to buy him out for $5 million. Given the CBA’s rules regarding salary-matching on trades, this could be a valuable tool for some team trying to dump some salaries.

Think about it. As a taxpaying team, the Celtics could trade away Pierce’s $15.3 million and get back an amount equal to 125 percent of his outgoing salary, plus $100,000, under the CBA. (They would not be able to actually add the full $19.2 million, based on my math, because that would put them over the $74.3 million luxury tax “apron” at which they are hard-capped as a result of using the mid-level exception on Jason Terry.) The Celtics have 10 players under contract for next season, not counting Pierce or draft picks, which means they can acquire up to five players for roughly Pierce’s $15 million. The team that acquires Pierce, provided it does so before June 30, can turn around and buy him out for $5 million.

Just like that, the other team has rid itself of about 30 percent of the current salary cap for a third of the cost.

Suddenly, the market for Pierce does not look so limited. Even if another team loves Pierce’s game, convincing it to take him for $15.3 million is a hard sell, especially when that team can just wait for the Celtics to buy out or waive Pierce and then sign him to a smaller deal. If they never intend for Pierce to play for them, though, the ability to take on that salary with the express purpose of dumping might be worth the call to Danny Ainge, the Celtics’ president of basketball operations.

As for potential trade partners and what assemblage of talent exists for this deal to make sense for the Celtics, that is a more speculative topic for another story. The financial details of each potential trade change, of course, depending on the other team’s status above or below the cap or the luxury tax line. The pertinent detail is that Pierce’s contract would allow a team that trades for him to eliminate at least $15 million in salary for just $5 million. That is a swap most NBA executives would have to give some thought.

Have a question for Ben Watanabe? Send it to him via Twitter at @BenjeeBallgame or send it here.

*Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story misapplied the rules for how much money the Celtics could take back in a trade as a tax-paying team. The figures have been corrected. Thank you, as usual, to Larry Coon’s NBA CBA FAQ for providing many of the CBA details used in this story.

League-wide appreciation for Van Gundy is no secret. His candid demeanor endears him to reporters and most players, while his sturdy grasp of X’s and O’s helped make a deeply flawed Orlando Magic squad into a perennial Eastern Conference contender. With the Hawks expected to let go of coach Larry Drew, it makes sense that Van Gundy reportedly would be at the top of their list as Drew’s replacement.

There is just one detail of the Hawks’ interest that seems, well, weird.

“The Hawks plan to make a hard push for free-agent center Dwight Howard on July 1,” Yahoo! Sports’ Adrian Wojnarowski reported Friday, “and there’s some belief that Van Gundy could actually turn out to be a benefit in recruiting Howard back to his hometown.”

Er, what? Howard initiated Van Gundy’s ouster from Orlando, culminating in an incredibly awkward interview during practice toward the end of both of their tenures with the Magic. That story has be written many times. That story, however, might not be true, because as in all things Howard related, nobody knows anything.

As Wojnarowski notes, Howard has said that be appreciates Van Gundy as a coach now that he has been subjected to the managerial flailing of Mike Brown and Mike D’Antoni. But Howard has said a lot of stuff. Just ask the Magic. Howard said he was opting in for the 2012-13 season with Orlando out of loyalty, then rejoiced when he was traded to the Lakers. The guy says so many contradictory things, he should run for public office.

That said, the Hawks would do well to pursue Van Gundy to be their coach, regardless of whether it helps them land Howard. If there was ever a group in need of Van Gundy’s unique ability to take so many one-dimensional players and turn them into a winning team, it is these Hawks.

The Hawks have just three players of consequence — Al Horford, Lou Williams and Jeff Teague — under contract for next season. Another, unrestricted free agent Josh Smith, could re-sign. There are a lot worse foundations in the NBA than one built on a versatile low-post operator, a dangerous sixth man, a gradually improving young point guard and a supremely gifted swing-forward, respectively. Given those tools, Van Gundy could turn the Hawks into an interesting foil for the Heat in the Southeastern Division. Williams and free-agent-to-be Kyle Korver would have all sorts of fun in a Van Gundy system.

This season has proved that coaching matters in the NBA. The Bulls are giving LeBron James and the Heat all they can handle in the Eastern Conference semifinals without Derrick Rose, thanks to Tom Thibodeau. The star-laden Lakers never found the right general and therefore never found their identity. Indiana’s Frank Vogel and New York’s Mike Woodson are squaring off in one of the most underrated coaching matchups of the playoffs.

