Phelps' eight gold medals makes us rethink greatness
This is long enough, let’s just jump right in.
What's an athlete?
One who competes in an exercise activity or sport at some level above terrible. I’m an athlete.
Just to warn you, I’m about to waste a lot of both of our time parsing this bullshit column. I should probably just avoid it.
Who's an athlete?
Like hundreds of millions of people.
What's mental toughness?
I’ll loosely define mental toughness as the ability to sustain focus and execute at a high level in the face if adversity and/or pressure. What’s with the fucking quiz to start the column?
What are limits?
I’ll defer to your nearest fifth grader to define limits.
What is greatness?
Well I'm tired already. What is a moronic way to open a column?
Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France victories in a row. Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak. Wilt Chamberlain's 100 points. The Tiger Slam.
Yes? Those are “great” things in the context of athletic achievement.
We thought we knew those answers before Michael Phelps. But now that we've witnessed Phelps win eight gold medals, it turns out we didn't know anything.
Fuck that, I’m wicked smart. I know lots of stuff. You don’t know anything, but I already knew that. You’re just catching up with me Jemele.
Forget your previous notions. Forget other things you've seen from the other world's best athletes. What Phelps has done is as remarkably different as God giving us the sun one day and the seas the next.
I’m getting down right giddy about how she’s going to explain why 8 Gold Medals from Michael Phelps is more impressive than Lance Armstrong winning 7 straight Tours after beating cancer.
Because it’s not. At least not in any clear way.
But his greatest achievement at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing isn't the gold medals, or breaking Mark Spitz's 1972 record for most golds at a single Games. Phelps has changed the way we think about sport.
Yeah, he’s made me say: “What the fuck, there are a ton of chances to win medals if you’re a swimmer!” If you are the very best female gymnast in the world, and you dominate every apparatus and have very good teammates, you can have a flawless Olympics and you’ll win, at best, 6 Golds. I would argue that a gymnast who has mastered all 4 apparatus to that level is more impressive than Phelps, but she would not be able to compete in terms of medal count.
What Usain Bolt did in his one 100 Meter final damn impressive by itself even though it's "only" 1 record. That one gold/record, to me, carries the weight of a few swimming gold medals. Everyone can run. Rich, poor, whatever. Not everyone grows up with the access that Michael Phelps had to swimming and coaching. Bolt ran the fastest 100 ever and was celebrating with 15 meters left. Sprinters have to come out of like 3-4 prelims just to make the medal round. There’s a definite risk of fatigue or injury.
Phelps has redefined athletics, and athleticism.
Nope.
He has returned us to the ancient, Olympic ideal.
Legend says Zeus' son, Hercules, created the Olympic Games after completing 12 labors over 12 years. Some of Hercules' tasks included having to bring back a three-headed dog from hell and retrieve golden apples that promised eternal life.
This is relevant how?
For Phelps, it was completing 17 races in eight days and amassing seven world records. As the Hercules myth spells out, the Games' origins are rooted in endurance. That is why we must consider Phelps' achievements in these Olympics as the greatest athletic feat ever accomplished.
Woah woah woah. Woah.
Woah.
Let’s simplify this little bit of knowledge that Jemele has dropped on us and see if it makes sense.
The Olympics are about endurance, therefore Phelps’ winning 8 gold medals is the greatest athletic feat ever accomplished.
Isn’t that thinking a tad narrowly? Why is athletic accomplishment only relevant in the Olympics? Why does some ancient myth about what the Olympics are about determine what kind of athletic accomplishment is the best ever?
Back in ancient times all the kruglidites of super happy land defined the best athletes as those who could accurately strike small objects with curved sticks. Therefore, Tiger Woods is the best athlete ever.
It's not just about what he has done. It's about what he has endured.
That’s true, Lance Armstrong does not have the endurance that Michael Phelps does. Neither do those ultra-marathoners. Neither do Ironman triathletes, who swim like 2+ miles in the Ocean, bike 112 miles and then run a full marathon in the Hawaiian heat.
Endurance should be the key element that distinguishes greatness. What did Jordan endure when he won six NBA titles? Did he push his body to the limits Phelps has? Not even close.
If your measure of athletic greatness is limited to endurance, then you can throw out virtually all team-sport athletes. I think this is retarded. How many basketball games did Jordan play at an absurdly high level on his way to 6 championships? Like 600? Ha! Trivial!
How much endurance does it take to land some crazy ass vault like a gymnast, or to do some flips on a balance beam? Clearly not Michael Phelps’ level endurance, but can’t those athletic achievements be just as impressive? Is every marathoner a better athlete than every basketball player, football player, gymnast, etc. ever? HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?
What if an athlete existed that could long-jump 40 feet. 10+ feet further than anyone, ever. This same athlete could also hit cleanup for the Yankees and hit 75 homeruns and kick a football 85 yards with precision under NFL pressure. But all definitions of being an endurance athlete, this superhuman would fail to be a better athlete than Michael Phelps. SEE HOW THIS MAKES NO SENSE?
Of course, no one is disputing Jordan wasn't the best basketball player in the world, but Jordan's flu game couldn't compete with Phelps, who had a week's worth of flu games at the Olympics.
That’s a double negative, dingbat. You’re saying that Jordan was undisputedly not the best basketball player in the world. Who says Jordan’s “flu game” is his best athletic achievement? Why did Phelps have a week’s worth of flu games? What?
See, here's the thing: Jordan was sick. The Jazz were not sick. Phelps was not swimming under different conditions than the other swimmers. So he didn't have a week's worth of flu games. If all the Utah Jazz were also playing "flu games", then you'd have a point.
And it must be pointed out that Jordan, who ESPN SportsCentury named the greatest athlete ever, isn't even the biggest winner in his sport. Phelps is.
Again, this is poor sentence structure. To me, you just made it sound like Phelps is the biggest winner in Jordan’s sport. You can’t compare an NBA player to an Olympic swimmer.
And what did Joe DiMaggio's body endure when he hit in 56 consecutive games? Mentally, he was strained, just as Roger Maris was when he hit more home runs than anyone else in a single season. No disrespect to baseball players, but the fact that Babe Ruth -- who many consider the best baseball player to ever live -- could knock off a fifth of vodka every night during the season shows the level of physical commitment needed in baseball is a joke compared to what's physically required of Phelps, who burned as many calories each day during his quest as a marathoner does. What DiMaggio and Ruth did was a power walk.
Skill sport versus endurance sport. Again, if you think endurance is all that matters, then skill can’t win. The best athlete ever would be some ultramarathoner or triathlete.
How can you definitively say that Michael Phelps is a better athlete than Carl Lewis? Lewis dominated in sprinting various distances as well as long-jumping. He was, at one point, the fastest human in history and he also won Gold in long-jumping at 4 consecutive Olympics. Being a great athlete is more than endurance or speed. Some of the fastest people I’ve met happened to suck at team sports that require coordination, like basketball or baseball.
This is off-the charts in terms of piss poor, unenlightened analysis.
Tiger Woods, the best golfer in the world, won a major championship with a torn ACL. Phelps couldn't even dream of doing the same.
Because...his sport....is not...like golf?? Swimming is all the sudden the only sport that one can compete in to become the greatest athlete ever. Isn’t that pretty much what she’s saying?
Besides, is Tiger as dominant in golf as Phelps is in swimming?
Same. It’s harder for the best golfer to win every tournament than it is for the best swimmer to win every race. There is so much different here, it’s not even funny.
What if every golf tournament was played between 8 golfers? Imagine Tiger’s record then. What if every swimming race, Phelps had to beat like 40 other swimmers? What if instead of the race being a back and forth of continuous laps, Phelps had to get out of the pool after ever 2 laps, and gather his thoughts about the swim he just had, then all the swimmers lined up and he had to go through all the mental preparation for the next set of laps and do it again? What if he had to do this for 18 sets, for four straight days, against 40 or so swimmers? Do you think he’d win every tournament, as Hill seems to want Woods to do in order to be his equal? SEE HOW GOLF IS DIFFERENT FROM SWIMMING? Jemele Hill does not.
No way.
Fuck you.
Ask yourself this: Whose field is tougher? Tiger's or Phelps'?
Like you know a god damn thing about Phelp’s “field”. You, like me, watch swimming every four years and know exactly what Rowdy Gaines tells you, and little else.
Since Tiger shut down his season because of his knee injury, Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh have spent his absence out-choking each other. But Phelps has had to beat Ian Crocker, Ryan Lochte and Laszlo Cseh in Beijing - all of whom were world-record holders.
They are world record holders because of the crazy swimsuits being used (also, something about faster pools). They are quickly breaking each other’s records. It’s sort of silly, really.
Phelps is beating his competition in their individual specialties. Imagine if Kobe Bryant sang a better national anthem than Marvin Gaye, or if Alex Rodriguez dunked better than Dwight Howard.
Folks, I say this often, but that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever read from Jemele Hill. IMAGINE IF....Kobe Bryant could sing like Marvin Gaye!
Why is it up to Alex Rodriguez to be anything more than a baseball player to be one of the best athletes ever? We're not asking Phelps to be anything more than a swimmer. Imagine if Michael Phelps hit better than Alex Rodriguez? Why is it that team sport athletes need to be better in other sports entirely, but Phelps just has to be a great swimmer at different swimming disciplines. Carl Lewis beat the best sprinters and the best long-jumpers. Both of those are often separate specialties, moreso than swimming frontwards versus swimming backwards.
Many Baseball players are great at hitting, fielding and baserunning. Are these not more varied disciplines using different tools and skills than the breast stroke, freestyle or the butterfly? I say….who knows...but I’m more open minded than Jemele.
Wayne Gretzky, hockey's greatest scorer, collected 2,857 career points -- over 21 years. In two Olympics, the 23-year-old Phelps became the most decorated Olympian ever.
So Gretzky’s accomplishments are invalidated from this argument because they took 21 years to achieve. This makes no sense. Phelps has had more opportunity! They award a fuckload of medals in swimming, how is this not clear? The most medals Kobe Bryant can win? 1. The most Shawn Johnson can win? 6. Phelps has done a monumentally impressive thing but please, calm the fuck down.
Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game is nice, but not more difficult than setting a world record in six consecutive, grueling events, including winning two golds in one day.
Why not? Oh, you’re done.
All I’ll say is this; World records fall every freaking race it seems, and no one is dropping 100 points in an NBA game ever again.
Lance Armstrong's seven straight Tour de France titles probably comes the closest to matching Phelps. But it's impossible to be confident in Armstrong's achievements because he dominated one of the dirtiest professional sports in the world. Even if you believe Armstrong was completely clean, he essentially is doing just one thing. Phelps is proficient in four different strokes, at different distances.
So we get to act like Phelps is some multi-sport dynamo because they are different strokes? Is he the only swimmer swimming different strokes at different distances? Nope. Also, if we get to assume Armstrong was clean, as you say, then isn’t it more impressive that he so dominated a dirty sport? Aren't the different tour stages at different distances?
Football feats also don't measure up.
Because they are different sport??????HMMMM?!!!??!?!?!?!?!?
Not Emmitt Smith's NFL-best 18,355 career rushing yards or Tom Brady's single-season record of 50 touchdown passes.
What about them?
Brett Favre is considered by some to be the greatest passer ever, but he also holds the all-time record for interceptions.
This is interesting, how?
Would Phelps even be in consideration for greatest athletic achiever if he lost nearly as many races as he'd won?
No Olympic swimmer has lost nearly as many races as they’d won. That’s why they are in the fucking Olympics. But good point. I mean, Michael Jordan missed thousands of shots! What’s up with that? I’m pretty sure Barry Bonds used to make outs. Michael Phelps never struck out while swimming!
Think about it, the crux of her argument is something like this:
The best athlete must be the athlete with the most endurance AND
The best athlete must have varied skills, such as swimming different ways AND
All skills within team sports are vaguely classified under the skill of “playing sport X well”, therefore they are not as versatile as swimmers AND
I love Michael Phelps so I’m just saying whatever crap I can to support my argument!
Television commentators are comparing Phelps to an actual fish, or an amphibian. When we think of the greatest athletes ever, fish aren't usually what comes to mind. But with Phelps, all conventional thinking goes out the window.
Television commentators are dumb. Let’s rephrase:
Dummies are comparing Phelps to an actual fish, or amphibian, because he swims awesomely and is the flavor of the month. When we think of greatest athlete ever, smart people know that you can’t compare team sport athletes to individual sport athletes across eras. But with my terrible analysis of Phelps, you’ll notice that I’m incapable of thinking rationally and doing legitimate analysis.
Showing posts with label Jemele Hill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jemele Hill. Show all posts
Monday, August 18, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Kobe v. Jordan Again
Well well well look what we've found here. So Jemele Hill has her own website, and she recently revived the Jordan/Bryant argument that she made here. She obviously used an obscure blog post on her website, instead of ESPN, to hide these words from me. I see right through it all. But here we are anyway. Nice try, Ms. Hill.
She actually acknowledges that she did a bad job supporting her opinion….
To be honest, I didn’t do a good job of really explaining why I feel that way (Kobe better than Jordan) in that initial ESPN column.
Yeah I caught that. Unfortunately, her blog is not very reader/blogger friendly. I have no idea how to copy/paste content out of it. Because there’s no way I’ll be transcribing all the content, I’ll have to just grab her main points.
The game evolves and so does the skill level. It’s obvious that Kobe has studied MJ’s every move. He’s not only perfected those moves, but developed particular skill sets faster than Jordan did. For example, Jordan was never as good a long-range shooter as Kobe. Over time, Jordan added that element of his game, but it came along for Kobe much faster – as did Kobe’s fadeaway, post-up game, and mid-range shooting. Kobe ceased strictly being an above-the-rim player a lot quicker than Jordan.
There’s nothing very egregious here. Skills do evolve over time, however I just can’t be so definitive in separating their time periods in the way that she can. But can I just point this out:
For example, Jordan was never as good a long-range shooter as Kobe.
Keep in mind that these two players play a very similar style game, and Kobe plays in a more stringent era in terms of defensive hand checking rules.
Career 3-point %’s:
Regular Season:
Jordan - .327
Bryant - .340
Playoffs:
Jordan - .332
Bryant - .324
Virtually the same. I would love to see a career shot chart that parsed their shooting percentages based on the location of their shots – Jordan would beat Kobe inside the 3-point line (virtually the same outside). Jordan was a career 49.7 % FG shooter – Kobe is at 45.3%. To be fair, you should remove three’s from that % - when you do Jordan is 51% and Kobe is 48%. Their playoff non-3 % has a Jordan edge of 50.4% to 47.3%. Jordan's percentages during his Washington years were particularly bad, as well, but I've left them in there. We'll call that a dramatic decline phase that Kobe has not experienced.
If he’s such a better shooter, he must be worse at shot selection, because he makes less of them.
Quick sidebar - Charles Barkley was one of my favorite players to watch. One of his downfalls was he liked to take 3's. He took almost 2 a game for his career (as a power forward). Had Barkley never taken a 3-pointer, his career FG % would have been 58.13%, good for 3rd all-time behind Andris Beidrins (in only 4 seasons) and Artis Gilmore. Barkley was more efficient with his field goals, inside the three-point line, than Shaquille O'Neal, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Kevin McHale. Add that to the fact that he was a 6'6" (at best) power forward who led the league in rebounding and could handle the ball pretty well and he's one of the most uniquely talented offensive players in NBA history.
But here are some of the things that people always fail to consider in the never ending Kobe vs. Jordan debate.
1. Jordan is possibly the most magnetic sports figure of all time.
She goes on for a while on each point, but I’ll stick to the main points because it shows why she’s not going to convince me that Kobe is better. What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
2. Revisionist history has turned Jordan into the perfect human being.
What the fuck does this (that I disagree with anyway) have to do with anything?
3. Jordan didn’t have the Internets, and he missed out on a time in sports media where athletes personal lives are covered just as much as their on court performances.
Am I the only one that remembers the non-stop media frenzy that was Michael Jordan? Also, what the fuck does this have to do with anything?
4. We don’t seem to realize how the size - or lack thereof - during Jordan’s days contributed to his dominance.
That’s true, since Michael Jordan played most of his professional ball in China in the 1950’s. Seriously, this is what you’re spending your time on? Well, if only we had some sort of chart put out by a reputable source that showed us the average size of the NBA players through the years....hmmmmm. Wait, look what I found:
But we wouldn’t look at his athleticism in a vacuum if there were other players with just as much physical ability. Compared to Larry, Zeke and Magic, Jordan looked like a freak.
