St. Helena was a special place to Hoppe

There are times life can be humbling. The community of St. Helena, CA,
discovered that feeling recently as it lost another part of its past on June,
10, 2019. 

Richard Joseph Hoppe died peacefully in his home after a brief illness.
The Hoppe family has established a storied legacy on many fronts in the
community. Most recently, Richard Hoppe, who graduated in 2013, was
a three-sport star at St. Helena High who went on to play baseball at Boise
State University. Tom Hoppe, who is the son of the elder Richard Hoppe
and father of the younger Richard Hoppe, was a two-sport athlete at St.
Helena. He graduated in 1977 and has been the school’s athletic director
since 1998. 

The elder Richard Hoppe was born in New Jersey in 1933, Richard and his
first wife, Birdy, moved to St. Helena in 1967. Hoppe served in the navy
during the Korean War. He later worked at Mare Island Naval Shipyard
until his retirement. He had a passion for all athletics and hunted with his
son and family friends. 

Hoppe is survived by his wife of fifteen years, Laurie Jensen Hoppe; son
Tom and daughter-in-law, Julie Hoppe; son-in-law, Stash Faria; grandchildren
Hillary Hoppe, Richard Hoppe, Kyle Faria, Cara Faria Moore (Geoffrey);
sisters Cookie Carter (Freddie) and Gail Hayes; Laurie’s two daughters and
their families. He was preceded in death by his first wife of 44 years, Roberta
Rasler Hoppe and by his daughter, Denise Hoppe Faria. A private interment
with military honors was held at the St. Helena Cemetery.

There will be a Celebration of Life at the St. Helena American Legion Hall
at 1291 Madrona Avenue on Sunday, July 14 from 1:30 to 4 p.m.

Donations in Richard’s memory may be made to the Saint Helena High
School Athletic Department at 1401 Grayson, St. Helena, CA 94574.

I mainly knew Hoppe on the periphery in my 10 years as a sports reporter
in the communities of St. Helena and Calistoga (2004-2014). In that
environment, however, when you know someone on that level, you feel
like you know then up close as well. 

Though I have changed careers, I often think about my days as a sports
reporter. Community journalism is not for everyone. Sometimes life can
feel claustrophobic but the people you meet and relationships you develop
make it special. Hoppe was one of the many people I met that contributed
to making my time special. 

My first impression of him though was less than pleasant. It was January
2004. I had just taken over as sports reporter for the St. Helena Star and
Weekly Calistogan. I was covering a St. Helena Saints boys basketball
game. Tom was the coach. I remember chatting during the JV game with
varsity assistant coach Mike Werle. I stood up to stretch and I hear this
voice about 8-10 rows in the bleachers: “Hey, reporter we missed you
at the last game.” I turned to Werle and ask: “Who the hell is that guy?”
Werle replied: “That’s Tom’s dad.” So I nodded my head. After the game,
I met the elder Richard Hoppe. That conversation and everyone we had
thereafter was nothing but pleasant. We would chop it up about anything
from sports to family to life. He always had a smile on his face. It was
hard to be in a bad mood around Mr. Hoppe. 

Because of my role as a sports reporter, I mainly saw him as the No. 1
fan of his grandkids, Richard and Hillary, along with the coaching
endeavors of his son, Tom. In general, that narrative describes most
parents and grandparents. Then you peel various other layers of his life.

For openers, he served, as I channel my inner Archie Bunker, “These
here U S of A Nation States, in this here Korean War.” All kidding aside,
veterans and soldiers currently serving our country are a special kind of
courageous. They have my undying respect. 

For about the last 18 years, Mr. Hoppe split his time between St. Helena and
Rathdrum, Idaho, which is in the state’s panhandle with a population of
about 5,000 people. Hoppe would spend the months of May through October
in Idaho and the remaining time in St. Helena. Since his grandchildren
(Richard and Hillary) were at Boise State, he was sort of nearby. 

New Jersey and Idaho were the arms and legs of Hoppe’s life but St. Helena
was the heart and soul. 

Though it may not be known to new generation St. Helenans, Hoppe’s
volunteerism spoke volumes. He served the following roles: St. Helena Little
League president, field maintenance for Crane Park, served on the St. Helena
Recreation Commission, St. Helena Little League coach, Carpy Gang football
and basketball coach and also coached baseball in Vallejo. He did all of this
while being a devoted Mare Island employee, father and husband. 