The Hawks could be right there with Van Gundy leading them, particularly in the East. Maybe having Van Gundy would help the Hawks sign Howard. Maybe it would hurt. The point is, nobody really knows, because Howard is Howard and nothing he says or does can be taken too seriously until the tickets are bought and the ink is dry.

If the Hawks sign Van Gundy in a gambit to lure Howard and fail, however, at least they still have Van Gundy. In the long run, that could end up being the more advantageous situation for the Hawks anyway.

Have a question for Ben Watanabe? Send it to him via Twitter at @BenjeeBallgame or send it here.

Just when his team needs him most, Ibaka has disappeared offensively. His primary role is not as a scorer, of course, but the growing reliability of his mid-range jump shot and his abilities as a finisher created hope that he may be able to step up when Russell Westbrook suffered a season-ending knee injury in the first round.

Ibaka not only hasn’t stepped up, he has fallen and he can’t get up. He entered Monday’s Game 4 shooting 12-for-39 from the field in the Western Conference semifinals, following a ghastly Game 3 in which he missed two dunks and at least two makeable layups, using a conservative definition of a “makeable” layup for an NBA player.

Durant, who has played out of his mind since Westbrook went down, tried to take pressure off Ibaka by telling reporters what everybody already knows.

“We can’t let him put too much pressure on himself,” Durant said, according to ESPN.com. “It’s all in his mind. If he thinks he’s going to make those shots, he’s going to make them. He’s missed a few blocks, a few layups and a few open jump shots.”

Ibaka’s struggles do all seem to be in his mind, but that is the problem. He does not think he is going to make those shots that Durant mentioned. He thinks he will miss not only the 15-footers, but the putback layups as well. He looks like a mess.

This is not about asking a player to do things beyond his abilities. Thunder coach Scott Brooks has not called a single clear-out play for Ibaka in this series. Brooks, Durant and the Thunder simply are hoping Ibaka can do what he has done for some time, only with slightly more frequency. Ibaka shot a career-high 58.2 percent from 10 to 15 feet this season, according to HoopData, plus a career-best 47 percent from 16 to 23 feet. Many of those looks were created by Westbrook, but Ibaka has had no shortage of those types of shots against Memphis. In fact, the Grizzlies are leaving him more open now than ever, because they do not appear to respect his shooting one iota.

In 1997, Nick Anderson literally forgot how to shoot free throws. It was terrible to watch. Through the first seven years of his career, Anderson was a versatile scoring swingman and a reliable 70 percent free throw shooter. But in the 1996-97 season, his trips to the foul line began to look a lot like those of former teammate Shaquille O’Neal, who had departed for Los Angeles the previous summer. Anderson shot 40.4 percent from the line that season — or four percentage points lower than his previous career-low shooting percentage from the field.

Anderson’s free throw clanking negatively affected other areas of his game. He became less likely to play to contact and shot less than half as many free throws per game as he had the previous season. He shot below 44 percent from the floor for the first time in his career. The Magic, counting on Anderson to step up after O’Neal’s departure, were bounced in the first round of the playoffs by the Heat that season.

So far, the latter part of Anderson’s tale has not come true for Ibaka. The Thunder big man blocked four shots and grabbed 10 rebounds in Oklahoma City’s loss on Saturday, and his 3.0 blocks per game in the playoffs are identical to his regular-season mark. Although he is still feeling his way into being a top-notch NBA defender, he has done a much better job on Zach Randolph and Marc Gasol than the lead-footed Kendrick Perkins has.

Still, such massive problems in one area are hard to compartmentalize from the rest of any athlete’s game. An individual player’s duties are arguably less segregated in basketball than in any other sport. When Tom Brady throws an interception, he can immediately study the printouts of the play’s progression while his defense is on the field. Rick Ankiel lost a lifetime of pitching mechanics overnight, and it took him years to rework himself into an outfielder. Ibaka does not have the luxury of pacing the mound to cool down or phoning up to the coordinator’s booth to get a few tips. When the wheels come off, he has to sprint back on defense.

Through all of Ibaka’s issues, the Thunder are far from dead. They have lost two out of three games in a tightly contested series in which the average margin of victory has been 4.6 points. It is a testament to Durant’s greatness that the Thunder are a few misdirected bounces from being ahead in the series.

