Shoes, Interviews, Hall of Fame – Orange County Register

Clippers guard Russell Westbrook expressed his joy after hitting a 3-pointer in the first half of Tuesday night's game against the Lakers at Crypto.com Arena. (AP Photo/Ashley Landis)

Jim Alexander: Before we dive headlong into today's topic, we have a suggestion for a new nickname. “Shoeless Russell Westbrook.” I thought this was perfect for last night's Clippers vs. Lakers game. Westbrook lost his shoe, started putting his shoe back on during the play, said he (forgot) it, brought the ball over the key, and used the ball to make a 3-point shot. One shoe and one sock. Perhaps that describes the state of things around the Clippers these days. If you don't mind, I'll come back to that topic later.

First of all, it's finally been reported that Jim Harbaugh is scheduled to interview for a second time with the Chargers, which leads to two questions: Is he really who you want — Chargers? Almost everyone outside of the office seems to be convinced of this, but would you? Do you really need a second interview? And what do you ask? (I don't think such questions include “How far can you lowball?”)

Mirjam Swanson: Eric Smith, the Clippers' in-arena speech announcer, punctuated the moment perfectly. Imagine his deep, resonant voice. “Westbrook for 3 – in one shoe!” Fun stuff – Unless you’re a Lakers fan, there were quite a few people in the Crypt last night.

I think Eric also previously worked the Chargers game, so that fan probably appreciated that more than he appreciated this obviously very thorough coaching search.

I don't think you need to worry or worry about the second interview. Reports today say that Harbaugh is still in Los Angeles and in no rush to head to Atlanta for his second interview… so that seems like a good omen for the Chargers, but who's just saying he's not in a hurry to head to Atlanta for his second interview? Does it answer your questions and concerns? Perhaps he has reached an agreement on how to replenish the staff? Perhaps it is purely a negotiation and the coach is trying to get better compensation from a potential employer? But if it's due diligence and not gamesmanship, I wouldn't worry too much if I were a Chargers fan.

But… maybe actual Chargers fans feel differently?

Gym: I don't know how the fan base is reacting, but assuming Harbaugh is the guy, this series… well, back in 2002 with Marty Schottenheimer in San Des I think it's going to be a level of excitement that I haven't seen since I was hired. Diego. please think about it. This is the first time in 22 years that a team is actually considering bringing in a quality, experienced, well-known and big-money coach. (Norv Turner is not a celebrity. Sorry.)

But I'm still waiting for something to go wrong. Maybe I've watched this series too many years.

And the idea that there seems to be a second interview with the big names league-wide is that, as you say, the second interview is for coaches to get more information about the teams and the people they're going to be working with. It would suggest that this is done. . That would give Dean Spanos a chance to sell his vision to coaches. So again, what's the problem?

(And it's worth noting that, as far as we know, Bill Belichick hasn't interviewed with the Chargers, given that they announced all of the participants.) I don't think he would sneak into town secretly. Is there a message there??)

Next topic: Tuesday's Baseball Hall of Fame induction and the fact that another former Dodger will be inducted, but he won't be wearing LA on his shield cap. Adrian Beltre's career numbers and 95 percent of the votes on the first ballot are another reminder of the man who got away.

In this morning's column, I mentioned that there are currently 346 members of the Hall of Fame, including Beltre, Joe Mauer, and Todd Helton. Sixty-two of them played for the Dodgers in Brooklyn or Los Angeles, and while some, like Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale, ended their lives, others enjoyed great success with the club (Ricky to name three). (Think Henderson, Eddie Murray, and Jim Thome). I counted – and the tally is in my book, which I shamelessly plug in again: “Dodgers! An Unofficial History from Flatbush to Chavez Ravine.”

All told, only three of those players have LA caps: Koufax, Drysdale and Don Sutton. They played on many teams, but his Clayton Kershaw, who spent most of his glory days in LA, will someday be the fourth. More than that? Quite simply, many great players have passed through here. And given the nature of the game today, it will probably continue to do so.

Miljam: That's pretty wild. Only Koufax, Drysdale, and Sutton, right? That's some great baseball trivia.

Please enjoy this column about voting. (Spoiler: Jim checked the box before Beltre, Helton, Mauer, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield and Billy Wagner.)

And I think your guiding principles make a lot of sense: Is the player historically important? Did he change the game in some way? Was he one of the best players at his position in his prime? Was he a player who made a big contribution to the win, and did he need special mention for opposing managers to scrutinize their scouting reports in pre-series meetings? Was he the kind of player you should have been?

Still, I know people will argue. This is somewhat important. End the piece with the words: “Let's start a discussion.”

Does the Hall of Fame vote look different than, say, the All-NBA vote? ESPN analyst Zach Lowe recently made the news for “abandoning” the vote. The very reason I was reluctant to vote the few seasons I participated was because of “…some bonuses and supermax decisions.” I was like, “I'm starting to feel a little sick.”

But do you think Hall of Fame voting is a different ball game after considering the career and potential contractual benefits on the player's part?

Or do they need us fair-minded media types to try to be objective and sort out the best from the very best?

Gym: You don't usually come across something like that in the BBWAA's season-long awards voting. Mainly, the two awards that are usually allocated to me are Rookie of the Year and Manager of the Year, and I don't know if either of them have a hefty bonus clause. In the contract – and I ignore that component anyway. If someone has a signing bonus depending on the vote, that's not my problem.