His volunteerism was not limited to sports. Hoppe took time to read to
elementary school classes, most notably to the fifth grade class of Carol
Shirmang at St. Helena Primary School. Anyone that volunteers time of any
sort is a good hearted person in my world.

One of the more misunderstood narratives is “you only live once.” Not true.
You die once but you live every day. Hoppe lived eight and a half decades
to the fullest. The sadness of his loss is immutable but if we can take a portion
of his life in terms of making a difference to others, we will all be better
people. 

Mr. Hoppe, I’m in no hurry to get to where you are going but I know we will
meet again someday. Enjoy that youth sporting event. You have earned your
luxury suite in the sky but if you prefer bleachers, they have those in the sky
too, my friend. 

Re-examining the busted draft pick theory

It is strange how some people have a clearly defined idea for a
matter that can be highly subjective.

The term “bust,” which is most commonly used in sports toward
a player drafted very highly that did not meet expectations. If you
are any kind of sports enthusiast (fan, journalist, blogger), you
have gone round and round with someone when discussing a
particular player and whether or not he fits the description.

The NFL has 32 teams and seven rounds, plus compensatory
picks. The NHL has seven rounds with 31 picks in each one.
Major League Baseball has 40 rounds, plus compensatory picks.
The NBA has 30 teams with just two rounds, totaling 60 picks.

Since the MLB and NHL drafts are not in the spotlight like the NFL
and NBA, it’s harder for me to give examples. However, there is
considerable overlap.

I’m not as cut and dried as many people when it comes to labeling
busts. In the NFL, for instance, I will never label a guy drafted after
the third round a bust because teams are not committing much
money to them. In those rounds, you are mainly looking for depth
and if a guy becomes a starter, great, but if he gets cut at the end
of training camp, not a big deal.

The NBA is a different animal in that the first 14 picks are
considered lottery selections, meaning the teams that did not make
the postseason. Those picks I am going to hold to a higher
standard because they are expected to contribute right away,
primarily because the team is counting on them because it was
already bad. The ones taken between 15-30, I’m not going to judge
as stringent because they are going to playoff teams with proven
veterans. Therefore, they are not being counted on immediately.
The second round picks are stricken from the bust label, similar
to NFL players taken after the third round.

If you are drafted in the first or second round in the NFL, NHL or
MLB, ideally he should be an impact player that performs at an
All-Star/All-Pro level. At the very least, however, you should expect
him to be a starter and perform like one. I apply the same theory to
NBA lottery picks.

The older I get the less I allow the expectations of others to color my
views. It is often said how the draft is an inexact science. Cliches
aside, for every first round NFL draft pick that had Hall of Fame
careers like Jerry Rice, Peyton Manning, Barry Sanders, etc. there
are first rounders that were busts like JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf,
Ki-Jana Carter, etc.

Then there are late round picks that nobody knew like Tom Brady,
Terrell Davis, etc., sixth rounders that had Hall of Fame careers.

Russell and Leaf are no-brainers to give the bust label. They flamed
out of the NFL after three seasons. Leaf washed out after five years.
Carter played ten seasons but was often injured. So it begs the
question of how good could he have been if he got injured? Carter,
however, was given ten years to perform and failed to deliver.

The athletes that people often give bust labels to that I do not agree
with are Alex Smith, Joe Smith and Christian Laettner. Alex Smith
was the No. 1 overall pick in the 2005 draft. He has played for three
different teams (San Francisco, Kansas City and Washington) and
struggled in his first five seasons in part because of the 49er
organization’s ineptitude. Coached later by Jim Harbaugh (San
Francisco) and Andy Reid (Kansas City), Smith had productive
years and at times blossomed (as evidenced by three Pro Bowl
seasons).

Joe Smith was the No. 1 overall pick in the 1995 NBA draft by the
Golden State Warriors. Through he played for 13 different teams,
Smith played 16 NBA seasons. He had double figure scoring
averages in ten of those seasons, including his nine in his first
11 seasons.