Did he look like an athletic freak next to Dominique Wilkins, Charles Barkley and Clyde Drexler? Oh, those guys aren't good examples, so just ignore them.
He wouldn’t look like a freak to us today with Kobe, Chris Paul, and LeBron James and others on the floor.
Sooo? Is anyone’s assertion anywhere that Jordan is better than Bryant because he’s a better athlete? Does anyone think this? That’s the point you’re making.
Which brings me to this: What would Jordan have done against LBJ, who is built like Julius Peppers and taller?
I don’t know, probably the same thing as Kobe Bryant? What would James have done against Jordan? He’d get smoked, that’s what. James had a tough enough time with Paul Pierce.
5. That Jordan never had to go through a dominating big man was a huge bonus. And no, I don’t count Shaq because he had diapers on. Olajuwon won his two when Jordan was out of the league. I MIGHT give you Patrick Ewing. Maybe even Karl Malone.
Comparing guards in sequential generations by analyzing the centers they played against is unbelievably stupid. But if you want to go there…
Jordan played against Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, and Alonzo Mourning in their primes. He played against Shaquille O’Neal from ’93-’98. Fuck that diapers shit, Shaq lead a 60 win Orlando team when he was 24 years old – his 4th year in the league. The year after he led them to the finals. Jordan’s Bulls destroyed them in ’96. ’96 – when the Bulls went through Mourning, Ewing and Shaq in sequential playoff series.
I guess what I’m saying is…..Jordan saw the best of a lot more big men the Kobe did, and (oh by the way), he didn’t have an all-time great like Shaq on his team for 8 years to handle those big men, as Kobe did. I love how it's to Kobe's credit to play against Shaq and Duncan when Shaq's prime was spent as Kobe's teammate.
She actually acknowledges that she did a bad job supporting her opinion….
To be honest, I didn’t do a good job of really explaining why I feel that way (Kobe better than Jordan) in that initial ESPN column.
Yeah I caught that. Unfortunately, her blog is not very reader/blogger friendly. I have no idea how to copy/paste content out of it. Because there’s no way I’ll be transcribing all the content, I’ll have to just grab her main points.
The game evolves and so does the skill level. It’s obvious that Kobe has studied MJ’s every move. He’s not only perfected those moves, but developed particular skill sets faster than Jordan did. For example, Jordan was never as good a long-range shooter as Kobe. Over time, Jordan added that element of his game, but it came along for Kobe much faster – as did Kobe’s fadeaway, post-up game, and mid-range shooting. Kobe ceased strictly being an above-the-rim player a lot quicker than Jordan.
There’s nothing very egregious here. Skills do evolve over time, however I just can’t be so definitive in separating their time periods in the way that she can. But can I just point this out:
For example, Jordan was never as good a long-range shooter as Kobe.
Keep in mind that these two players play a very similar style game, and Kobe plays in a more stringent era in terms of defensive hand checking rules.
Career 3-point %’s:
Regular Season:
Jordan - .327
Bryant - .340
Playoffs:
Jordan - .332
Bryant - .324
Virtually the same. I would love to see a career shot chart that parsed their shooting percentages based on the location of their shots – Jordan would beat Kobe inside the 3-point line (virtually the same outside). Jordan was a career 49.7 % FG shooter – Kobe is at 45.3%. To be fair, you should remove three’s from that % - when you do Jordan is 51% and Kobe is 48%. Their playoff non-3 % has a Jordan edge of 50.4% to 47.3%. Jordan's percentages during his Washington years were particularly bad, as well, but I've left them in there. We'll call that a dramatic decline phase that Kobe has not experienced.
If he’s such a better shooter, he must be worse at shot selection, because he makes less of them.
Quick sidebar - Charles Barkley was one of my favorite players to watch. One of his downfalls was he liked to take 3's. He took almost 2 a game for his career (as a power forward). Had Barkley never taken a 3-pointer, his career FG % would have been 58.13%, good for 3rd all-time behind Andris Beidrins (in only 4 seasons) and Artis Gilmore. Barkley was more efficient with his field goals, inside the three-point line, than Shaquille O'Neal, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Kevin McHale. Add that to the fact that he was a 6'6" (at best) power forward who led the league in rebounding and could handle the ball pretty well and he's one of the most uniquely talented offensive players in NBA history.
But here are some of the things that people always fail to consider in the never ending Kobe vs. Jordan debate.
1. Jordan is possibly the most magnetic sports figure of all time.
She goes on for a while on each point, but I’ll stick to the main points because it shows why she’s not going to convince me that Kobe is better. What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
2. Revisionist history has turned Jordan into the perfect human being.
What the fuck does this (that I disagree with anyway) have to do with anything?
3. Jordan didn’t have the Internets, and he missed out on a time in sports media where athletes personal lives are covered just as much as their on court performances.
Am I the only one that remembers the non-stop media frenzy that was Michael Jordan? Also, what the fuck does this have to do with anything?
4. We don’t seem to realize how the size - or lack thereof - during Jordan’s days contributed to his dominance.
That’s true, since Michael Jordan played most of his professional ball in China in the 1950’s. Seriously, this is what you’re spending your time on? Well, if only we had some sort of chart put out by a reputable source that showed us the average size of the NBA players through the years....hmmmmm. Wait, look what I found:
The average height of an NBA player over the last 20 years has stayed remarkably (expectedly?) consistent. The average weight is up a whopping 7 pounds, but you’ll notice it’s virtually unchanged since 1994. The point is, there’s not much of a difference. Are the players stronger, and more athletic? Yes - at least compared to the early stage of Jordan's career - but I would dispute this point with regards to the the later stage. Is Kobe's competition just plain "bigger"? Not really. The players Michael Jordan played against did not resemble the starting five from Hickory High, which is what Jemele seems to want you to envision. In fact, to be nitpicky and turn this non-point around on Jemele - the average player in ’98 was slightly taller and heavier than in ’08, and Jordan seemed to do okay that year, when (at age 35) he was the regular season MVP and the Finals MVP and he led the league in scoring. He also worked Kobe Bryant pretty good in the All-Star game too, in route to winning the MVP of the game. Not meaningful for this argument, but interesting.
She goes into more depth here, and actually talks about basketball and stuff (hey, it is the 4th point), so I’ll transcribe the section.
The players today are bigger, faster and stronger than they were when Jordan played. Granted, the players from Jordan’s era were more skilled and had a higher basketball IQ, but it’s a lot different having to shoot over Craig Ehlo versus someone like Tracy McGrady, who is 6-foot-9 and just as quick. Of course, I realize that assumes McGrady would be interested in playing defense.
She’s made this point before. Players today are better athletes, but players during Jordan’s era were more skilled and had a better basketball IQ. Do you see how pointless and difficult to argue this point is? It’s not like Jordan played in the 60’s. Jordan played through ’98 (ignoring the Washington years). Kobe’s first year was ’96-’97 – NBA players didn’t become superhuman after ’98. Of course, there’s an evolution in the capabilities of athletes, but I have a tough time identifying this separation in athletic prowess between the mid-‘90’s and the mid-‘00s. Does Allen Iverson have a tougher time scoring now than he did in ’97? Was Karl Malone way out of his element playing in this decade? Christ, Jordan had 40 point games playing at almost 40 years of age in 2003. This is not a good point to make. It’s virtually impossible to establish and she concedes that better athletes does not mean better players.
Why bring up McGrady if you’re acknowledging that he’s not that great a defender? Craig Ehlo DID play good defense. Just because he was white and he couldn’t jump out of the gym doesn’t mean he couldn’t play D. Also, wouldn’t a better point of reference be a guy like Dennis Rodman? I’d much rather have McGrady (or Bruce Bowen) on me than Rodman.
Anyway, guys on the wing are huge. You got a guy like 6-11 Lamar Odom, who is able to play four different positions.
Really? Jordan is going to be worried about Lamar Fucking Odom?
You have a 7-footer like Dirk Nowitzki playing the two (and by the way, foreign players were largely irrelevant during the Jordan era).
He does? He’s listed at power forward. He plays the two….once in a while? This is a big deal? Does he guard Kobe Bryant much? Does Kobe guard him? No? You know who could play 4 positions - ex-Blazer Cliff Robinson. Riveting, right?
I agree that the influx of foreign players has added to the talent level of the league. Congratulations, you’ve made a valid point.
You got Deron Williams playing the point at 6-5.
Wow, 6-5. We are truly in an age of superhuman basketball players. Magic was 6’9”. Jordan played against Kidd and Payton, who were taller than Williams (if this mattered, which it doesn't).
Also, Deron Williams is 6-3. I know this because the NBA, Jemele's employer, and Deron's website tell me this.
She goes into more depth here, and actually talks about basketball and stuff (hey, it is the 4th point), so I’ll transcribe the section.
The players today are bigger, faster and stronger than they were when Jordan played. Granted, the players from Jordan’s era were more skilled and had a higher basketball IQ, but it’s a lot different having to shoot over Craig Ehlo versus someone like Tracy McGrady, who is 6-foot-9 and just as quick. Of course, I realize that assumes McGrady would be interested in playing defense.
She’s made this point before. Players today are better athletes, but players during Jordan’s era were more skilled and had a better basketball IQ. Do you see how pointless and difficult to argue this point is? It’s not like Jordan played in the 60’s. Jordan played through ’98 (ignoring the Washington years). Kobe’s first year was ’96-’97 – NBA players didn’t become superhuman after ’98. Of course, there’s an evolution in the capabilities of athletes, but I have a tough time identifying this separation in athletic prowess between the mid-‘90’s and the mid-‘00s. Does Allen Iverson have a tougher time scoring now than he did in ’97? Was Karl Malone way out of his element playing in this decade? Christ, Jordan had 40 point games playing at almost 40 years of age in 2003. This is not a good point to make. It’s virtually impossible to establish and she concedes that better athletes does not mean better players.
Why bring up McGrady if you’re acknowledging that he’s not that great a defender? Craig Ehlo DID play good defense. Just because he was white and he couldn’t jump out of the gym doesn’t mean he couldn’t play D. Also, wouldn’t a better point of reference be a guy like Dennis Rodman? I’d much rather have McGrady (or Bruce Bowen) on me than Rodman.
Anyway, guys on the wing are huge. You got a guy like 6-11 Lamar Odom, who is able to play four different positions.
Really? Jordan is going to be worried about Lamar Fucking Odom?
You have a 7-footer like Dirk Nowitzki playing the two (and by the way, foreign players were largely irrelevant during the Jordan era).
He does? He’s listed at power forward. He plays the two….once in a while? This is a big deal? Does he guard Kobe Bryant much? Does Kobe guard him? No? You know who could play 4 positions - ex-Blazer Cliff Robinson. Riveting, right?
I agree that the influx of foreign players has added to the talent level of the league. Congratulations, you’ve made a valid point.
You got Deron Williams playing the point at 6-5.
Wow, 6-5. We are truly in an age of superhuman basketball players. Magic was 6’9”. Jordan played against Kidd and Payton, who were taller than Williams (if this mattered, which it doesn't).
Also, Deron Williams is 6-3. I know this because the NBA, Jemele's employer, and Deron's website tell me this.
But, you know, good point otherwise.
Now, this is not to say that Jordan wouldn’t have averaged 30 a game. He would.
Since that's his career average, doesn't that make this manner of comparison a little pointless.
Now, this is not to say that Jordan wouldn’t have averaged 30 a game. He would.
Since that's his career average, doesn't that make this manner of comparison a little pointless.
But we wouldn’t look at his athleticism in a vacuum if there were other players with just as much physical ability. Compared to Larry, Zeke and Magic, Jordan looked like a freak.
Did he look like an athletic freak next to Dominique Wilkins, Charles Barkley and Clyde Drexler? Oh, those guys aren't good examples, so just ignore them.
He wouldn’t look like a freak to us today with Kobe, Chris Paul, and LeBron James and others on the floor.
Sooo? Is anyone’s assertion anywhere that Jordan is better than Bryant because he’s a better athlete? Does anyone think this? That’s the point you’re making.
Which brings me to this: What would Jordan have done against LBJ, who is built like Julius Peppers and taller?
I don’t know, probably the same thing as Kobe Bryant? What would James have done against Jordan? He’d get smoked, that’s what. James had a tough enough time with Paul Pierce.
5. That Jordan never had to go through a dominating big man was a huge bonus. And no, I don’t count Shaq because he had diapers on. Olajuwon won his two when Jordan was out of the league. I MIGHT give you Patrick Ewing. Maybe even Karl Malone.
Comparing guards in sequential generations by analyzing the centers they played against is unbelievably stupid. But if you want to go there…
Jordan played against Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, and Alonzo Mourning in their primes. He played against Shaquille O’Neal from ’93-’98. Fuck that diapers shit, Shaq lead a 60 win Orlando team when he was 24 years old – his 4th year in the league. The year after he led them to the finals. Jordan’s Bulls destroyed them in ’96. ’96 – when the Bulls went through Mourning, Ewing and Shaq in sequential playoff series.
I guess what I’m saying is…..Jordan saw the best of a lot more big men the Kobe did, and (oh by the way), he didn’t have an all-time great like Shaq on his team for 8 years to handle those big men, as Kobe did. I love how it's to Kobe's credit to play against Shaq and Duncan when Shaq's prime was spent as Kobe's teammate.
That's like me saying..."There were great defenders during Jordan's day - like Scottie Pippen!"
But could in-his-prime Jordan have defeated in-his-prime Shaq in a seven-game series? Or what about Duncan? I have my doubts.
Kobe was Shaq’s teammate during Shaq’s prime??!??!?!?!??!!??!!???!?!??!?!? That’s a huge advantage. HE didn’t go through him. Jordan had many more battles (ahem, on court) with Shaq than Kobe has. What a stupid point.
Yes, Jordan missed Duncan. I think the big men he faced more than offset Duncan. Give me a break. What an inane way to compare shooting guards….by comparing the big men who they didn’t guard and weren’t guarded by. How many more titles would Jordan have won if he was able to play with a dominating big man like Shaq in the early stage of HIS career? I'll give him the rings in '89 and '90 right now.
She then goes on to point out that Kobe did some things Jordan wouldn’t do – like pouting and fucking up the Phoenix series a couple years ago. She also tells us that the “Shaq situation” would have turned out the same with Jordan. She’s a psychic! Anyway, it’s meaningless when discussing their respective games anyway. I also have to disagree.
But could in-his-prime Jordan have defeated in-his-prime Shaq in a seven-game series? Or what about Duncan? I have my doubts.
Kobe was Shaq’s teammate during Shaq’s prime??!??!?!?!??!!??!!???!?!??!?!? That’s a huge advantage. HE didn’t go through him. Jordan had many more battles (ahem, on court) with Shaq than Kobe has. What a stupid point.
Yes, Jordan missed Duncan. I think the big men he faced more than offset Duncan. Give me a break. What an inane way to compare shooting guards….by comparing the big men who they didn’t guard and weren’t guarded by. How many more titles would Jordan have won if he was able to play with a dominating big man like Shaq in the early stage of HIS career? I'll give him the rings in '89 and '90 right now.
She then goes on to point out that Kobe did some things Jordan wouldn’t do – like pouting and fucking up the Phoenix series a couple years ago. She also tells us that the “Shaq situation” would have turned out the same with Jordan. She’s a psychic! Anyway, it’s meaningless when discussing their respective games anyway. I also have to disagree.
If the Lakers win the championship we'll be met with a lot of "Kobe Bryant is as good as Jordan" type columns. I personally love this stuff - comparing players in NBA history. Hopefully, it's more well thought out than this. In Jemele's defense, it was just a blog post on her site, but it's not much different than her column on ESPN.com.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Jemele Hill Was One Perceptive 3 year Old
So maybe I’m just being an asshole and picking on Jemele Hill here – hey it’s what I do best. In this interview with Hoops Addict, which was linked on Deadspin - there is the following Q & A:
Mobley: One of my earliest basketball memories is Julius Erving cupping the ball, and gracefully dunking over Michael Cooper. What is your earliest basketball memory?