The Thunder are asking Durant to be superhuman. That is OK, because the evidence suggests he is capable of it. All they are asking of Ibaka is remember the things that made them choose him over James Harden, and to do those things once again. It’s all in his mind.

Have a question for Ben Watanabe? Send it to him via Twitter at @BenjeeBallgame or send it here.

In the past three days, illness has added to insult for the 27-year-old guard. Smith played just under 25 minutes in the Knicks’ Game 3 loss on Saturday, then missed practice Sunday and Monday with what the team termed an “illness.” It is unclear what type of illness he has. So far, it does not appear Smith has been subjected to any Luol Deng-type spinal taps.

No one is questioning whether Smith is injured, just as very few people doubt that Bulls guard Derrick Rose really is hurt. Kenyon Martin has also joined Smith on the sideline due to illness the last two days. But like Rose, who has not played since tearing his ACL more than a year ago, Smith is starting to hear murmurs that health might not be all there is to the story.

Rumors of Smith dating Rihanna and spending a night on the town prior to Game 1 of the Eastern Conference semifinals are low-hanging fruit. Smith’s poor play predates that night, as Smith has been off his game since he was suspended for Game 4 of the first round. As Frank Isola of the New York Daily News notes, Smith has spoken to the media twice in the past week and has not tweeted since May 6, despite previously active Twitter fingers. (He is the type who tweets #greatmorningworld every day, for instance.)

I do believe J.R. Smith is not feeling well but the Knicks are also doing everything they can to limit his media availability.

—
Frank Isola (@FisolaNYDN) May 13, 2013

Knicks coach Mike Woodson has not been shy in recent days of saying Smith would sit if other bench players are playing better. Proven shooters have gone through cold spells before and have snapped out of it when the time was right. Mike Miller was basically out of the rotation for the Heat last year, having missed 12 of his last 13 threes, before going 7-for-8 from beyond the arc in Game 5 of the NBA Finals. Miller was not in ideal physical shape, either, so there is hope for Smith.

Then again, everyone knew what the issue was with Miller. His body was basically broken. With Smith, we know he is struggling and that he is not feeling well. His relative silence, however, makes us wonder what else is keeping the Knicks’ X-factor from being all he can be. If the public is in the dark, the Knicks had better have some inkling, for their part. If they do not figure it out soon, Smith won’t be the only Knick feeling sick to his stomach.

Have a question for Ben Watanabe? Send it to him via Twitter at @BenjeeBallgame or send it here.

Blue Jays third baseman Brett Lawrie owns a .179 batting average and enters Friday’s game in the midst of a 2-for-25 slump. Needless to say, he’s an easy target for all baseball fans — especially those with a computer — either amused by or disgruntled about the Blue Jays’ atrocious start to the season. The Toronto third baseman doesn’t care for the Internet criticism, though, and he decided to fire back in the most jabroni way possible.

“All u people who chirp when things don’t go good have never done anything in pro sport .. Ever .. So shut ur mouths #LetsGetThisThingg #jays,” Lawrie tweeted on Thursday.

Oh, the “I’m an athlete, and you’re stupid” card. Nicely played, Brett. Only it isn’t.

We’ve seen plenty of athletes use a similar defense mechanism in the past, and we’ll undoubtedly see it again as long as the Internet doesn’t vanish into some sort of abyss. That doesn’t make it any less lame, though, especially when said athlete fumbles all over himself from that point on.

“I expect that,” Lawrie said of the online criticism, according to the Toronto Star. “I expect a lot out of myself, but at the same time I’m not going to sit there and take all that from people that I don’t know. So if I want to say something back, I have more than the right to. Freedom of speech. People want to come at me with something then I’m not scared to say something back.”

Lawrie is absolutely right. He can say whatever he wants. That’s the luxury of free speech, and as a result, the Internet is essentially a giant free-for-all — Twitter, especially. But going off that, “I’ll say whatever the hell I want” mantra, why then should Lawrie insist his critics shut their mouths? That’s hypocritical, no?”