Christian Laettner, who is considered one of the best college
basketball players in history, was the No. 1 overall pick in the 1992
NBA draft by the Minnesota Timberwolves. Laettner played 14
seasons for six different teams. Laettner averaged 12.8 points per
contest and double figures in nine of those seasons, including the
first seven.

The common denominator that I view in those three individuals is
that the bust label does not apply. Granted, they did not live up to
the value of their draft status but it’s not like they were bums either.
They would not have been in the league that long if they were. If
you want to make the argument that they failed to live up to
advanced billing, I can’t dispute but there is a difference between
that and someone who flames out after three years. Also, I don’t
blame the player, I blame the organization that was delusional
enough to value them so much.

Sometimes, labeling busts is a sure thing, as sure as Monday
comes after Sunday. Other times, however, it is not so clear.

One-sided games are rarely a good thing

If you are any kind of sports observer, fan or journalist, you fixate on
the great games that you witness.

When I say great games, please note the term is subjective and open to
interpretation but I’m referring to ones that hang in the balance until the
final minutes/seconds. Why? Because even if the game does not meet the
eyeball test, I’m at least entertained because I don’t know who is going
to win. I have been following sports diligently since 1982, when I was
10 years old. I watched a few games here and there before that time but
I would not consider it to be diligent.

Doing the math, that adds up to 37 years. In that span, I have seen
numerous events that I still reference to this day on all levels of sports (high
school, college and professional). I would even include youth sports.

In that span, however, I have seen many more one-sided games. I am one of
these bat bleep crazy people that is fine with a low scoring game as long as
it hangs in the balance. When people ask, do you want a high or low scoring
game, I frame my answer by asking, “If my favorite team is not involved
will I keep watching?” The most recent Super Bowl was described as boring
because the final score was New England Patriots 13, Los Angeles Rams 3.
I had no rooting interest but I kept watching because the game was
competitive.

As for blowout losses, I watched every second of Super Bowl XXIV because
my favorite NFL team, the San Francisco 49ers blasted the Denver Broncos
55-10. I can make a similar case for the 1995 college football National
Championship game, in which the Nebraska Cornhuskers (my alma mater)
boatraced the Florida Gators 62-24. The common denominator was having
a rooting interest. However, I lost interest very quickly in Super Bowl XXXVI
when the Baltimore Ravens blasted the New York Giants 34-7. Why? Because
I have no rooting interest in either team.

Are one-sided games a good thing? In general, I would say no but there are
exceptions. Occasionally blowouts are OK but continuous ones, not so much.
If your team constantly wins decisively, it gives you an inflated idea of how
good you are and then you are surprised when your equal or superior
challenges you. Conversely, if you are a team that consistently loses in decisive
fashion, you become demoralized and apathetic.

From a player standpoint, one-sided games are not good because there is a
tendency to lose focus and make fundamental mistakes that could be costly
later in the season. From a fan or media perspective, it’s not fun but it is much
more palatable when the team you are rooting for or covering is the victor.
From a media standpoint, coaches and players are going to be in a better mood
when doing postgame interviews.

As a for instance, suppose your team is good (how good is open to
interpretation) and you beat an inferior team by 30-plus points. The narrative
becomes, “We handled our business but it’s not a barometer of how well we
played.”

Blowout wins, however, can serve a purpose for both the winning and losing
side. It gives you a chance to remove your starters so as not to unnecessarily
risk injury and subsequently gives the players buried on the depth chart a
chance to play. You never know, maybe the player shows you the ability they
have not shown yet and can turn into a valuable contributor.

Therein lies the ongoing conversation of is it better to load your nonleague
schedule with tough opponents or load it with lesser foes to get victories and
build confidence? The only scenario where the former makes sense is if a)
You know you have a great team that is mentally strong or b) Are in a league
that is competitively limiting. The latter situation makes sense if a program is
rebuilding or has experienced a lack of success. After all, confidence is a
huge thing in athletics. Within reason, I can go along with this approach but
if you make the nonleague slate too inferior, it could lead to a Fool’s Gold
winning record.

I have always believed in a mixture of quality for nonleague foes, mainly
because roster talent and/or skill levels are going to fluctuate from year-to-year.
Have one opponent that you know you will beat handily. Have one opponent
that is a coin flip. Have one opponent that is better than you.