Hill: I’d probably say Bird v. Magic in the NCAA title game. I sensed it was very important, but it wasn’t until a couple years later that I understood why. We were looking at the future of the NBA.
I thought Jemele was about 30 – I didn’t look long but the first Google hit put her age at 30 in an interview written in July ’06. So let’s say 32. She graduated from Michigan St. in ’97, so that would hang together.
So, in March of 1979, Jemele Hill was probably 3 ½ or so. Educated guess.
Some early sports memories that I have would be watching some of the 1985 World Series – though I don’t remember watching a single play. I remember watching Mike Tyson knock out Trevor Berbeck live in 1986 at a friends house. I remember watching the baseball All-Star Game in 1984 at that same friend’s house and his older brother telling us to tell him if Rickey Henderson got on base. I remember watching the 1984 Summer Olympics – boxing - when I was on vacation visiting my grandparents. I was 6.
The first pro-sports event I ever went to was the Red Sox home-opener in 1986. I missed the day at school. The Red Sox lost to the Royals and I won a dollar because I bet the Royals would win – I figured they were like guaranteed because they were the reigning World Series champs. Marty Barrett hit a homerun into the net. I sat on the third base side.
Now – Jemele’s from Michigan so I’m sure the game was huge deal in her area. Like Flutie-mania in the Boston area in 1984 – I remember specifically getting a promotional Flutie poster at McDonalds. I of course recall Squish the Fish and Bury the Bears t-shirts in early 1986 during the Patriots march towards getting slaughtered in the Super Bowl. But I don’t remember the Celtics winning the ’81 title – because I was 3, and that’s damn near impossible.
I remember December 29, 1991 is Shawn Kemp day at an Elementary school playground in Massachusetts. I remember making predictions on who would win game 7 of the 1993 Western Conference finals and my friend predicting “Sonics by 3 in overtime” before the game and nailing it. I remember more random stuff about the NBA from 1988-1998 than I care to.
I have a pretty good memory for random sports stuff. The way it often works is you remember stupid, random items. I don’t remember shit from when I was 3. Jemele Hill? She remembers the turning point of modern basketball. I’m not trying to pick on her, maybe I’m just jealous – or impressed. I have a 3 year old nephew and he probably won’t remember the Pats blowing the Super Bowl and a chance at 19-0. Or maybe he will?
Speaking of remembering….remember this post, about Jemele changing her pick for MVP from Chris Paul to Kobe Bryant?
Mobley: Did you vote for MVP? If so, who did you vote for and why? If not, who would you have voted for?
Hill: I didn’t have a MVP vote, but if I did, I probably would have voted for Chris Paul. That’s a painful admission because I’ve been beating the Kobe for MVP drum for the last two seasons. Kobe taking Smush Parker, Kwame Brown, Chris Mihm, etc., to the playoffs was a lot more impressive than what he did this year. Chris Paul had one of the best seasons any point guard has ever had. He turned around a franchise and they nearly finished with the top seed in the West. How he elevated the games of the players around him was remarkable.
At least that's more in line with her passionate column supporting Paul.......that she contradicted a short time later.
Mobley: One of my earliest basketball memories is Julius Erving cupping the ball, and gracefully dunking over Michael Cooper. What is your earliest basketball memory?
Hill: I’d probably say Bird v. Magic in the NCAA title game. I sensed it was very important, but it wasn’t until a couple years later that I understood why. We were looking at the future of the NBA.
I thought Jemele was about 30 – I didn’t look long but the first Google hit put her age at 30 in an interview written in July ’06. So let’s say 32. She graduated from Michigan St. in ’97, so that would hang together.
So, in March of 1979, Jemele Hill was probably 3 ½ or so. Educated guess.
Some early sports memories that I have would be watching some of the 1985 World Series – though I don’t remember watching a single play. I remember watching Mike Tyson knock out Trevor Berbeck live in 1986 at a friends house. I remember watching the baseball All-Star Game in 1984 at that same friend’s house and his older brother telling us to tell him if Rickey Henderson got on base. I remember watching the 1984 Summer Olympics – boxing - when I was on vacation visiting my grandparents. I was 6.
The first pro-sports event I ever went to was the Red Sox home-opener in 1986. I missed the day at school. The Red Sox lost to the Royals and I won a dollar because I bet the Royals would win – I figured they were like guaranteed because they were the reigning World Series champs. Marty Barrett hit a homerun into the net. I sat on the third base side.
Now – Jemele’s from Michigan so I’m sure the game was huge deal in her area. Like Flutie-mania in the Boston area in 1984 – I remember specifically getting a promotional Flutie poster at McDonalds. I of course recall Squish the Fish and Bury the Bears t-shirts in early 1986 during the Patriots march towards getting slaughtered in the Super Bowl. But I don’t remember the Celtics winning the ’81 title – because I was 3, and that’s damn near impossible.
I remember December 29, 1991 is Shawn Kemp day at an Elementary school playground in Massachusetts. I remember making predictions on who would win game 7 of the 1993 Western Conference finals and my friend predicting “Sonics by 3 in overtime” before the game and nailing it. I remember more random stuff about the NBA from 1988-1998 than I care to.
I have a pretty good memory for random sports stuff. The way it often works is you remember stupid, random items. I don’t remember shit from when I was 3. Jemele Hill? She remembers the turning point of modern basketball. I’m not trying to pick on her, maybe I’m just jealous – or impressed. I have a 3 year old nephew and he probably won’t remember the Pats blowing the Super Bowl and a chance at 19-0. Or maybe he will?
Speaking of remembering….remember this post, about Jemele changing her pick for MVP from Chris Paul to Kobe Bryant?
Mobley: Did you vote for MVP? If so, who did you vote for and why? If not, who would you have voted for?
Hill: I didn’t have a MVP vote, but if I did, I probably would have voted for Chris Paul. That’s a painful admission because I’ve been beating the Kobe for MVP drum for the last two seasons. Kobe taking Smush Parker, Kwame Brown, Chris Mihm, etc., to the playoffs was a lot more impressive than what he did this year. Chris Paul had one of the best seasons any point guard has ever had. He turned around a franchise and they nearly finished with the top seed in the West. How he elevated the games of the players around him was remarkable.
At least that's more in line with her passionate column supporting Paul.......that she contradicted a short time later.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Jemele Hill vs. Logic, Round 8
According to Jemele Hill's latest, David Stern should want to see a Spurs-Pistons finals. No no no, ratings won't be as high as a Celtics-Lakers finals. No, the NBA won't make much money. True, we just saw a Spurs-Pistons finals a few years ago. So what's the reason?
Ugh...you ready? They play good defense, are good guys and if the Celtics and Lakers face off, everyone will think it's because of some NBA conspiracy. Yeah....yeah that's where this column spent most of its time. I didn't read ahead before posting this, so I didn't get the warning that you just received.
Forgive me, citizens of Easily Entertained, Need-Flash-To-Appreciate Nation for this blasphemous proposal:
Soooo we’re going to start off the column by insulting our readers?
Let's root for another edition of Pistons versus Spurs in the NBA Finals!
Let’s not and say we did (I’m in 6th grade).
(Trying to block out the sound of 260 million people collectively groaning.)
I'm hoping that suggestion doesn't make NBA commissioner David Stern lose his lunch. But if Stern could overcome his nausea at the thought of another clash of these underappreciated titans, even he would have to admit that Pistons-Spurs would be the best thing for the NBA.
I’m reading this column with you, reader. I haven’t read it yet. I just saw the title and knew this shit would be blog worthy, or at least that I’d want to post about it. So here I am, in my underwear, where I’ve been sitting for 6 days playing NHL ‘94 on my Sega Genesis while scouring the internet for bad journalism. Let’s see if Jemele puts forth a good reason for Stern to “have to admit” that Pistons-Spurs would be the best thing for the NBA. I just scored another goal with Pavel Bure, nice. Remember, that’s basically her thesis here, that it’s the best thing for the NBA.
Full disclosure: As a Detroiter, I would love to see the Pistons in the Finals for the sixth time in my lifetime. But this isn't about me. This is about the league's credibility.
No, it’s about you being a Pistons fan. This column should be trusted as much as a Simmons column about why the Celtics should be in the finals, or anything written by someone from San Antonio and LA. The votes of those four fan bases don’t count here, because they are biased.
As an NBA fan, there is nothing more irritating than when the league's credibility is challenged by cockamamy conspiracy theories. (See: New York Knicks and Patrick Ewing, and Michael Jordan's impromptu first retirement.)
Can you please bring this up to Bill Simmons next time you guys do a podcast. That guy is conspiracy theory central – straight out of that Mel Gibson movie, Mad Max. In fact, The Knicks getting the first pick (and therefore Ewing) and Jordan retiring because of some secret agreement with Stern are Simmons’ conspiracies! This paragraph belongs in a fucking ESPN memo, not a column.
The biggest NBA conspiracy theory going right now is that the league is trying to make a Boston-L.A. Finals happen, because it would mean insane television ratings and a return to the time when the dominance of those two franchises overshadowed everything else in sports.
Didn’t Simmons have a joke in yesterday’s column about Jack Nicholson reffing a game 7 so that the Lakers make the finals? I mean, people don’t actually think the league is rigging games, dummy, they are joking that the NBA would prefer an LA Boston finals because of the huge fan bases and the fact that they are the two most celebrated & successful franchises in the sport. Rocket science not this is. They aren’t serious.
This has undoubtedly been the NBA's best season since MJ's heyday.
I agree, probably, but I’m biased because I live in New England.
The Western Conference was the most competitive conference in NBA history,
Eh, I think this is an over-rated point.
the Slam Dunk Contest returned to relevancy,
Magic Johnson says this every year then he laughs like Elmer Fudd for 45 seconds. It’s a pretty irrelevant point here.
trades rejuvenated the Lakers and Celtics, Chris Paul emerged as the league's next transcendent player, and the drastically improved TV ratings in the playoffs showed that sports fans were gobbling it all up.
Word up.
If this were any other NBA season, the insinuation that the league was somehow working to orchestrate the return of the Lakers-Celtics rivalry would be considered a real reach -- but not when the Tim Donaghy betting scandal is still looming.
But…Tim Donaghy wasn’t operating on the behalf of the interests of the league. He was doing the opposite. He was acting for himself – against the interest of the league (the perception of fair play). So that example is not good. Oh, but you want to beat it into the ground for no reason? Fuckin-a man!
Many fans have long believed that the relationship NBA officials have with players and coaches influences how the games are called. But now those conspiracy theories have teeth, because Donaghy's lawyer, John Lauro, filed presentencing documents in federal court that supported what those conspiracy theorists have been screaming for years.
What does this have to do with the finals and why David Stern should prefer to have Spurs vs. Pistons? So people don’t think there’s a conspiracy? That’s how we’re deciding who we want in the finals?
Also in the Lauro papers were charges that other referees besides Donaghy participated in gambling activity. Couple that with what was reported about Jordan's extensive gambling and Charles Barkley's initially "overlooking" that he owed the Wynn casino $400K, and Donaghy's issues all of a sudden look like they're a part of a problematic NBA subculture.
So the reasons that you have for preferring the Pistons vs. the Spurs, other than the fact that you are an unabashed Pistons’ fan, is because you think fans will think the conference finals were fixed, and that will hurt the credibility of the game? I’m guessing that is where this is going. Sorry Jemele, we’re just not that dumb.
Certainly, you can look at the Donaghy situation and think of Matt Walsh, another guy who seems difficult to trust. The commissioner has said Donaghy's camp is making these wild accusations only so he can gain a more lenient sentence.
What do Diane Canon, Vinnie Johnson, Connor Henry, William Bedford, a parquet floor, Vinnie Del Negro, Tony Campbell, and the Alamo have in common?
They have more to do with the subject of this column than Tim Donaghy, and way the fuck more than Matt Walsh.
That could be true, but that still doesn't do anything to change the perception that the outcomes of NBA games are somehow tampered with. If there are any controversial calls that favor Boston or Los Angeles, or if there are games in which either of those teams makes a ton of trips to the foul line, the CTs (conspiracy theorists) will ask: What would prevent the NBA from urging the officials to call games a certain way to ensure a Finals involving teams from two of the biggest media markets in the country?
Okay, but I think when people say they want to see a Celtics vs. Lakers finals, they are saying that without any emotion of “I want the NBA to fix the conference finals.” I don’t think we, the fans, and David Stern, the commissioner, should root for the a Pistons vs. Spurs finals, that we may want to see less, just so there’s no room for a conspiracy theory that may be put forth by some fucking morons. Jemele and logic don’t like each other. People who want the Celtics and Lakers in the finals don’t want them to get there via questionable calls. So, if there are no questionable calls, then what’s the problem?
This would seem to be a fundamental flaw in the entire premise of this column, no? That if they get there without questionable calls or, who knows, in spite of calls against them, then there is no room for idiots to write about conspiracy theories. Everyone wins.
Oh but wait, what if the NBA is conspiring to put the Pistons and Spurs in the finals just to avoid the appearance of a conspiracy! See how this is a waste of time?
But if it's Pistons-Spurs, the NBA Finals will be conspiracy-free.
I saw this coming and it still feels like I just got punched in the face.
I anticipate the crybabies will complain that the Spurs and Pistons are boring to watch. But most real basketball and sports fans won't think that way -- just those casual NBA viewers who want it both ways. You know, the ones who deride the NBA for promoting individuals, but whine when Kobe, LeBron or some other one-named superstar isn't in the Finals. The ones who claim they love underdogs, but won't give the Pistons or Spurs a chance.
The casual viewers may not watch the finals for lack of a compelling superstar, true. I don’t know how you’ve immediately tagged those casual viewers as being people who are mad that the NBA promotes individuals. It’s like you’re making up a class of people to support your argument. Also, that last sentence is nonsensical bullshit. I don’t think there’s many people watching these conference finals with a sense that there are underdogs. The Spurs are the defending champs and the Pistons have been in 82 straight conference finals.
If you're someone who grumbles that NBA players don't play defense, you should root for Pistons-Spurs (although Boston may play the best defense of the remaining playoff teams).
If you want defense, root for the Pistons, even though the Celtics prolly play better defense. If I’m ever on trial for murder, I want Jemele to prosecute.
If you complain you're sick of seeing NBA teams that don't play hard, root for Pistons-Spurs. If you love teams that win because of their commitment to team basketball, root for Pistons-Spurs. If you're sick of seeing basketball dominated by And-1 wannabes, root for Pistons-Spurs.
Me: Jemele, how do any of those sentences disqualify the Celtics and Lakers?
Jemele: They don’t!
Me: Okay. Cool.
Also, the Detroit PA announcer sounds more hackish than an And-1 announcer.
These are two teams loaded with unselfishness -- and they feature players who are among the NBA's best citizens.
Ugh. Soooo………… this mean….the Celtics and Lakers….don’t? Also, I know this doesn't speak to their "citizenry", but aren't Bowen and Horry a little dirty sometimes? Doesn't Rasheed Wallace get kind of a lot of technicals? Also, what's with the spot on Sheed's head? What about that?
No, of course not. Jemele loves to just argue vague, fucked up points while ignoring the obvious aspect that these positives apply to all four of the remaining teams in the playoffs.
When people call Tim Duncan milquetoast, it makes me want to break kneecaps. First, Duncan is a thoughtful quote -- as are most of the Spurs. Second, Duncan shouldn't be penalized because he'd rather frustrate his opponents with precise passing out of double-teams and unstoppable bank shots, rather than trying to make the Top 10 Plays on "SportsCenter."
Yay, Tim Duncan is great! I just found this out. It’s still 1999, right? I’ve been alphabetizing canned goods and bomb proofing my basement for 4 months getting ready for New Years.
Duncan is perhaps the best player of his generation. The Pistons, who are in their sixth straight Eastern Conference finals, are maybe the closest thing the Eastern Conference has had to a dynasty since Jordan's Bulls.
Eh? Isn’t Kobe also perhaps the best player of his generation? It’s a good argument – I could support either guy. So that first sentence could apply to both Western Conference teams. I’m supposed to want the Pistons in the finals because they are a conference dynasty? That’s fucking lame. The Celtics are the biggest Eastern Conference dynasty in the history of the world, if you want to go there. Is that compelling? The team that has won 16 championships – the team of Russell, Cousy, and Bird getting their first shot in 22 years to add to their record 16 championships. All the while holding off the team that is hot on their tails for historical NBA supremecy, the Lakers? The team they battled so many times. The ’69 finals – game 7 in Russell’s final year- the Don Nelson bounce? Magic vs. Bird. Magic's hook. A team lead by one of the most entertaining players ever, Kobe Bryant? The team of Magic, West, Baylor, Chamberlain and O’Neal?