The hypocrisy isn’t even the worst — or best, if you’re like me and enjoy watching people say dumb things — part of Lawrie’s 140-character temper tantrum. The real genius move was him trying to delete the tweet. This is 2013 and once something’s out there, it’s out there. Why not stand by what you say (or tweet)? At least handle the backlash, especially if you’re later going to puff out your chest, toss around freedom of speech like you’re a founding father and proclaim, “I’m not scared to say something back.” It’s like the kid who causes a fight, stands in the corner and then talks after the fight about how he was ready to drop someone.

In Lawrie’s defense, he is spot-on about one thing. Even despite his struggles, his athletic ability is far superior than the average human’s. That gift enables him to play a professional sport for a living, which believe it or not, also puts Lawrie in the public spotlight. Sure, plenty of people tend to get a little too worked up — again, one man’s opinion — about players or teams who don’t play well, but the Internet trolls are something athletes and celebrities must deal with. The critics could direct their frustration toward Billy Green the city worker, but Twitter upheaval doesn’t exactly come with that profession’s territory.

The simple solution for Lawrie if he doesn’t want to put up with people’s Twitter criticism is to delete his account. It doesn’t look like that’s going to happen, though. Baseball analyst and former big league catcher Gregg Zaun suggested such, and Lawrie tweeted, “@greggzaun I should get off twitter? .. I’ll do wat I want actually .. #TakeCareNow.”

Well, if Lawrie plans to do what he wants, we should probably all do the same — athletic ability notwithstanding.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here. 

Rose tore the ACL in his left knee in the first game of last year’s playoffs. He had surgery and began the recovery process, with optimistic hopes being that he could be back for some of this season, and at least the playoffs, which would be the one-year mark for an injury that generally takes a year to recover from.

But it’s more than a year later, and although Rose is cutting and jumping, he’s not playing. Fans that were once telling him to get well soon have instead started clamoring for him to play, with more and more people becoming irate that he would sit on the bench while his injured and ailing teammates fight through.

Rose has every right to preserve his health. An ACL injury is pretty serious, and coming back too fast and getting reinjured, or never regaining original speed and movement because the injury hasn’t completely healed, are good enough reasons to be slow in returning to play. Even a selfish reason, such as Rose not wanting to be on the court at less than his full potential, is understandable when it comes to a star who wants to build a long career and legacy.

Ultimately, Rose must do what is best for Rose, and so far, that has been to sit and wait until he’s completely comfortable with playing again.

But in keeping his body healthy, Rose may be damaging something much bigger. Rose may make it through this postseason with his ACL in fine shape, but the greater ideals that a star of his stature chases could be slipping away.

Let’s go back to Aladdin. In the movie, Jafar is obsessed with scheming to take over Agrabah (or the world), and he finally starts to see his plans fall in place when he procures the magic lamp. He takes over the palace and subdues his adversaries, and everything is just fine until Aladdin comes back and tricks Jafar using the most human motivation of all. Aladdin tells Jafar that, while he may have conquered much as a ruler and a sorcerer, he’s not the most powerful being in the world. That desire — to be the greatest — leads to Jafar’s ill-fated final wish: to be a genie.

As Jafar is transformed into one very ugly red and black genie, though, Aladdin’s smarts show through. Jafar gets the incredible power he was lusting after, but, as Aladdin tells him, he got his wish — “And everything that comes with it!”

In that moment, Jafar gets twisted down into the lamp like trash through a toilet, holding the most power in the world but forever confined. In gambling to be the greatest he could possibly be, he had to accept the other complications of the role — and ultimately do the bidding of others.

Now, Rose has not sold his soul to any devil, and he certainly isn’t making the kind of life-altering choices to which moral weight can be assigned, no matter what Chicago fans are saying. But in the larger game of being a legend, of making promises and fulfilling them, of overcoming challenges and becoming a once-in-a-generation player, Rose may be forgetting his part of the bargain.

This is the player who stars in a marketing campaign that pins the entire city’s hope on his rehabbing left leg. This is the player who promised to come back stronger. This is the player who is supposed to be transcendent enough to lift a really good team — a team that is already pushing the Heat pretty hard despite an injured Joakim Noah, an ailing Luol Deng and the hodge podge in the backcourt — to another level.

Where Rose has failed is not that he isn’t playing, but rather that he set the stage to be the one to lift his team and the city, and then he declined his opportunity. This isn’t the sixth week. It’s not ninth months later. Rose isn’t having any trouble running. He’s scrimmaging. He’s dunking. He can pass. Steve Nash has done more on less.