Occasional one-sided games are fine within reason but not a steady stream of
them.

The term asterisk gets grossly overused in sports

If you are any kind of a sports fan or journalist, you are going to
witness a game where either the winning team benefits from the
opposing team being hindered by injuries or the losing team
having its limitations because of them.

The storylines are written, it’s only a question of which side benefits
your team. You are on the winning side that has the reasonably
healthy team and the losing team has a couple of injuries. The
opposing team and/or its fans will grovel, “Well, if we had Player
X or Player Y, we would/could have won.” My favorite is when they
say, “Put an asterisk next to that win.” Statements like that are
pure speculative because it did not happen.

The winning team and/or its fans will say things like, “Injuries are
part of the game.” “It’s not our fault if your team had injuries,” etc.

The most recent example but far from the only one in sports history
and will not be the last is the Toronto Raptors beating the Golden
State Warriors 4-2 in the NBA Finals. The title represented the first
in the Raptors’ 25 year history and derailed the Warriors bid at
being the first team to win three straight titles since the 2000-2002
Los Angeles Lakers. Golden State, however, made history by
becoming the first team to reach five consecutive finals since the
Boston Celtics from 1962-1966. The Warriors won three titles in
that span.

Before I go any further, I am among the Bay Area minority who is
not a Warriors fan so I was happy to see them lose. I am a San
Antonio Spurs fan. Though I respect what Golden State has
achieved and acknowledge its greatness, from my vantage point
a large segment of its organization and fanbase have become
insufferably arrogant. Especially those who discovered the NBA
in 2014. However, I have great respect for Warrior fans that date
back 20 years or more because they know the sport.

In the process of losing to the Raptors, Golden State had Kevin
Durant return to the court after missing 33 days with a calf strain,
only to sustain a ruptured Achilles tendon in Game 5. Klay
Thompson, who missed Game 3 because of a hamstring injury,
tore the ACL in his right knee in what proved to be the decisive
Game 6. Kevon Looney, though not a star on the same level as
Thompson and Durant but important nonetheless, sustained a
chest fracture but valiantly competed.

The injury flood for Golden State is a byproduct of playing five
straight NBA Finals, which amounted to 106 postseason games
in that span. Do the math, regular seasons are 82 games. The
attrition will be a factor at some point.

So why do I bring up these injuries. Well, in the years Golden
State won titles (2015, 2017, 2018), they benefited from opposing
teams injuries. In 2015, New Orleans was without Jrue Holliday,
Memphis was minus Michael Conley, Houston was minus Patrick
Beverly and Cleveland was without Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love.
In 2017, San Antonio was beating the Warriors from pillar to post
in Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals until Zaza Pachulia
stuck his leg in Kawhi Leonard’s landing area of shooting a
3-pointer. The Spurs coughed up a 23-point lead and were swept
4-0. The Warriors beat Cleveland 4-1 in the NBA Finals.

In 2018, Houston went up 3-2 in the Western Conference Finals
before Chris Paul sustained a hamstring injury that kept him out
of the last two games. Golden State won the next two games and
swept Cleveland in the NBA Finals.

Another thing I want to make perfectly clear is that I don’t believe
in asterisks. The Warriors shouldn’t apologize for their titles in
2015, 2016 and 2018. The Cleveland Cavaliers shouldn’t apologize
for their title in 2016. The Toronto Raptors shouldn’t apologize for
their title in 2019.

My biggest complaint is tell Warrior fans/media (some anyhow)
about them benefiting from injuries and it’s “how dare you!” Yet
those same fans are saying how they would have beaten the
Raptors if they were not injured. You can’t have it both ways.

What bothers me the most about the asterisk theory is that it gets
used too many times out of convenience. Should the most recent
New England Patriots Super Bowl win have an asterisk because
Los Angeles Rams running back Todd Gurley was injured? I
could point out countless other examples but in the interest of
space I won’t.

In a perfect world, we want to see two teams playing at full strength
but the world is not perfect. I would love to drive down a perfectly
paved road with no rain or potholes but life does not work that way.

This is competitive sports. The team you are playing does not care
how injured your team is.

To those who taint wins, I say “kiss my asterisk.”