No? Not as intriguing as the team who has the closest thing to an Eastern Conference dynasty since Jordan retired? I'm supposed to want to see Chauncy Billups in another finals instead of seeing Garnett and Pierce take the shot at a championship?
It's easy to write a column about why you should pick option a over option b if you get to ignore every positive about option b.
If it's Pistons-Spurs, it's our core sports values at work.
Unlike the Lakers and Celtics. Buncha assholes. Did you know that Leon Powe tortures slugs with magnifying glasses on sunny days? I’m pretty sure Luke Walton punches pregnant women in the stomach. Kobe Bryant is a rapist……errr…..let’s move on.
Besides, unlike the Lakers and Celtics, the Pistons and Spurs didn't get to the conference finals with the help of questionable blockbuster deals. Talk about your NBA conspiracy theories. The Lakers got Pau Gasol for 10 rubles and a John Tesh DVD. And Kevin McHale forked Kevin Garnett over to the franchise he just so happened to win three NBA titles with. Nothing suspicious about that, right?
This is a sentence from earlier on:
As an NBA fan, there is nothing more irritating than when the league's credibility is challenged by cockamamy conspiracy theories.
Since that sentence, all Jemele has done is through out potential conspiracy theories and ballwash the Spurs and Pistons a little bit.
The Pistons and the Spurs built their teams the old-school way -- through coaching, drafting and crafty pickups.
Trades are not an old-school way to build a team. Rasheed Wallace and Rip Hamilton fell from the sky. The Lakers aren't coached well. PJ Brown was not a crafty pickup. I'm with you Jemele.
The Pistons drafted Tayshaun Prince as well as key reserves Jason Maxiell and Rodney Stuckey. They signed Antonio McDyess and Chauncey Billups -- nobody wanted "Bad Knees" McDyess, and Billups had played for five NBA teams before the Pistons. And they traded for Rasheed Wallace and Rip Hamilton -- Wallace had a bad rep as a hothead but propelled them to the NBA championship in 2004 , and when they traded for Hamilton, people thought they were crazy because it meant giving up Jerry Stackhouse.
The Spurs drafted Duncan, as well as sleeper-picks Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili -- pretty good choices, no? And who would have guessed Michael Finley would win a championship before former teammates Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash? But that's what happens when you roll with the smartest organization in the NBA.
You can argue the Gasol / Garnett trades if you want, but really you can’t argue about how any other players got on either of those teams. Here’s the question, do Gasol or Garnett make the Lakers or Celtics more or less compelling to watch in the finals? If it’s more, than the whole rant about how they built there teams means nothing. Because the column is supposed to be about who we want to watch in the finals. If you’d rather watch a Celtics/Lakers finals without those two, then you have an argument.
Pistons-Spurs -- that's what we all should be dying to see.
Annnnnnd we’re done. Are you convinced, David Stern?
Ugh...you ready? They play good defense, are good guys and if the Celtics and Lakers face off, everyone will think it's because of some NBA conspiracy. Yeah....yeah that's where this column spent most of its time. I didn't read ahead before posting this, so I didn't get the warning that you just received.
Forgive me, citizens of Easily Entertained, Need-Flash-To-Appreciate Nation for this blasphemous proposal:
Soooo we’re going to start off the column by insulting our readers?
Let's root for another edition of Pistons versus Spurs in the NBA Finals!
Let’s not and say we did (I’m in 6th grade).
(Trying to block out the sound of 260 million people collectively groaning.)
I'm hoping that suggestion doesn't make NBA commissioner David Stern lose his lunch. But if Stern could overcome his nausea at the thought of another clash of these underappreciated titans, even he would have to admit that Pistons-Spurs would be the best thing for the NBA.
I’m reading this column with you, reader. I haven’t read it yet. I just saw the title and knew this shit would be blog worthy, or at least that I’d want to post about it. So here I am, in my underwear, where I’ve been sitting for 6 days playing NHL ‘94 on my Sega Genesis while scouring the internet for bad journalism. Let’s see if Jemele puts forth a good reason for Stern to “have to admit” that Pistons-Spurs would be the best thing for the NBA. I just scored another goal with Pavel Bure, nice. Remember, that’s basically her thesis here, that it’s the best thing for the NBA.
Full disclosure: As a Detroiter, I would love to see the Pistons in the Finals for the sixth time in my lifetime. But this isn't about me. This is about the league's credibility.
No, it’s about you being a Pistons fan. This column should be trusted as much as a Simmons column about why the Celtics should be in the finals, or anything written by someone from San Antonio and LA. The votes of those four fan bases don’t count here, because they are biased.
As an NBA fan, there is nothing more irritating than when the league's credibility is challenged by cockamamy conspiracy theories. (See: New York Knicks and Patrick Ewing, and Michael Jordan's impromptu first retirement.)
Can you please bring this up to Bill Simmons next time you guys do a podcast. That guy is conspiracy theory central – straight out of that Mel Gibson movie, Mad Max. In fact, The Knicks getting the first pick (and therefore Ewing) and Jordan retiring because of some secret agreement with Stern are Simmons’ conspiracies! This paragraph belongs in a fucking ESPN memo, not a column.
The biggest NBA conspiracy theory going right now is that the league is trying to make a Boston-L.A. Finals happen, because it would mean insane television ratings and a return to the time when the dominance of those two franchises overshadowed everything else in sports.
Didn’t Simmons have a joke in yesterday’s column about Jack Nicholson reffing a game 7 so that the Lakers make the finals? I mean, people don’t actually think the league is rigging games, dummy, they are joking that the NBA would prefer an LA Boston finals because of the huge fan bases and the fact that they are the two most celebrated & successful franchises in the sport. Rocket science not this is. They aren’t serious.
This has undoubtedly been the NBA's best season since MJ's heyday.
I agree, probably, but I’m biased because I live in New England.
The Western Conference was the most competitive conference in NBA history,
Eh, I think this is an over-rated point.
the Slam Dunk Contest returned to relevancy,
Magic Johnson says this every year then he laughs like Elmer Fudd for 45 seconds. It’s a pretty irrelevant point here.
trades rejuvenated the Lakers and Celtics, Chris Paul emerged as the league's next transcendent player, and the drastically improved TV ratings in the playoffs showed that sports fans were gobbling it all up.
Word up.
If this were any other NBA season, the insinuation that the league was somehow working to orchestrate the return of the Lakers-Celtics rivalry would be considered a real reach -- but not when the Tim Donaghy betting scandal is still looming.
But…Tim Donaghy wasn’t operating on the behalf of the interests of the league. He was doing the opposite. He was acting for himself – against the interest of the league (the perception of fair play). So that example is not good. Oh, but you want to beat it into the ground for no reason? Fuckin-a man!
Many fans have long believed that the relationship NBA officials have with players and coaches influences how the games are called. But now those conspiracy theories have teeth, because Donaghy's lawyer, John Lauro, filed presentencing documents in federal court that supported what those conspiracy theorists have been screaming for years.
What does this have to do with the finals and why David Stern should prefer to have Spurs vs. Pistons? So people don’t think there’s a conspiracy? That’s how we’re deciding who we want in the finals?
Also in the Lauro papers were charges that other referees besides Donaghy participated in gambling activity. Couple that with what was reported about Jordan's extensive gambling and Charles Barkley's initially "overlooking" that he owed the Wynn casino $400K, and Donaghy's issues all of a sudden look like they're a part of a problematic NBA subculture.
So the reasons that you have for preferring the Pistons vs. the Spurs, other than the fact that you are an unabashed Pistons’ fan, is because you think fans will think the conference finals were fixed, and that will hurt the credibility of the game? I’m guessing that is where this is going. Sorry Jemele, we’re just not that dumb.
Certainly, you can look at the Donaghy situation and think of Matt Walsh, another guy who seems difficult to trust. The commissioner has said Donaghy's camp is making these wild accusations only so he can gain a more lenient sentence.
What do Diane Canon, Vinnie Johnson, Connor Henry, William Bedford, a parquet floor, Vinnie Del Negro, Tony Campbell, and the Alamo have in common?
They have more to do with the subject of this column than Tim Donaghy, and way the fuck more than Matt Walsh.
That could be true, but that still doesn't do anything to change the perception that the outcomes of NBA games are somehow tampered with. If there are any controversial calls that favor Boston or Los Angeles, or if there are games in which either of those teams makes a ton of trips to the foul line, the CTs (conspiracy theorists) will ask: What would prevent the NBA from urging the officials to call games a certain way to ensure a Finals involving teams from two of the biggest media markets in the country?
Okay, but I think when people say they want to see a Celtics vs. Lakers finals, they are saying that without any emotion of “I want the NBA to fix the conference finals.” I don’t think we, the fans, and David Stern, the commissioner, should root for the a Pistons vs. Spurs finals, that we may want to see less, just so there’s no room for a conspiracy theory that may be put forth by some fucking morons. Jemele and logic don’t like each other. People who want the Celtics and Lakers in the finals don’t want them to get there via questionable calls. So, if there are no questionable calls, then what’s the problem?
This would seem to be a fundamental flaw in the entire premise of this column, no? That if they get there without questionable calls or, who knows, in spite of calls against them, then there is no room for idiots to write about conspiracy theories. Everyone wins.
Oh but wait, what if the NBA is conspiring to put the Pistons and Spurs in the finals just to avoid the appearance of a conspiracy! See how this is a waste of time?
But if it's Pistons-Spurs, the NBA Finals will be conspiracy-free.
I saw this coming and it still feels like I just got punched in the face.
I anticipate the crybabies will complain that the Spurs and Pistons are boring to watch. But most real basketball and sports fans won't think that way -- just those casual NBA viewers who want it both ways. You know, the ones who deride the NBA for promoting individuals, but whine when Kobe, LeBron or some other one-named superstar isn't in the Finals. The ones who claim they love underdogs, but won't give the Pistons or Spurs a chance.
The casual viewers may not watch the finals for lack of a compelling superstar, true. I don’t know how you’ve immediately tagged those casual viewers as being people who are mad that the NBA promotes individuals. It’s like you’re making up a class of people to support your argument. Also, that last sentence is nonsensical bullshit. I don’t think there’s many people watching these conference finals with a sense that there are underdogs. The Spurs are the defending champs and the Pistons have been in 82 straight conference finals.
If you're someone who grumbles that NBA players don't play defense, you should root for Pistons-Spurs (although Boston may play the best defense of the remaining playoff teams).
If you want defense, root for the Pistons, even though the Celtics prolly play better defense. If I’m ever on trial for murder, I want Jemele to prosecute.
If you complain you're sick of seeing NBA teams that don't play hard, root for Pistons-Spurs. If you love teams that win because of their commitment to team basketball, root for Pistons-Spurs. If you're sick of seeing basketball dominated by And-1 wannabes, root for Pistons-Spurs.
Me: Jemele, how do any of those sentences disqualify the Celtics and Lakers?
Jemele: They don’t!
Me: Okay. Cool.
Also, the Detroit PA announcer sounds more hackish than an And-1 announcer.
These are two teams loaded with unselfishness -- and they feature players who are among the NBA's best citizens.
Ugh. Soooo………… this mean….the Celtics and Lakers….don’t? Also, I know this doesn't speak to their "citizenry", but aren't Bowen and Horry a little dirty sometimes? Doesn't Rasheed Wallace get kind of a lot of technicals? Also, what's with the spot on Sheed's head? What about that?
No, of course not. Jemele loves to just argue vague, fucked up points while ignoring the obvious aspect that these positives apply to all four of the remaining teams in the playoffs.
When people call Tim Duncan milquetoast, it makes me want to break kneecaps. First, Duncan is a thoughtful quote -- as are most of the Spurs. Second, Duncan shouldn't be penalized because he'd rather frustrate his opponents with precise passing out of double-teams and unstoppable bank shots, rather than trying to make the Top 10 Plays on "SportsCenter."
Yay, Tim Duncan is great! I just found this out. It’s still 1999, right? I’ve been alphabetizing canned goods and bomb proofing my basement for 4 months getting ready for New Years.
Duncan is perhaps the best player of his generation. The Pistons, who are in their sixth straight Eastern Conference finals, are maybe the closest thing the Eastern Conference has had to a dynasty since Jordan's Bulls.
Eh? Isn’t Kobe also perhaps the best player of his generation? It’s a good argument – I could support either guy. So that first sentence could apply to both Western Conference teams. I’m supposed to want the Pistons in the finals because they are a conference dynasty? That’s fucking lame. The Celtics are the biggest Eastern Conference dynasty in the history of the world, if you want to go there. Is that compelling? The team that has won 16 championships – the team of Russell, Cousy, and Bird getting their first shot in 22 years to add to their record 16 championships. All the while holding off the team that is hot on their tails for historical NBA supremecy, the Lakers? The team they battled so many times. The ’69 finals – game 7 in Russell’s final year- the Don Nelson bounce? Magic vs. Bird. Magic's hook. A team lead by one of the most entertaining players ever, Kobe Bryant? The team of Magic, West, Baylor, Chamberlain and O’Neal?
No? Not as intriguing as the team who has the closest thing to an Eastern Conference dynasty since Jordan retired? I'm supposed to want to see Chauncy Billups in another finals instead of seeing Garnett and Pierce take the shot at a championship?
It's easy to write a column about why you should pick option a over option b if you get to ignore every positive about option b.
If it's Pistons-Spurs, it's our core sports values at work.
Unlike the Lakers and Celtics. Buncha assholes. Did you know that Leon Powe tortures slugs with magnifying glasses on sunny days? I’m pretty sure Luke Walton punches pregnant women in the stomach. Kobe Bryant is a rapist……errr…..let’s move on.
Besides, unlike the Lakers and Celtics, the Pistons and Spurs didn't get to the conference finals with the help of questionable blockbuster deals. Talk about your NBA conspiracy theories. The Lakers got Pau Gasol for 10 rubles and a John Tesh DVD. And Kevin McHale forked Kevin Garnett over to the franchise he just so happened to win three NBA titles with. Nothing suspicious about that, right?
This is a sentence from earlier on:
As an NBA fan, there is nothing more irritating than when the league's credibility is challenged by cockamamy conspiracy theories.
Since that sentence, all Jemele has done is through out potential conspiracy theories and ballwash the Spurs and Pistons a little bit.
The Pistons and the Spurs built their teams the old-school way -- through coaching, drafting and crafty pickups.
Trades are not an old-school way to build a team. Rasheed Wallace and Rip Hamilton fell from the sky. The Lakers aren't coached well. PJ Brown was not a crafty pickup. I'm with you Jemele.
The Pistons drafted Tayshaun Prince as well as key reserves Jason Maxiell and Rodney Stuckey. They signed Antonio McDyess and Chauncey Billups -- nobody wanted "Bad Knees" McDyess, and Billups had played for five NBA teams before the Pistons. And they traded for Rasheed Wallace and Rip Hamilton -- Wallace had a bad rep as a hothead but propelled them to the NBA championship in 2004 , and when they traded for Hamilton, people thought they were crazy because it meant giving up Jerry Stackhouse.
The Spurs drafted Duncan, as well as sleeper-picks Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili -- pretty good choices, no? And who would have guessed Michael Finley would win a championship before former teammates Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash? But that's what happens when you roll with the smartest organization in the NBA.
You can argue the Gasol / Garnett trades if you want, but really you can’t argue about how any other players got on either of those teams. Here’s the question, do Gasol or Garnett make the Lakers or Celtics more or less compelling to watch in the finals? If it’s more, than the whole rant about how they built there teams means nothing. Because the column is supposed to be about who we want to watch in the finals. If you’d rather watch a Celtics/Lakers finals without those two, then you have an argument.
Pistons-Spurs -- that's what we all should be dying to see.
Annnnnnd we’re done. Are you convinced, David Stern?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Jemele Hill Can Not Be Taken Seriously
Here is Jemele, on April 4th:, on the subject of the NBA MVP:
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No question, Kobe has put up some unbelievable numbers this season. But if New Orleans finishes first in the West and Chris Paul doesn't win the MVP, this award officially can't be taken seriously.