Rose may be a diminished Rose, but he’s still Rose, and even if he isn’t ready to jump in full-speed, or the team isn’t ready to play with him as the centerpiece, he’s an upgrade over what the Bulls have been putting on the court. This may not be “their year,” but given the effort Chicago has shown against Miami already, what more could Rose ask from his team? What more could they do on their own to make his arrival, even at a lesser level, not help? If the Bulls never had a chance without Rose, then he shouldn’t have tried to come back at all this year — especially now that, as he appears to be back, he is withholding even his limited abilities.

It’s a sad truth that fans expect their stars to play injured, but this isn’t a case of fans crying for a player to do something he shouldn’t. Rose is healthy enough to at least play a little. But that’s not even what fans are asking for. The bigger point here is something less tangible but ultimately more important as a player looks to “preserve his career.”

Rose promised to be a savior, and the way he’s played in his career so far suggests he wants to be a legend. That status, always available to him before, is now precarious in his moment of truth. Rose is quickly approaching a place with fans and critics where this decision not to play could undo everything else he’s been trying to do.

He can sit out. He can fail to finish that commercial that was playing while his knee was still on ice. He can do the normal person thing and not push himself, even when teammates choose to.

But he’ll never be a legend. He’ll never be the guy who put team above himself. He’ll never do the impossible, even if it’s crazy for fans to ask for that. He’ll never fulfill the obligations that came with him making that wish to be great.

If Rose doesn’t play now, he may be right, but he’s going to have to take everything that comes — or doesn’t come — with it.

Photo via YouTube/adidasbasketball

Jones was in New England for a workout on Thursday, as the Patriots took at least an exploratory look at adding the versatile runner. With a stable already well-equipped with workhorses – Stevan Ridley, Brandon Bolden  and LeGarrette Blount – and change-of-pace backs – Shane Vereen and Leon Washington — the Patriots don’t seem to need an additional pair of legs.

Now, depth is something that every team is in search of, and Jones would help fill that need at running back. He would also provide some competition for the group over the summer, pushing Vereen and Washington and challenging for a roster spot.

Jones, who just recently turned 26, isn’t fit to be an every-down back in the NFL, and his injury history, which has limited him to just two fully healthy seasons, only proves that point. In a place like New England, Jones wouldn’t be expected to be that primary ball carrier, though. His principal role with the Patriots would be to alter the pace of the offense and catch the ball out of the backfield — something he excelled at in Dallas.

While he never carried the full load with the Cowboys, always deferring to a two-back system, Jones did consistently contribute in the passing game. He caught 48 passes in 2010 followed by 33 in 2011 and 25 in limited action last season. That sort of production would help the Patriots account for the loss of Danny Woodhead, but that’s even if Jones was given the opportunity.

Vereen was already stealing snaps away from Woodhead at the end of the last season, finally asserting himself as the versatile back the Patriots were hoping for when they used a second-round pick on him in 2011. Add Washington’s ability as a third-down back into the mix, and suddenly Jones’ place on the Patriots becomes even less certain.

Jones has the talent and ability to make an impact in the Patriots’ offense. His speed and flexibility even make him a perfect fit for the fast-paced spread style that Josh McDaniels enjoys so much. But between the grind-it-out work of Ridley and the presence of both Vereen and Washington, Jones would just seem like more of a redundancy than anything else.

There’s nothing wrong with bringing him into camp and giving him a go but, even for a player as supremely talented as Jones, he seems more like overflow than a nice, clean fit.

Have a question for Luke Hughes? Send it to him via Twitter at @LukeFHughes or send it here.

Photo via Facebook/Dallas Cowboys

According to reporters on the scene, Joyce addressed the media after the game while literally in tears. He didn’t get belligerent or try to hide from his mistake, but owned it, openly bemoaning that “I just cost the kid a perfect game.”

Galarraga’s reaction was downright heartwarming. He showed little emotion on the field after being informed of the call — after he had already begun celebrating the non-perfect game. Afterwards, Galarraga focused not on the blown call or his robbed perfecto, but the fact that it was the best game of his career.

“[Joyce] probably feels more bad than me,” said Galarraga, noting that Joyce had approached him and apologized after the game. “Nobody’s perfect. Everybody’s human. I understand. I give the guy a lot of credit for saying, ‘I need to talk to you.’ You don’t see an umpire tell you that after a game. I gave him a hug.”