Here are Jemele's top 5 MVP picks, in order:
Kobe Bryant: I know I recently wrote that Chris Paul deserves the MVP, but the Hornets appear to be slipping a bit while the Lakers are still surging. Besides, if Kobe doesn't win it this year, he may go down as the greatest player to never win an MVP. That's as bad as giving Steve Nash two MVPs.
Oh i see, the Hornets have won tonight and are now tied for first with the Lakers (pending the Lakers game that is in the first quarter). Since they fell like .5 games behind the Lakers as of the time this was posted on ESPN.com, Kobe Bryant is the MVP?
Hmmm, doesn't the paragraph above sort of sound a bit like she's even saying that Kobe should win because it's "his time". This is what Jemele said last week:
But giving Kobe the MVP just because "it's his time" or "he's learned to be a team player" is a disservice.
Is she serious? Is she? That was 11 days ago?
Chris Paul: Paul is having one of the finest seasons a point guard has ever had. He made the Hornets a contender in the West, a feat that absolutely no one expected. If CP3 had won in L.A. last Friday, I may have reversed field. Honestly, this MVP race is so close, so that's still a possibility.
1 regular season game decides the MVP now?
In case you gave her a shred of credibility at this point, her number 5 is Hedo Turkoglu - who is not the most valuable player on his team.
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No question, Kobe has put up some unbelievable numbers this season. But if New Orleans finishes first in the West and Chris Paul doesn't win the MVP, this award officially can't be taken seriously.
Here are Jemele's top 5 MVP picks, in order:
Kobe Bryant: I know I recently wrote that Chris Paul deserves the MVP, but the Hornets appear to be slipping a bit while the Lakers are still surging. Besides, if Kobe doesn't win it this year, he may go down as the greatest player to never win an MVP. That's as bad as giving Steve Nash two MVPs.
Oh i see, the Hornets have won tonight and are now tied for first with the Lakers (pending the Lakers game that is in the first quarter). Since they fell like .5 games behind the Lakers as of the time this was posted on ESPN.com, Kobe Bryant is the MVP?
Hmmm, doesn't the paragraph above sort of sound a bit like she's even saying that Kobe should win because it's "his time". This is what Jemele said last week:
But giving Kobe the MVP just because "it's his time" or "he's learned to be a team player" is a disservice.
Is she serious? Is she? That was 11 days ago?
Chris Paul: Paul is having one of the finest seasons a point guard has ever had. He made the Hornets a contender in the West, a feat that absolutely no one expected. If CP3 had won in L.A. last Friday, I may have reversed field. Honestly, this MVP race is so close, so that's still a possibility.
1 regular season game decides the MVP now?
In case you gave her a shred of credibility at this point, her number 5 is Hedo Turkoglu - who is not the most valuable player on his team.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Jemele Hill Creates Another Argument to Refute, Volume 10
I imagine it’s difficult in many respects to be a columnist (especially for a magazine or newspaper – harder deadlines), but it can’t be that hard to come up with topics right? Right now, the NBA MVP is a good topic of conversation, as it’s been an intriguing and outstanding NBA season and there are a few names to talk about. But Jemele Hill doesn’t tend to write pieces with the mindset of, say, “Chris Paul should be the MVP”. She apparently doesn’t think that this is interesting enough. She instead positions her column “EVERYONE is saying Kobe Bryant should be the MVP, and that’s wrong”. The problem? It’s not true. I’ve heard/read MVP support for Paul, Bryant, Lebron James, Kevin Garnett and I've even seen Tim Duncan's name mentioned. I just don’t have the impression that it’s a slam dunk for everyone. In fact, I think I’ve heard the most support for Jemele’s pick, Chris Paul.
In her latest column, Jemele acts like it’s a foregone conclusion that Kobe is the MVP in the eyes of most basketball media. I think Kobe’s getting plenty of press, but so are the other candidates.
This is nothing new for Jemele. In this column she argued that the negativity that you were putting on Randy Moss late last year by criticizing his success was unfounded! In this column she argued that Barry Bonds should be in the all-star game, despite his performance during the season, because he’s breaking an all-time record. She glosses over the fact that Bonds was playing at an all-star level and clearly should have been the Giants’ All-Star representative.
Anyway, let’s get to the newest work.
What movie did Al Pacino win Best Actor for?
(a) "Scarface"(b) "Dog Day Afternoon"(c) "The Godfather"(d) "The Godfather: Part II"(e) None of the above, because Academy Award voters are stupid
Hmmm, well Brando won for the Godfather. Nicholson won for Cuckoo’s Nest the year Al Pacino was up for Dog Day Afternoon. He didn’t get nominated for Scarface. I didn’t see any of the movies that had an actor nominated that year so I can’t comment. Pacino not winning for Godfather Part II would seem to be a terrible miss. I didn’t see Art Carney in Harry and Tonto but he better have been damn good.
Wait, what’s going on, I’m on ESPN.com right?
Actually, this is the same analogy she lead her column off with last year.
When I hear people say that Dirk has the MVP wrapped up, it makes me think the race has become just as political and illogical as the Academy Awards.
She’ll either borrow from or contradict that column a few times here.
Pacino, a seven-time Oscar nominee, finally won Best Actor in 1992 for "Scent of a Woman." To date, it's Pacino's only Oscar, and any Pacino fan will tell you that seeing him win for "Scent of a Woman" was like seeing Ice Cube for the first time without his jheri curl. It just wasn't right. It didn't make sense. And you felt cheated.
This is why I don’t read Jemele Hill much. She makes little sense. Wouldn’t you have felt more cheated if you saw him lose for Scent of a Woman, if you felt he had been cheated in the past?
Sadly, the NBA MVP race has become just as warped and backwards as the Academy Awards. The definition of MVP seems to change every year, and all too often players are rewarded for sentimental reasons and discredited using other ludicrous rationales.
Almost every sport’s MVP race is as warped and backwards as the Academy Awards. That’s because it’s an award voted on by tons of people with conflicting views and interests. The NBA is no different.
It's no different this season, which somehow universally came to be known as "Kobe's year," even if the Lakers don't finish with the top seed in the Western Conference.
Classic Jemele Hill bullshit. It’s UNIVERSALLY “Kobe’s Year”. She’s right! I haven’t heard any support for Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett or Lebron James! No, no that’s not right. Not at all. Jemele Hill is about to create another argument to disagree with. The “only Kobe Bryant is getting MVP attention, and that’s wrong!” argument.
Next week from Jemele Hill – “No one is paying attention to Barack Obama for the Democratic Nomination.” Or, “Why didn’t No Country for Old Men get any Oscar buzz!”
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No question, Kobe has put up some unbelievable numbers this season. But if New Orleans finishes first in the West and Chris Paul doesn't win the MVP, this award officially can't be taken seriously.
This award officially couldn’t be taken seriously in 1962 when Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points and 26 rebounds and lost to Bill Russell (19/24), presumably because Russell had much better teammates. It’s had off years since then too.
Also, "unbelievable" is now the most overused term of exaggeration on the planet. If you told me in October that Kobe Bryant's numbers would be 28.6 points, 6.4 rebounds and 5.4 assists while shooting 46% from the field...the last thought I would have is "that's unbelievable!" I probably would have said....."um, yeah.....that's pretty much what he does every year, minus a few points."
It would be criminal to overlook one of the most brilliant seasons a point guard has ever had. Paul averaged 24 points, 13 assists and nearly 3 steals per game in March. In fact, he's on the verge of becoming the first point guard since John Stockton to lead the league in both assists and steals in the same season. Nobody expected anything from the Hornets, and they're poised to win perhaps the most competitive conference we've ever seen in the NBA.
Paul’s been great and is a worthy MVP pick, so I’m not griping about that, but I don’t follow her last sentence. The conference is awesome, but it’s without a true all-time powerhouse regular season team. It’s good 1-9, but that doesn’t mean it’s harder to win than say, the Eastern Conference in 1996 if you’re a team that’s not the Chicago Bulls. Good luck winning 73 games to win the top seed.
I like how she cherry picks March stats too. Lebron James in March? 31 points, 8 boards, 7 assists, 48% shooting. Actually, that's basically his line for the year as well.
That's the very definition of MVP -- individual brilliance coinciding with team success. I'm a Kobe supporter, and I still stand by my assertion that Kobe is a more skilled player than Michael Jordan was.
I stand by my assertion that your column on Kobe being more skilled than Michael Jordan was about as well argued as Britney Spears’ child custody case. (Get it? She like never showed up for court? It was all over the entertainment news sources – so it’s pretty topical. Aww fuck you.)
The fact that Jemele thinks she has to remind readers how much she likes Kobe Bryant is laughable. She defends/supports him all the time. Remember this mess comparing Bryant to Alex Rodriguez? I'm actually a Kobe fan but she backs him nonstop.
But giving Kobe the MVP just because "it's his time" or "he's learned to be a team player" is a disservice.
No shit. Who are you arguing with? Oh that’s right, yourself.
This is what has become most frustrating about the evolution of the MVP race. Over time, merit has become less of a factor.
Not entirely accurate. So when Steve Nash won ’05 and ’06, it was because he was “due”. Oh…..I don’t think so. Iverson, Garnett, Duncan...these guys didn't win because of merit? In fact, I challenge you Jemele Hill to point to this happening in a recent year.
In the 1996-97 season, the MVP was thrown in Karl Malone's lap strictly because voters seemed sick of giving it to Michael Jordan, who won the MVP five times.
So the MVP has evolved into a race where merit is less of a factor, and it’s more of a lifetime achievement deal, and the last example of this is over 10 years ago? See, I think the voters have been trying to give it to the most deserving player each year (for their performance in the year) and that’s why you’re reaching back 10 years. Jordan not winning in ’97 was a little nutty, the Bulls won 69 games and Jordan was the best player in the league.
Before that, the benefactor of ABJ (Anybody But Jordan) was Charles Barkley, who was named the MVP for the 1992-93 season even though Jordan averaged 32 points, 6.7 assists and 5.5 rebounds.
Okay, but Barkley averaged 26 points, 12 boards and 5 assists to lead the Suns to the best record in the NBA. See, it’s more interesting when you don’t just spout out half the story. I would have given it to Jordan but Barkley was an entirely defensible, worthy winner.
LeBron James probably didn't get the consideration he deserved last season because of the "he has plenty of time to win an MVP" argument.
Dirk Nowitzki – 29/9/3 leading the Mavs to the best record in the NBA. Should he have won MVP? No, I don’t think so. Did Lebron (27/7/6) lose because he is young and has plenty of time……naw…. He didn’t get the same voting consideration because Dirk’s team won 17 more games. Flip the records around and Dirk isn’t in the top 5 in voting and Lebron walks away with the thing. Writer’s always put a premium on team success in their MVP voting. This is not a mystery.
Two-time MVP winner Tim Duncan should have gotten stronger consideration last season, too. But Duncan is the NBA's version of Russell Crowe.
Tim Duncan throws phones at people?
After Crowe won Best Actor for "Gladiator," the Academy overlooked him for both "The Insider" and "A "Beautiful Mind." Crowe won't win another one because he's too consistently good. Same goes for Duncan.
Um….hmmmm… Crowe was nominated for The Insider in 1999. He won for Gladiator in 2000. So you’re theory both sucks and is inaccurate. Saying he won’t win another one because he’s consistently good is beyond moronic. He might not win another won because it’s very very hard to win multiple best Actor Oscars. The most anyone has won is 2! There are a lot of NBA players with more than 2 awards (with less history). Katharine Hepburn did win 4 in the female category though I guess. Why the fuck am I looking this up again? Ohhhh right….because Jemele’s telling me the MVP is like the Oscar. This sounds familiar. Hmmm….oh right, she told me this last year:
Sounds just like when people were arguing that Russell Crowe shouldn't win an Oscar for "A Beautiful Mind" since (a) he'd already won one for "Gladiator"…
Boring. Also, were people even saying that? She has used the same example two friggin years in a row and I don't remember that being some sort of hot issue back then. Didn't Hanks win two in a row in the early 90's?
What really makes no sense about this argument, is that she's saying that the MVP voters are reluctant to reward players who are consistently good, therefore Duncan doesn't get enough MVP attention. Um...hmm....Jordan won 5. Bird won 3. Magic won 3. Kareem won 6. Nash won two in a row. Very recently! This goes against the premise of your argument.
And only in the NBA could Shaq, the most dominant center of all time, have one MVP while Steve Nash, who has never gotten his team to the NBA Finals, has two.
Playoff performance means jack shit in NBA voting. It’s a regular season award. Also, your pick, Chris Paul, has never led his team to an NBA finals. See how that’s unfair?
Also, Jemele knows this, as this is what she wrote last year:
Winning a championship is not a requirement for a MVP. Yeah, I know I just killed Malone above, but he won two MVPs and didn't win a title. Allen Iverson and Kevin Garnett also have MVPs, but no titles. Sure, Iverson and Malone made it to the NBA Finals, but this is a REGULAR-SEASON award.
Not only does she create arguments to counter, she counters her own arguments – she just trusts that you’re too dumb to remember.
That's why it's difficult to argue against Kobe, knowing he was cheated out of at least one MVP -- the one Dirk Nowitzki shamelessly won last season.
Shame on you, Dirk Nowitzki. How dare you be voted as MVP by a bunch of random writers! Go back to Germania! (sorry, I had to)
But while Kobe's renewed commitment to team ball makes for a cute catchphrase, it's a misnomer. Obviously Kobe has matured, but he's a better teammate primarily because he's got a fellow All-Star in Pau Gasol, a deeper, more skilled bench, and an emerging star in Andrew Bynum. Teamwork becomes much easier when your teammates can actually do something with the ball.
Which brings me to another frustrating element of the MVP race. Why are good players considered stronger MVP candidates when they have more help? (See: Kevin Garnett, the 2003-04 MVP.) Isn't the concept of "value" based on doing more with less?
I hate trying to confine the MVP award this way, it drives me nuts. It should be about who played the best fucking basketball. Anyway, no, value is about playing basketball very well while doing the most in proportion with what you have – be it a lot or a little. This is getting a little too esoteric for me, back to the column…
That should be the only criteria. And if it is, Paul is the MVP over Kobe, LeBron and KG. LeBron has had a fine season, and he certainly ranks high in the value department, but Cleveland's team success isn't significant enough to warrant LeBron winning. KG's presence transformed the Celtics, but it certainly helps that he has All-Star security blankets Paul Pierce and Ray Allen.
No, no no I will not let you get away with this. You just said that Kobe Bryant was cheated out of the MVP last year. Then you said Lebron James shouldn’t win because his team’s success is not significant enough. Kobe’s Lakers were 42-40 last year. Lebron’s Cavs are 42-34, on pace for about 45-46 wins – with some shit-ass teammates I’ll add. Yes, the West was better last year, but this is really just you making up qualifiers as you go along to conveniently support your arguments.
This is what Jemele wrote last year supporting Bryant:
But at the same time, it's not fair to eliminate Kobe Bryant because the Lakers are only a 6 or 7 seed. Kobe has the least talented teammates to work with of the MVP candidates and that his team is even in the playoff hunt is a miracle. Besides, most NBA players regard Kobe as the best player in the league and that should mean something, too. Team success is an important component, but it can't be the entire equation.
Given that those were here sentiments supporting Kobe last year, how does she eliminate Lebron James so easily this year?
Cleveland's team success isn't significant enough to warrant LeBron winning.
Huh?
But, if recent MVP races are any indication, politics will win again.
So congrats, Kobe.
I was watching Sports Reporters as I began writing this, and John Saunders started his final point. He said, “I know I’m not the first one to push for Chris Paul to win the MVP…”.
Tell that to Jemele Hill.
Jemele’s next column…. "will someone please talk about the rise of oil prices!”
In her latest column, Jemele acts like it’s a foregone conclusion that Kobe is the MVP in the eyes of most basketball media. I think Kobe’s getting plenty of press, but so are the other candidates.
This is nothing new for Jemele. In this column she argued that the negativity that you were putting on Randy Moss late last year by criticizing his success was unfounded! In this column she argued that Barry Bonds should be in the all-star game, despite his performance during the season, because he’s breaking an all-time record. She glosses over the fact that Bonds was playing at an all-star level and clearly should have been the Giants’ All-Star representative.