In short, what came about from that singular moment of Joyce’s failure turned out to be one of the best showings of sportsmanship in the history of professional sports. The two continue to be friends to this day and even wrote a book together about the whole ordeal.

Beyond sportsmanship, however, the underlying theme of Joyce’s redemption was one of accountability. And accountability was something that umpire Angel Hernandez was sorely missing after Wednesday night’s contest between the Athletics and Indians at Progressive Field.

After the game, which the Indians won 4-3 because Adam Rosales‘ home run was ruled a double, even after video review by the umpiring crew, Hernandez shirked accountability in a pretty stunning way. Multiple reporters on the scene noted that the 23-year umpiring veteran did answer questions after the game, but demanded that journalists were not allowed to electronically record his comments and asked to only take notes by hand.

The human element is intrinsic to baseball and will always be until cameras and computers completely replace umpires. In short, we accept missed calls as a part of the game, the idea being that everyone eventually winds up with an equal number of lucky breaks and cheated opportunities. Hernandez’s gaffe was a bad one, but it’s the apparent belligerence with which he behaved afterward is what was truly problematic.

Now, all of this being said, Hernandez is flatly a bad umpire. He’s drawn the ire of players for a long time now, and the statistics (about his work behind the plate, in particular) of his consistency also bear that out. There’s a different discussion to be had about performance reviews of umpires, but, again, even the variables of different umpires and their proclivities and weaknesses is something we accept in baseball.

If Hernandez is bad at his job, then that is something that needs to be addressed by Major League Baseball. Presumably he’s not intentionally trying to miff calls on the field. Mistakes are a part of the game, whether they’re made by coaches, player or umpires. That human element is part of what makes baseball great, and it’s also what occasionally makes moments, such as the one shared between Galarraga and Joyce, truly transcendent of sports, entirely.

If Galarraga had completed his perfect game, he would have soon been forgotten — how many people have already forgotten what Philip Humber did just over a year ago? But thanks to Joyce, Galarraga shared in a moment that will live on much longer in the annals of baseball.

Getting back to Hernandez, it’s a matter of character. This 700-word essay is not to suggest any fundamental change in MLB, or to suggest Hernandez should be fired. It’s not meant to accomplish anything at all.

The point here is nothing but mere moral outrage, and to point out the lack of character Hernandez has. Human mistakes we can live with, but failing to hold yourself accountable for them is cowardice.

Mike Woodson

These are good problems for Woodson to have.

Should the Knicks coach go with a plan floated Wednesday of cutting J.R. Smith‘s minutes if the mercurial guard does not start hitting some shots, those problems could go from good to highly sensitive. Even as a reserve dynamo, Smith has never dealt well with coming off the bench. He even said earlier this season that he felt he should start. Seeing his playing time diminish while still coming off the bench is probably not at the top of Smith’s wish list. Yet Woodson’s willingness to address Smith’s cold shooting as the troublesome issue it is, and not some touchy subject that must be swept under the rug, shows just how much things have changed for the Knicks under Woodson.

Former Knicks coach Mike D’Antoni went to great lengths to avoid the slightest suggestion that some aspect of his team’s approach had to change, whether by himself or his players. This is not a referendum on D’Antoni. The former NBA Coach of the Year would have quickly lost Smith, not to mention the rest of the locker room, with his unceremonious way to relaying messages to his team and the media. Such glib, straight talk has been welcomed by some players, like Steve Nash, and grated on others.

Woodson seems to have no such trouble. While insulating his players from outside criticism, Woodson seems more comfortable discussing potential changes in public, trusting that the respect he has built up among the players will lessen the backlash.

“I’ll gauge J.R. as we go along, and if I feel he’s not giving me anything, I could always turn to other guys on that bench,” Woodson told ESPN Radio, according to ESPN.com. “I feel good about the guys that come in off that bench, just like I feel good about J.R. But if he’s struggling and I feel the need [that] I’ve got to pull him, then I will do that as the head coach, and then other guys have got to come in and step up and play.”