Anyway, let’s get to the newest work.
What movie did Al Pacino win Best Actor for?
(a) "Scarface"(b) "Dog Day Afternoon"(c) "The Godfather"(d) "The Godfather: Part II"(e) None of the above, because Academy Award voters are stupid
Hmmm, well Brando won for the Godfather. Nicholson won for Cuckoo’s Nest the year Al Pacino was up for Dog Day Afternoon. He didn’t get nominated for Scarface. I didn’t see any of the movies that had an actor nominated that year so I can’t comment. Pacino not winning for Godfather Part II would seem to be a terrible miss. I didn’t see Art Carney in Harry and Tonto but he better have been damn good.
Wait, what’s going on, I’m on ESPN.com right?
Actually, this is the same analogy she lead her column off with last year.
When I hear people say that Dirk has the MVP wrapped up, it makes me think the race has become just as political and illogical as the Academy Awards.
She’ll either borrow from or contradict that column a few times here.
Pacino, a seven-time Oscar nominee, finally won Best Actor in 1992 for "Scent of a Woman." To date, it's Pacino's only Oscar, and any Pacino fan will tell you that seeing him win for "Scent of a Woman" was like seeing Ice Cube for the first time without his jheri curl. It just wasn't right. It didn't make sense. And you felt cheated.
This is why I don’t read Jemele Hill much. She makes little sense. Wouldn’t you have felt more cheated if you saw him lose for Scent of a Woman, if you felt he had been cheated in the past?
Sadly, the NBA MVP race has become just as warped and backwards as the Academy Awards. The definition of MVP seems to change every year, and all too often players are rewarded for sentimental reasons and discredited using other ludicrous rationales.
Almost every sport’s MVP race is as warped and backwards as the Academy Awards. That’s because it’s an award voted on by tons of people with conflicting views and interests. The NBA is no different.
It's no different this season, which somehow universally came to be known as "Kobe's year," even if the Lakers don't finish with the top seed in the Western Conference.
Classic Jemele Hill bullshit. It’s UNIVERSALLY “Kobe’s Year”. She’s right! I haven’t heard any support for Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett or Lebron James! No, no that’s not right. Not at all. Jemele Hill is about to create another argument to disagree with. The “only Kobe Bryant is getting MVP attention, and that’s wrong!” argument.
Next week from Jemele Hill – “No one is paying attention to Barack Obama for the Democratic Nomination.” Or, “Why didn’t No Country for Old Men get any Oscar buzz!”
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No question, Kobe has put up some unbelievable numbers this season. But if New Orleans finishes first in the West and Chris Paul doesn't win the MVP, this award officially can't be taken seriously.
This award officially couldn’t be taken seriously in 1962 when Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points and 26 rebounds and lost to Bill Russell (19/24), presumably because Russell had much better teammates. It’s had off years since then too.
Also, "unbelievable" is now the most overused term of exaggeration on the planet. If you told me in October that Kobe Bryant's numbers would be 28.6 points, 6.4 rebounds and 5.4 assists while shooting 46% from the field...the last thought I would have is "that's unbelievable!" I probably would have said....."um, yeah.....that's pretty much what he does every year, minus a few points."
It would be criminal to overlook one of the most brilliant seasons a point guard has ever had. Paul averaged 24 points, 13 assists and nearly 3 steals per game in March. In fact, he's on the verge of becoming the first point guard since John Stockton to lead the league in both assists and steals in the same season. Nobody expected anything from the Hornets, and they're poised to win perhaps the most competitive conference we've ever seen in the NBA.
Paul’s been great and is a worthy MVP pick, so I’m not griping about that, but I don’t follow her last sentence. The conference is awesome, but it’s without a true all-time powerhouse regular season team. It’s good 1-9, but that doesn’t mean it’s harder to win than say, the Eastern Conference in 1996 if you’re a team that’s not the Chicago Bulls. Good luck winning 73 games to win the top seed.
I like how she cherry picks March stats too. Lebron James in March? 31 points, 8 boards, 7 assists, 48% shooting. Actually, that's basically his line for the year as well.
That's the very definition of MVP -- individual brilliance coinciding with team success. I'm a Kobe supporter, and I still stand by my assertion that Kobe is a more skilled player than Michael Jordan was.
I stand by my assertion that your column on Kobe being more skilled than Michael Jordan was about as well argued as Britney Spears’ child custody case. (Get it? She like never showed up for court? It was all over the entertainment news sources – so it’s pretty topical. Aww fuck you.)
The fact that Jemele thinks she has to remind readers how much she likes Kobe Bryant is laughable. She defends/supports him all the time. Remember this mess comparing Bryant to Alex Rodriguez? I'm actually a Kobe fan but she backs him nonstop.
But giving Kobe the MVP just because "it's his time" or "he's learned to be a team player" is a disservice.
No shit. Who are you arguing with? Oh that’s right, yourself.
This is what has become most frustrating about the evolution of the MVP race. Over time, merit has become less of a factor.
Not entirely accurate. So when Steve Nash won ’05 and ’06, it was because he was “due”. Oh…..I don’t think so. Iverson, Garnett, Duncan...these guys didn't win because of merit? In fact, I challenge you Jemele Hill to point to this happening in a recent year.
In the 1996-97 season, the MVP was thrown in Karl Malone's lap strictly because voters seemed sick of giving it to Michael Jordan, who won the MVP five times.
So the MVP has evolved into a race where merit is less of a factor, and it’s more of a lifetime achievement deal, and the last example of this is over 10 years ago? See, I think the voters have been trying to give it to the most deserving player each year (for their performance in the year) and that’s why you’re reaching back 10 years. Jordan not winning in ’97 was a little nutty, the Bulls won 69 games and Jordan was the best player in the league.
Before that, the benefactor of ABJ (Anybody But Jordan) was Charles Barkley, who was named the MVP for the 1992-93 season even though Jordan averaged 32 points, 6.7 assists and 5.5 rebounds.
Okay, but Barkley averaged 26 points, 12 boards and 5 assists to lead the Suns to the best record in the NBA. See, it’s more interesting when you don’t just spout out half the story. I would have given it to Jordan but Barkley was an entirely defensible, worthy winner.
LeBron James probably didn't get the consideration he deserved last season because of the "he has plenty of time to win an MVP" argument.
Dirk Nowitzki – 29/9/3 leading the Mavs to the best record in the NBA. Should he have won MVP? No, I don’t think so. Did Lebron (27/7/6) lose because he is young and has plenty of time……naw…. He didn’t get the same voting consideration because Dirk’s team won 17 more games. Flip the records around and Dirk isn’t in the top 5 in voting and Lebron walks away with the thing. Writer’s always put a premium on team success in their MVP voting. This is not a mystery.
Two-time MVP winner Tim Duncan should have gotten stronger consideration last season, too. But Duncan is the NBA's version of Russell Crowe.
Tim Duncan throws phones at people?
After Crowe won Best Actor for "Gladiator," the Academy overlooked him for both "The Insider" and "A "Beautiful Mind." Crowe won't win another one because he's too consistently good. Same goes for Duncan.
Um….hmmmm… Crowe was nominated for The Insider in 1999. He won for Gladiator in 2000. So you’re theory both sucks and is inaccurate. Saying he won’t win another one because he’s consistently good is beyond moronic. He might not win another won because it’s very very hard to win multiple best Actor Oscars. The most anyone has won is 2! There are a lot of NBA players with more than 2 awards (with less history). Katharine Hepburn did win 4 in the female category though I guess. Why the fuck am I looking this up again? Ohhhh right….because Jemele’s telling me the MVP is like the Oscar. This sounds familiar. Hmmm….oh right, she told me this last year:
Sounds just like when people were arguing that Russell Crowe shouldn't win an Oscar for "A Beautiful Mind" since (a) he'd already won one for "Gladiator"…
Boring. Also, were people even saying that? She has used the same example two friggin years in a row and I don't remember that being some sort of hot issue back then. Didn't Hanks win two in a row in the early 90's?
What really makes no sense about this argument, is that she's saying that the MVP voters are reluctant to reward players who are consistently good, therefore Duncan doesn't get enough MVP attention. Um...hmm....Jordan won 5. Bird won 3. Magic won 3. Kareem won 6. Nash won two in a row. Very recently! This goes against the premise of your argument.
And only in the NBA could Shaq, the most dominant center of all time, have one MVP while Steve Nash, who has never gotten his team to the NBA Finals, has two.
Playoff performance means jack shit in NBA voting. It’s a regular season award. Also, your pick, Chris Paul, has never led his team to an NBA finals. See how that’s unfair?
Also, Jemele knows this, as this is what she wrote last year:
Winning a championship is not a requirement for a MVP. Yeah, I know I just killed Malone above, but he won two MVPs and didn't win a title. Allen Iverson and Kevin Garnett also have MVPs, but no titles. Sure, Iverson and Malone made it to the NBA Finals, but this is a REGULAR-SEASON award.
Not only does she create arguments to counter, she counters her own arguments – she just trusts that you’re too dumb to remember.
That's why it's difficult to argue against Kobe, knowing he was cheated out of at least one MVP -- the one Dirk Nowitzki shamelessly won last season.
Shame on you, Dirk Nowitzki. How dare you be voted as MVP by a bunch of random writers! Go back to Germania! (sorry, I had to)
But while Kobe's renewed commitment to team ball makes for a cute catchphrase, it's a misnomer. Obviously Kobe has matured, but he's a better teammate primarily because he's got a fellow All-Star in Pau Gasol, a deeper, more skilled bench, and an emerging star in Andrew Bynum. Teamwork becomes much easier when your teammates can actually do something with the ball.
Which brings me to another frustrating element of the MVP race. Why are good players considered stronger MVP candidates when they have more help? (See: Kevin Garnett, the 2003-04 MVP.) Isn't the concept of "value" based on doing more with less?
I hate trying to confine the MVP award this way, it drives me nuts. It should be about who played the best fucking basketball. Anyway, no, value is about playing basketball very well while doing the most in proportion with what you have – be it a lot or a little. This is getting a little too esoteric for me, back to the column…
That should be the only criteria. And if it is, Paul is the MVP over Kobe, LeBron and KG. LeBron has had a fine season, and he certainly ranks high in the value department, but Cleveland's team success isn't significant enough to warrant LeBron winning. KG's presence transformed the Celtics, but it certainly helps that he has All-Star security blankets Paul Pierce and Ray Allen.
No, no no I will not let you get away with this. You just said that Kobe Bryant was cheated out of the MVP last year. Then you said Lebron James shouldn’t win because his team’s success is not significant enough. Kobe’s Lakers were 42-40 last year. Lebron’s Cavs are 42-34, on pace for about 45-46 wins – with some shit-ass teammates I’ll add. Yes, the West was better last year, but this is really just you making up qualifiers as you go along to conveniently support your arguments.
This is what Jemele wrote last year supporting Bryant:
But at the same time, it's not fair to eliminate Kobe Bryant because the Lakers are only a 6 or 7 seed. Kobe has the least talented teammates to work with of the MVP candidates and that his team is even in the playoff hunt is a miracle. Besides, most NBA players regard Kobe as the best player in the league and that should mean something, too. Team success is an important component, but it can't be the entire equation.
Given that those were here sentiments supporting Kobe last year, how does she eliminate Lebron James so easily this year?
Cleveland's team success isn't significant enough to warrant LeBron winning.
Huh?
But, if recent MVP races are any indication, politics will win again.
So congrats, Kobe.
I was watching Sports Reporters as I began writing this, and John Saunders started his final point. He said, “I know I’m not the first one to push for Chris Paul to win the MVP…”.
Tell that to Jemele Hill.
Jemele’s next column…. "will someone please talk about the rise of oil prices!”
Friday, February 1, 2008
Jemele Hill Creates another Argument to Refute
Way back when I wrote this piece on Jemele Hill’s insane Jordan vs. Bryant comparison, I noted the following:
I HATE when writers make arguments for themselves to counter like this. Jemele is the queen of that.
Jemele has since done this a couple other times, most recently in her column explaining why it’s okay that Randy Moss quit on the Raiders. You’ll see a couple of allusions to “many people” and “some” who’ve criticized the situation because Moss was supposed to be on the receiving end of bad karma. I read a fair amount of national sports writing. Honestly, this is not being played up. This is not an issue. Jemele is framing it as an issue so that she can dispel it, with a crazy conclusion that it’s okay to give up and collect huge paychecks for little effort. Vince Carter, you’re in the clear.
GLENDALE, Ariz. -- Normally, I don't condone athletes giving up. But in Randy Moss' case, he was right to quit on the Oakland Raiders.
So you don’t condone athletes giving up, but in a really high profile case of an athlete giving up, you’re not just okay with it…you think it was the right thing to do.
I bring this up because what happened with the Raiders continues to dog Moss' legacy, just as Kobe Bryant's seemingly self-imposed no-show against Phoenix in a deciding playoff game continues to indict him as a selfish player. Moss should be the No. 2 story of Super Bowl XLII. (Tom Brady is No. 1, of course.) But despite an impressive display of sincerity at Tuesday's media day, some people are still having trouble buying the new, wiser Randy Moss.
Are people really talking about this? I suppose, a little. But my question is; why wouldn’t it part of his legacy? Should we just ignore negatives and only remember positives? Can we forget this holocaust business and just remember how orderly and efficient Hitler was as a leader? Who says Moss should be the number 2 story of the Super Bowl? These are a few stories that should be bigger than Moss.
1.) A chance at 19-0.
2.) Patriots w/ a chance to win their 4th SB in 7 years. Same for Brady and Belichick, which is how QB’s and coaches are measured and puts them further into historically significant company.
3.) Eli Manning’s improbable late season performance and maturity. Manning making the Super Bowl a year after his brother.
4.) The Giants making the Super Bowl despite having to win 3 straight tough road playoff games. The Giants overall resurgence that seems to have started with the great Pats game in week 17.
In the eyes of fans and more than a few sportswriters, Moss playing for a Super Bowl ring upsets the balance of the sports universe.
“More than a few sportswriters”…..who? Name a few.
To many people, Moss is proof that sports karma doesn't always work. Despite giving a lackluster effort for much of his two years in Oakland, the stars aligned to send Moss to the best franchise of the millennium, which has put him one victory away from unprecedented history.
“Many people”. Name one. Who are you arguing with? The stars didn’t “align”; the Patriots took a chance that many other teams decided would not have taken. It's also not really putting "him" into history, but "the team", of which he is a part. Not wrong, but sort of different.
"I had to stay positive, but in the back of my mind, I didn't know if I would get here or not," Moss said.
I understand why Moss makes sports purists feel nauseated. He'd have probably stayed in the MVP conversation a bit longer had his Oakland days been further behind him. Fans will accept contract disputes, unproductive superstars, even lengthy championship droughts. But quitting on your team? That's always deemed unacceptable.
No no no. Moss isn’t in the MVP conversation because Tom Brady just quarterbacked a 16-0 team with arguably the best statistical passing season in history. That sort of defaults the MVP to him. I didn’t read one “the MVP is Moss, but I’m not voting for him because of the Oakland days” column. Who tolerates superstars being unproductive? Fans hate that!
Yet, on rare occasions, there are exceptions. And Moss' situation with Oakland is one of them. Because the Raiders quit on Moss just as much as he quit on them.
No they didn’t, because they kept paying him. Let’s make this real clear.
Randy Moss’ obligation: Play football hard, up to his potential. Earn his compensation.
Raiders’ obligation: Pay Randy Moss his compensation, per his contract.
One of these things happened, and one didn’t.
Moss always has been emotional, and it's no secret he has struggled with handling losing with dignity, as evidenced by his tantrums over the years. "I approached the game, when I was young, very angry," Moss said. "Not at anyone in particular, just the game of football."
When Moss fled to Oakland from Minnesota, there were high expectations, since the Raiders were only two seasons removed from playing in the Super Bowl and Moss was considered a great talent. But frustrating injuries limited Moss' effectiveness. And bad coaching, questionable play-calling, working alongside fellow malcontents such as Warren Sapp and Jerry Porter, and failures at quarterback -- all this amounted to a Molotov cocktail for Moss, which resulted in the perennial All-Pro becoming disinterested and loathed.
Some teams are not very good. Some teams almost always suck. There are players, sometimes star players, on those teams. It is their job to perform, even if the team sucks. This is not hard. Michael Jordan never quit on the ’85 Bulls because they were a bunch of druggy unprofessionals. Magic Johnson disliked Paul Westhead, but he still played hard for him.
"I'm a football player," Moss said. "That's what I do. Things really weren't going like I expected them to go. Not as an individual, but as a team. We had Derrick Burgess, Warren Sapp, a lot of guys that have names throughout this league. Expectations were high. Football wasn't a main priority around there."
Warren Sapp didn’t make Randy Moss drop those passes.
How Moss handled things certainly was immature. But can anyone honestly blame him for feeling the way he did? People who hate their jobs don't give their all -- that's a simple reality. And usually the biggest reason people hate their jobs is because they aren't being inspired or developed.
I can’t blame Moss for feeling the way he did, but I can blame him for playing the way he did. Moss has a bunch of excuses for not performing well in Oakland, but one of them is not that it was okay to stop trying. That’s a terrible message.
Let’s do a little play:
Jemele Hill: “Jemele Jr. can I see your report card?”
Jemele Jr.: “Here you go Mom, I got 4 A’s and 1 F”
Jemele Hill: “An F! Why? What happened?”
Jemele Jr: “Well, there are some popular kids in the class, but they are not good students, so I stopped thinking that was important. Also, the teacher didn’t really inspire me that much. Mostly, I just wasn’t happy with how everyone around me was performing, so I stopped trying. Our class, as a whole, wasn’t succeeding, so why should I try? I knew the material, I could have gotten A’s, but I didn’t want to try."
Jemele Hill: “Sounds good to me, here’s your allowance!”
Looking at the debacle the Raiders franchise has become -- and the wheels were in motion before Moss arrived -- is it unreasonable Moss wouldn't put it all on the line for that dysfunctional franchise? Just look at the problems the Raiders are having now with head coach Lane Kiffin, who seems to be lashing out the same way Moss did.
Put it all on the line = play football hard? Yes. Yes it’s perfectly reasonable to think he would do that. You act like they were asking him to secure Taliban occupied caves in Afghanistan with a bunch of 10 year old cub scouts. They were asking him to play football, and they were paying him to play football.
A gross amount of money and an excess of athletic ability doesn't prohibit athletes from feeling the same frustrations regular people feel. Moss was no different than the 9-to-5 guy who can't stand his idiotic boss.
But that guy still tries! I’ve been that guy! I still tried! I wasn’t making millions of dollars a year either.
Years ago, when Barry Sanders retired from the Detroit Lions via fax machine, a large number of Lions fans were angry at what they perceived to be a betrayal. Sanders never shorted his effort on the field, though he did pout at times. But he left the Lions soon after receiving an $11 million signing bonus and the biggest contract of his career. Many fans felt he should have stuck it out. But Sanders later admitted he retired as a healthy 30-year-old because he felt the Lions would never win. And to think, Sanders thought that way about the Lions before the Matt Millen era was in full swing.
But, see, that’s okay (assuming he refunded the portion of his signing bonus that hadn’t vested) because Sanders, as you note, CONTINUED TO TRY, DESPITE HIS TEAM SUCKING. This is evidence for the exact opposite point you are making. All the excuses that Moss has, Sanders had, but he never let it excuse him from putting in the effort. So thank you for…proving…you...wrong.
Sanders knew he was too good to play for an organization that bad. He might have handled his situation more maturely than Moss, but ultimately they both realized their talent was far too great to be controlled by people who didn't know how to win.
But….he handled it…..the opposite way?!?!?! So that’s not good for your argument, right?
That's why, when Moss said Tuesday he wanted to retire as a Patriot, I believed him. Call Moss a front-runner, but he essentially wants what all great players want: to play for an organization dedicated not only to winning, but to fostering his ability. Just ask Archie Manning if he would rather be known for nobly sticking it out with the struggling New Orleans Saints, or finishing as a champion.
Ask Archie Manning if he wishes he could go back in time and quit on his football team, because he was unhappy. I think he’ll say no. Nowhere is it written that each excellent professional athelte deserves to get, or will ever get, a shot at a team championship.
Of course, Moss should be held accountable for his actions in Oakland (and Minnesota). But it shouldn't define his career, or be the reason people root against him in Sunday's Super Bowl. Moss has atoned for his behavior in Oakland, and it's obvious the Raiders had bigger problems than him.
Again, this is a defense of an argument that is not being made.
Now, if you want to root against Moss because of his recent alleged domestic violence incident, or his other brushes with the law, that's fine. But getting indignant about Moss quitting on Oakland, given the reputation of that franchise, is like being upset if someone is unfaithful to Britney Spears.
Britney Spears, really? Really? Fucking really Jemele? I hate the sportswriter mindset that if I just throw an analogy to Britney Spears or Paris Hilton…then the point is made. Can’t you use something more fresh, like Hitler? That guy is on fire on TMZ.
Besides, Moss has made far more careers than he has destroyed. What was Daunte Culpepper without Moss? What about Brian Billick, who built a reputation for being an offensive genius because he coached Moss in Minnesota? Pre-Moss, people still had their doubts about whether Tom Brady was a great quarterback or just the product of a great system. No one says that anymore. With Moss, Brady became an MVP, and is in line to be regarded as the best quarterback of all time.
I'd say sports karma is working just fine.
This paragraph is in defense of Randy Moss’ abilities as a football player and his performance in Minnesota and New England. Something that no one is criticizing! No one is really talking all the much about how he played in Oakland either, but if they were, then pointing out how great he was in Minnesota and New England would only support their claim that he was dogging it and that’s not “right”. Again, this hurts, not helps, your point.
This does explain a lot of Jemele’s output though.
I HATE when writers make arguments for themselves to counter like this. Jemele is the queen of that.
Jemele has since done this a couple other times, most recently in her column explaining why it’s okay that Randy Moss quit on the Raiders. You’ll see a couple of allusions to “many people” and “some” who’ve criticized the situation because Moss was supposed to be on the receiving end of bad karma. I read a fair amount of national sports writing. Honestly, this is not being played up. This is not an issue. Jemele is framing it as an issue so that she can dispel it, with a crazy conclusion that it’s okay to give up and collect huge paychecks for little effort. Vince Carter, you’re in the clear.
GLENDALE, Ariz. -- Normally, I don't condone athletes giving up. But in Randy Moss' case, he was right to quit on the Oakland Raiders.
So you don’t condone athletes giving up, but in a really high profile case of an athlete giving up, you’re not just okay with it…you think it was the right thing to do.
I bring this up because what happened with the Raiders continues to dog Moss' legacy, just as Kobe Bryant's seemingly self-imposed no-show against Phoenix in a deciding playoff game continues to indict him as a selfish player. Moss should be the No. 2 story of Super Bowl XLII. (Tom Brady is No. 1, of course.) But despite an impressive display of sincerity at Tuesday's media day, some people are still having trouble buying the new, wiser Randy Moss.
Are people really talking about this? I suppose, a little. But my question is; why wouldn’t it part of his legacy? Should we just ignore negatives and only remember positives? Can we forget this holocaust business and just remember how orderly and efficient Hitler was as a leader? Who says Moss should be the number 2 story of the Super Bowl? These are a few stories that should be bigger than Moss.
1.) A chance at 19-0.
2.) Patriots w/ a chance to win their 4th SB in 7 years. Same for Brady and Belichick, which is how QB’s and coaches are measured and puts them further into historically significant company.
3.) Eli Manning’s improbable late season performance and maturity. Manning making the Super Bowl a year after his brother.
4.) The Giants making the Super Bowl despite having to win 3 straight tough road playoff games. The Giants overall resurgence that seems to have started with the great Pats game in week 17.
In the eyes of fans and more than a few sportswriters, Moss playing for a Super Bowl ring upsets the balance of the sports universe.
“More than a few sportswriters”…..who? Name a few.
To many people, Moss is proof that sports karma doesn't always work. Despite giving a lackluster effort for much of his two years in Oakland, the stars aligned to send Moss to the best franchise of the millennium, which has put him one victory away from unprecedented history.
“Many people”. Name one. Who are you arguing with? The stars didn’t “align”; the Patriots took a chance that many other teams decided would not have taken. It's also not really putting "him" into history, but "the team", of which he is a part. Not wrong, but sort of different.
"I had to stay positive, but in the back of my mind, I didn't know if I would get here or not," Moss said.
I understand why Moss makes sports purists feel nauseated. He'd have probably stayed in the MVP conversation a bit longer had his Oakland days been further behind him. Fans will accept contract disputes, unproductive superstars, even lengthy championship droughts. But quitting on your team? That's always deemed unacceptable.
No no no. Moss isn’t in the MVP conversation because Tom Brady just quarterbacked a 16-0 team with arguably the best statistical passing season in history. That sort of defaults the MVP to him. I didn’t read one “the MVP is Moss, but I’m not voting for him because of the Oakland days” column. Who tolerates superstars being unproductive? Fans hate that!
Yet, on rare occasions, there are exceptions. And Moss' situation with Oakland is one of them. Because the Raiders quit on Moss just as much as he quit on them.
No they didn’t, because they kept paying him. Let’s make this real clear.
Randy Moss’ obligation: Play football hard, up to his potential. Earn his compensation.
Raiders’ obligation: Pay Randy Moss his compensation, per his contract.
One of these things happened, and one didn’t.
Moss always has been emotional, and it's no secret he has struggled with handling losing with dignity, as evidenced by his tantrums over the years. "I approached the game, when I was young, very angry," Moss said. "Not at anyone in particular, just the game of football."
When Moss fled to Oakland from Minnesota, there were high expectations, since the Raiders were only two seasons removed from playing in the Super Bowl and Moss was considered a great talent. But frustrating injuries limited Moss' effectiveness. And bad coaching, questionable play-calling, working alongside fellow malcontents such as Warren Sapp and Jerry Porter, and failures at quarterback -- all this amounted to a Molotov cocktail for Moss, which resulted in the perennial All-Pro becoming disinterested and loathed.
Some teams are not very good. Some teams almost always suck. There are players, sometimes star players, on those teams. It is their job to perform, even if the team sucks. This is not hard. Michael Jordan never quit on the ’85 Bulls because they were a bunch of druggy unprofessionals. Magic Johnson disliked Paul Westhead, but he still played hard for him.
"I'm a football player," Moss said. "That's what I do. Things really weren't going like I expected them to go. Not as an individual, but as a team. We had Derrick Burgess, Warren Sapp, a lot of guys that have names throughout this league. Expectations were high. Football wasn't a main priority around there."
Warren Sapp didn’t make Randy Moss drop those passes.
How Moss handled things certainly was immature. But can anyone honestly blame him for feeling the way he did? People who hate their jobs don't give their all -- that's a simple reality. And usually the biggest reason people hate their jobs is because they aren't being inspired or developed.
I can’t blame Moss for feeling the way he did, but I can blame him for playing the way he did. Moss has a bunch of excuses for not performing well in Oakland, but one of them is not that it was okay to stop trying. That’s a terrible message.
Let’s do a little play:
Jemele Hill: “Jemele Jr. can I see your report card?”
Jemele Jr.: “Here you go Mom, I got 4 A’s and 1 F”
Jemele Hill: “An F! Why? What happened?”
Jemele Jr: “Well, there are some popular kids in the class, but they are not good students, so I stopped thinking that was important. Also, the teacher didn’t really inspire me that much. Mostly, I just wasn’t happy with how everyone around me was performing, so I stopped trying. Our class, as a whole, wasn’t succeeding, so why should I try? I knew the material, I could have gotten A’s, but I didn’t want to try."
Jemele Hill: “Sounds good to me, here’s your allowance!”
Looking at the debacle the Raiders franchise has become -- and the wheels were in motion before Moss arrived -- is it unreasonable Moss wouldn't put it all on the line for that dysfunctional franchise? Just look at the problems the Raiders are having now with head coach Lane Kiffin, who seems to be lashing out the same way Moss did.
Put it all on the line = play football hard? Yes. Yes it’s perfectly reasonable to think he would do that. You act like they were asking him to secure Taliban occupied caves in Afghanistan with a bunch of 10 year old cub scouts. They were asking him to play football, and they were paying him to play football.
A gross amount of money and an excess of athletic ability doesn't prohibit athletes from feeling the same frustrations regular people feel. Moss was no different than the 9-to-5 guy who can't stand his idiotic boss.
But that guy still tries! I’ve been that guy! I still tried! I wasn’t making millions of dollars a year either.
Years ago, when Barry Sanders retired from the Detroit Lions via fax machine, a large number of Lions fans were angry at what they perceived to be a betrayal. Sanders never shorted his effort on the field, though he did pout at times. But he left the Lions soon after receiving an $11 million signing bonus and the biggest contract of his career. Many fans felt he should have stuck it out. But Sanders later admitted he retired as a healthy 30-year-old because he felt the Lions would never win. And to think, Sanders thought that way about the Lions before the Matt Millen era was in full swing.
But, see, that’s okay (assuming he refunded the portion of his signing bonus that hadn’t vested) because Sanders, as you note, CONTINUED TO TRY, DESPITE HIS TEAM SUCKING. This is evidence for the exact opposite point you are making. All the excuses that Moss has, Sanders had, but he never let it excuse him from putting in the effort. So thank you for…proving…you...wrong.
Sanders knew he was too good to play for an organization that bad. He might have handled his situation more maturely than Moss, but ultimately they both realized their talent was far too great to be controlled by people who didn't know how to win.
But….he handled it…..the opposite way?!?!?! So that’s not good for your argument, right?
That's why, when Moss said Tuesday he wanted to retire as a Patriot, I believed him. Call Moss a front-runner, but he essentially wants what all great players want: to play for an organization dedicated not only to winning, but to fostering his ability. Just ask Archie Manning if he would rather be known for nobly sticking it out with the struggling New Orleans Saints, or finishing as a champion.
Ask Archie Manning if he wishes he could go back in time and quit on his football team, because he was unhappy. I think he’ll say no. Nowhere is it written that each excellent professional athelte deserves to get, or will ever get, a shot at a team championship.
Of course, Moss should be held accountable for his actions in Oakland (and Minnesota). But it shouldn't define his career, or be the reason people root against him in Sunday's Super Bowl. Moss has atoned for his behavior in Oakland, and it's obvious the Raiders had bigger problems than him.
Again, this is a defense of an argument that is not being made.
Now, if you want to root against Moss because of his recent alleged domestic violence incident, or his other brushes with the law, that's fine. But getting indignant about Moss quitting on Oakland, given the reputation of that franchise, is like being upset if someone is unfaithful to Britney Spears.
Britney Spears, really? Really? Fucking really Jemele? I hate the sportswriter mindset that if I just throw an analogy to Britney Spears or Paris Hilton…then the point is made. Can’t you use something more fresh, like Hitler? That guy is on fire on TMZ.
Besides, Moss has made far more careers than he has destroyed. What was Daunte Culpepper without Moss? What about Brian Billick, who built a reputation for being an offensive genius because he coached Moss in Minnesota? Pre-Moss, people still had their doubts about whether Tom Brady was a great quarterback or just the product of a great system. No one says that anymore. With Moss, Brady became an MVP, and is in line to be regarded as the best quarterback of all time.
I'd say sports karma is working just fine.
This paragraph is in defense of Randy Moss’ abilities as a football player and his performance in Minnesota and New England. Something that no one is criticizing! No one is really talking all the much about how he played in Oakland either, but if they were, then pointing out how great he was in Minnesota and New England would only support their claim that he was dogging it and that’s not “right”. Again, this hurts, not helps, your point.
This does explain a lot of Jemele’s output though.
Friday, November 9, 2007
This Sounds Like the Work of Crazy Old Jemele Hill
Firejaymariotti scooped me on this (even though we’re both a week late). I did have this written and ready to post it just needed some review, but screw that nerdy shit.
Jemele Hill has decided to write an article that compares Alex Rodriguez to Kobe Bryant. The column defends Bryant and points out his differences to A-Rod and, in general, why she would choose to have Kobe over A-Rod (ignoring the fact that they play different sports). Mainly that A-Rod was a distraction to his team during the playoffs during his rape trial, hasn’t gotten his team out of the first round in three years and seems to be whining all off-season every year. Oh wait, that’s Kobe Bryant. Those items either aren’t mentioned or are glossed over. The column defends Kobe’s antics because he just wants to win while A-Rod’s are lambasted as signs that he only cares about himself.