What a brilliant answer. If three tidy (OK, run-on) sentences, Woodson supplied the pertinent news that Smith could see less playing time, provided the reasons why and framed the issue in a way that will make Smith look awful if he tries to protest: Woodson feels comfortable sitting Smith because he has faith in the rest of the Knicks’ reserves. If Smith makes a fuss, he would therefore be suggesting his teammates are not capable. The narrow-eyed looks from veteran leaders like Jason Kidd and Tyson Chandler would be enough to make Smith stop talking.

Pretty much since Smith made his bold claim that the Knicks’ first-round series against the Celtics would be over if he had not been suspended for Game 4, the St. Benedict’s Prep product has struggled. He has shot 15-for-57 from the floor in his last four games, which includes Games 5 and 6 against the Celtics and Games 1 and 2 against the Pacers. Considering how poorly Smith played, it is rather remarkable the Knicks managed to split those contests.

Smith needs some time to regroup. That is not to say he needs to be benched. The three-day break between Games 2 and 3 may be enough for him to catch his breath and come out on fire on Friday. It is not all that likely — Smith was limited to eight points on Tuesday, and he averaged 14.2 points per game this season in games following a single-digit scoring performance — but whatever the best course of action, Woodson knows how to handle it. More importantly, he clearly feels comfortable handling it however he sees fit without Smith going off the reservation.

And if Smith does, so what? Woodson would probably just give him a quick chewing out and sub in the next best player.

Have a question for Ben Watanabe? Send it to him via Twitter at @BenjeeBallgame or send it here.

The obvious continuing (and disturbing) trend for the Penguins and their fans is the play in goal of Marc-Andre Fleury. The former No. 1 pick has been shaky at best and awful at worse for the better part of three straight playoffs now. The Pittsburgh netminder hit a new low Tuesday night into Wednesday, however. Fleury gave up six goals in the Penguins’ Game 4 loss to the New York Islanders on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, Bylsma made the change that needed to be made.

The Pittsburgh head coach announced backup Tomas Vokoun would make the start in the pivotal Game 5. One would think that the job is now Vokoun’s to lose, especially the way Fleury has played in net.

Fleury’s postseason struggles date back to the 2011 playoffs. Aside from a Game 2 loss in which he gave up four goals, he was really good, good enough to give Pittsburgh a 3-1 series lead against Tampa Bay.

From there, though, it was a meltdown. He gave up four goals in Game 5, an 8-2 whooping from the Lightning. He then gave up four more in Game 6. Fleury rebounded in Game 7 giving up just a goal, but Dwayne Roloson was better, and the Penguins were gone.

Last season was even worse. Fleury gave up 17 goals in the first three games, as Pittsburgh would fall behind 3-0 in the series. The Pens pushed it to a Game 6, only for Fleury to give up four more goals.

Now, here he is just four games into this year’s playoffs. After shutting out the Islanders in Game 1, he’s allowed 14 goals in the three games that followed.

Add it all up, and Fleury has allowed 40 goals in his last 10 playoff games, and 59 in his last 13.

That’s not the only excuse for the Penguins, though. They didn’t have Sidney Crosby in 2011. Gone, too, that year was Evgeni Malkin. Their defensive corps, while not filled with Norris candidates this year, isn’t as bad as it was last year. The D-men were just as much to blame in 2012 as anything else.

But this year was supposed to be different. Crosby and Malkin are both healthy. Chris Kunitz is having a career year. Kris Letang is a Norris candidate. Ray Shero went out and plucked veteran forwards Jarome Iginla and Brenden Morrow as well as big defenseman Doug Murray at the deadline.

This team is loaded, everyone said. Except for in between the pipes. That one glaring question mark has become the all-too-obvious reason as to why the Islanders actually have a chance to derail the Penguins’ march to the Stanley Cup. For that, Bylsma and the rest of the Penguins coaching staff had to make a move.

So now they turn to Vokoun, hoping he can at least be solid. That’s what must make Fleury’s struggles so infuriating for the Pens. They just need Fleury, basically, to not suck. The Penguins are going to score, and they’re going to be in position to win games. They don’t need someone to stand on his head, they just need someone who won’t blow up like Fleury has all too often.

Vokoun should, in theory, be an improvement. His success against the Islanders probably makes the decision even easier. He’s appeared in four games this season against the Islanders and he’s made three starts. In those games, he’s 3-0-1 having stopped 98 of the 101 shots.

So there’s the potential for him to be good. But the biggest thing he’s got going for him right now is that he’s not Marc-Andre Fleury. For that, the job is now his.