Give me Kobe over A-Rod any day
Say what you will about Kobe Bryant, but at least he's not a mercenary who wants all of the money, but none of the pressure, and doesn't perform in the playoffs.
In other words, at least he's not Alex Rodriguez.
Okay. So we’re comparing an NBA player to an MLB player. Good to recognize this up front, because the leagues and sports are VERY different. Like, if the NBA was set up like MLB, Kobe Bryant wouldn’t have led his team to the playoffs last year or the year before, where he lost in the first round (both years). Also he wouldn’t have led his team to the playoffs the year prior to that, when he…didn’t…lead..his…team to the playoffs. That’s if the performance of these players, in these sports, was really capable of being easily analogized, which they are not.
Both players are generally viewed as selfish, whiny divas. But as we approach the unusual sports phenomenon of having the best player in baseball head to a new team and arguably the best player in basketball also potentially on the move, understand that A-Rod and Kobe are two very different creatures.
Right, one plays baseball and one plays basketball. This is easy, because those sports are very dissimilar. If you try to play baseball using a basketball, pitchers would never throw a strike. So there's one difference. There's probably 2 or 3 more. There are no bases in basketball, no baskets in baseball. One is a sport of 5 guys playing in unison where 1 player can have a dramatic impact on the success of every game, the other is mostly a sport of individual achievements where a team needs many different individuals to achieve, all by themselves, in order for the team to win. In baseball, they have to play as a team, sure, but not like basketball. So I agree, very different.
A-Rod's decision to opt-out of New York is far more self-absorbed than Kobe's finagling to get out of Los Angeles.
How do you know? What if he just didn’t want to play in New York anymore because the media never left him alone, he was unfairly blamed for just about everything that went wrong, and a certain star teammate didn’t want to have sleepovers anymore?
Now, A-Rod’s opting out is likely due to a great deal of greed, and is pretty much the worst thing he can do for his image. But, let’s not be too easy on Kobe, okay? He pretty much imploded the team so it could be “his team” and then put up the gawdy numbers he wanted before noticing that people generally aren’t that impressed by gawdy numbers in the NBA when you can’t get your team out of the first round. Because this is the NBA, where individual players can have a large impact on the success of the team, this is somewhat damaging to Kobe’s legacy.
Despite Kobe's flaws, we at least know he is consumed with winning championships. A-Rod is consumed with being A-Rod.
Michael Jordan took a pay cut so the Bulls could sign Dennis Hopson, who they thought could help them reach the next level. Dennis Hopson sucked. Kobe Bryant couldn’t get along with Shaquille O’Neal in the interest of winning championships.
A-Rod is consumed with being, like, one of the best players ever – and getting paid like it.
Kobe doesn't always demonstrate his aspirations maturely. It also can't be ignored that a key aspect of his championship ambitions is that he has to be the guy in the lead role. But if the worst you can say about Kobe -- whose competitive streak was cloned from Michael Jordan's -- is he no longer wanted to play alongside a once-dominant, but injury-prone center, it's not exactly a sign of the apocalypse.
I love how she brushed by Kobe’s flaws by setting such a high hurdle for it to be newsworthy (um, the apocalypse). Is it a sign of a selfish player, Jemele? Is it a sign of a player who was maybe putting the possibility of winning a championship somewhere other than “first” on his list of priorities?
The worst I can say about Kobe is that he may have raped a girl. The worst I can say about him on the court is that he has not exhibited himself as the best team player that he could be. When criticized about shooting too much, he’s even pouted and then he won’t take shots that he should be taking. He’s sort of a baby that way.
Phil Jackson, arguably the best coach in NBA history, called Kobe Bryant “uncoachable” in his book.
And considering some of the things that Lakers owner Jerry Buss has said about Kobe in recent weeks, we've seen that Buss is his own man -- if he really wanted to keep Shaq, he would have kept him. Buss' main concern was dumping another $100 million into the fourth Fu-Schniken.
Um, right. He could have kept Shaq, and Phil Jackson, and Kobe Bryant would have signed with the LA Clippers. That was Kobe’s move; he was a free agent threatening to sign elsewhere unless Shaq was traded. So Kobe Bryant is absolved from his role in Shaq being traded because Jerry Buss is his “own man”? You don’t think that Kobe could have helped keep Shaq in town, if he really wanted to keep winning? Considering that both Phil Jackson and Shaq were exited from LA, and that's what Kobe wanted, I'm pretty sure he could have had a big say in them staying. The fact is, even if Buss wouldn't have listened to him, what happened was what Kobe wanted to happen.
But does anything in A-Rod's history or demeanor suggest he's remotely obsessed with winning the way Kobe is? A-Rod seems more obsessed with being loved than winning. He wants all the perks, but none of the responsibility. He wants 100-plus RBIs, and to eventually be the home run king. Just don't expect him to bring any of the necessary intangibles it takes to win something meaningful.
Does A-Rod really seem obsessed with being loved? Opting out of his contract during the 8th inning of the deciding game of the World Series is hardly the act of a player who wants to be loved. While I may not expect him to bring any of the necessary intangibles it takes to win, because I don’t know what those are, I do expect him to bring very necessary TANGIBLES for winning. Things like “hits” and “home runs”.
Sounds like a perfect fit for the Chicago Cubs.
What?
A-Rod isn't a leader, comes off as insecure and teams mysteriously seem better off when he's gone. Kobe? The three-time champion thrives under pressure and the low opinions some people have of him.
Hmm, okay. Has Kobe really performed better as an NBA player than A-Rod has as an MLB player since those low opinions were formed, primarily during his rape trial and him being accused of pushing Shaq out? Has Kobe really outperformed A-Rod in the last 3 years? A-Rod should soon have two league MVPs in that time and has helped his team get to the playoffs in each of those years. Kobe hasn’t made it out of the first round w/out Shaq. It’s a lot easier to make the NBA playoffs than the MLB playoffs – and it’s a lot easier for one player to impact his team making the playoffs in the NBA. Now, there are a million other factors at play here, but if you’re going to oversimplify to make convenient arguments then so am I.
Also – see FireJay’s post for numbers regarding A-Rod’s teams after he leaves. You are mentally retarded if you think that teams are better without the best player on the planet because he left….you can’t just look at records and ignore ALL other factors driving the change in records.
Kobe was criticized for brutally assessing the Lakers' lack of progress. But when A-Rod was a Yankee, the only thing that seemed to bother him was his own personal slumps.
Well what the fuck else should bother him? Should A-Rod criticize Brian Cashman for the Yankees’ pitching woes at points in the season? Should Derek Jeter’s slumps bother him? Should he be riding Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina and Andy Pettite to pitch better? People like you would be all over him.
Wouldn't you prefer a player who gets upset about losing more than a player who seems fine with it as long as he can stare at his pretty statistics and pay stubs? Can you blame Kobe for complaining about any plan that included passing on a skilled player who could help the Lakers in the present in favor of the long-term coddling of Andrew Bynum? Has A-Rod ever exhibited that kind of passion and determination? Has he ever given answers that didn't sound rehearsed?
Did Michael Jordan ever give answers that didn’t sound rehearsed (no)? Did Dennis Rodman (yes)? What’s your point? What reason did A-Rod have for lashing out at Yankee management? Should he just invent one to seem more passionate?
Even if A-Rod somehow wound up playing for the world champion Red Sox -- and if you're listening Boston, adding this guy to your clubhouse is akin to putting Britney Spears on "Nanny 911" -- it would be difficult to interpret A-Rod's actions as that of a man driven to win.
Putting up the best numbers in baseball = not the actions of a man driven to win.
A-Rod, of course, has the right to chase as much money as he wants. It's not his fault if the market dictates he earn an astronomical figure. There's no denying there were times he was unfairly brutalized in New York. The stalking by the tabloids was unacceptable, as was the fascination with his personal life. But the problems he had there will follow him into his next clubhouse.
Really? Did they exist in Seattle? What about Texas?
It's fair to accuse A-Rod and Kobe of being types who can't operate in a locker room unless they control it.
The difference is, there've been signs that Kobe has outgrown some of that. A-Rod doesn't seem like he ever will.
Right, because Kobe has been really mature this off-season.
There are two fundamental points not addressed by Jemele at all, as follows:
1. In the hypothetical situation that you own an NBA team and an MLB team, and you get one player to start that team (say, for 1 season, because of the impact of age in the two sports is so disparate), of course you take Kobe Bryant. But that’s because of the make-up of the sports. In the NBA, a top notch superstar helps to assure fans in the seats and a much better shot at a title contention. Baseball is just different. I don’t know how she can’t address this. If baseball was played on a smaller field with 5 players on the field and at bat, and A-Rod was able to get the most AB’s on the team by far, then the impact of Alex Rodriguez would be much much greater and he would be as valuable as a Kobe Bryant is in the NBA – probably more valuable.
2. A-Rod is all about the money and the personal accolades. That’s what she implies. He isn’t as interested in winning as Kobe. Let’s break this down:
Money: There is no salary cap in baseball. Baseball players who become free agents are truly paid market value for their services. Rodriguez, being the best player in the game, thinks he should be paid a lot of money for his services, so he gets it. You never hear about Kobe Bryant and money problems for a simple reason. In the NBA, it’s very structured. He makes damn near the most money he can possible make, per the CBA/Salary cap structure. By the way, he makes close to A-Rod money in salary. There is literally nothing for Kobe to complain about, money-wise. If it was truly a free market – with no limit on how much teams could sign free agents for and no salary cap - and Charlotte offered Kobe Bryant $40 million a year, and that was much more than anyone else was offering, would he take it? Would you fault him for taking it? This is another fundamental unfairness that never gets addressed.
Statistics/accolades/records: I don’t see a problem with an offensive player in baseball being concerned with putting up the best offensive statistics he can. It’s mind-boggling how this is turned into a negative quality in baseball.
“Boy, look at Johnny Hanrahan, that guy hit .215 last year and he doesn’t give a shit! He doesn’t care about his numbers! He just wants to win! Now look at selfish Bobby Smith who hit 55 home runs but cared more about hitting those home runs than he did winning. I know this because Johnny Hanrahan is killing himself out there and Bobby Smith is playing in a very smooth, unemotional manner.”
Seriously, why is this hard to understand? A-Rod, by putting up crazy numbers, is trying to win. Yes, the last few postseason series were not up to par. But it’s like 70 at-bats spread out over 4 years. He’s the best player at baseball at getting you to the playoffs, and that’s the hard part. The playoffs are a crap shoot.
Nothing against Kobe, who is an unreal basketball player, but please remember that MLB is a free market system. Also, an NBA player has significantly more impact on his team’s overall success than an MLB player who gets 4-5 at-bats a game and 2-3 balls hit to him.
Jemele Hill has decided to write an article that compares Alex Rodriguez to Kobe Bryant. The column defends Bryant and points out his differences to A-Rod and, in general, why she would choose to have Kobe over A-Rod (ignoring the fact that they play different sports). Mainly that A-Rod was a distraction to his team during the playoffs during his rape trial, hasn’t gotten his team out of the first round in three years and seems to be whining all off-season every year. Oh wait, that’s Kobe Bryant. Those items either aren’t mentioned or are glossed over. The column defends Kobe’s antics because he just wants to win while A-Rod’s are lambasted as signs that he only cares about himself.
Give me Kobe over A-Rod any day
Say what you will about Kobe Bryant, but at least he's not a mercenary who wants all of the money, but none of the pressure, and doesn't perform in the playoffs.
In other words, at least he's not Alex Rodriguez.
Okay. So we’re comparing an NBA player to an MLB player. Good to recognize this up front, because the leagues and sports are VERY different. Like, if the NBA was set up like MLB, Kobe Bryant wouldn’t have led his team to the playoffs last year or the year before, where he lost in the first round (both years). Also he wouldn’t have led his team to the playoffs the year prior to that, when he…didn’t…lead..his…team to the playoffs. That’s if the performance of these players, in these sports, was really capable of being easily analogized, which they are not.
Both players are generally viewed as selfish, whiny divas. But as we approach the unusual sports phenomenon of having the best player in baseball head to a new team and arguably the best player in basketball also potentially on the move, understand that A-Rod and Kobe are two very different creatures.
Right, one plays baseball and one plays basketball. This is easy, because those sports are very dissimilar. If you try to play baseball using a basketball, pitchers would never throw a strike. So there's one difference. There's probably 2 or 3 more. There are no bases in basketball, no baskets in baseball. One is a sport of 5 guys playing in unison where 1 player can have a dramatic impact on the success of every game, the other is mostly a sport of individual achievements where a team needs many different individuals to achieve, all by themselves, in order for the team to win. In baseball, they have to play as a team, sure, but not like basketball. So I agree, very different.
A-Rod's decision to opt-out of New York is far more self-absorbed than Kobe's finagling to get out of Los Angeles.
How do you know? What if he just didn’t want to play in New York anymore because the media never left him alone, he was unfairly blamed for just about everything that went wrong, and a certain star teammate didn’t want to have sleepovers anymore?
Now, A-Rod’s opting out is likely due to a great deal of greed, and is pretty much the worst thing he can do for his image. But, let’s not be too easy on Kobe, okay? He pretty much imploded the team so it could be “his team” and then put up the gawdy numbers he wanted before noticing that people generally aren’t that impressed by gawdy numbers in the NBA when you can’t get your team out of the first round. Because this is the NBA, where individual players can have a large impact on the success of the team, this is somewhat damaging to Kobe’s legacy.
Despite Kobe's flaws, we at least know he is consumed with winning championships. A-Rod is consumed with being A-Rod.
Michael Jordan took a pay cut so the Bulls could sign Dennis Hopson, who they thought could help them reach the next level. Dennis Hopson sucked. Kobe Bryant couldn’t get along with Shaquille O’Neal in the interest of winning championships.
A-Rod is consumed with being, like, one of the best players ever – and getting paid like it.
Kobe doesn't always demonstrate his aspirations maturely. It also can't be ignored that a key aspect of his championship ambitions is that he has to be the guy in the lead role. But if the worst you can say about Kobe -- whose competitive streak was cloned from Michael Jordan's -- is he no longer wanted to play alongside a once-dominant, but injury-prone center, it's not exactly a sign of the apocalypse.
I love how she brushed by Kobe’s flaws by setting such a high hurdle for it to be newsworthy (um, the apocalypse). Is it a sign of a selfish player, Jemele? Is it a sign of a player who was maybe putting the possibility of winning a championship somewhere other than “first” on his list of priorities?
The worst I can say about Kobe is that he may have raped a girl. The worst I can say about him on the court is that he has not exhibited himself as the best team player that he could be. When criticized about shooting too much, he’s even pouted and then he won’t take shots that he should be taking. He’s sort of a baby that way.
Phil Jackson, arguably the best coach in NBA history, called Kobe Bryant “uncoachable” in his book.
And considering some of the things that Lakers owner Jerry Buss has said about Kobe in recent weeks, we've seen that Buss is his own man -- if he really wanted to keep Shaq, he would have kept him. Buss' main concern was dumping another $100 million into the fourth Fu-Schniken.
Um, right. He could have kept Shaq, and Phil Jackson, and Kobe Bryant would have signed with the LA Clippers. That was Kobe’s move; he was a free agent threatening to sign elsewhere unless Shaq was traded. So Kobe Bryant is absolved from his role in Shaq being traded because Jerry Buss is his “own man”? You don’t think that Kobe could have helped keep Shaq in town, if he really wanted to keep winning? Considering that both Phil Jackson and Shaq were exited from LA, and that's what Kobe wanted, I'm pretty sure he could have had a big say in them staying. The fact is, even if Buss wouldn't have listened to him, what happened was what Kobe wanted to happen.
But does anything in A-Rod's history or demeanor suggest he's remotely obsessed with winning the way Kobe is? A-Rod seems more obsessed with being loved than winning. He wants all the perks, but none of the responsibility. He wants 100-plus RBIs, and to eventually be the home run king. Just don't expect him to bring any of the necessary intangibles it takes to win something meaningful.
Does A-Rod really seem obsessed with being loved? Opting out of his contract during the 8th inning of the deciding game of the World Series is hardly the act of a player who wants to be loved. While I may not expect him to bring any of the necessary intangibles it takes to win, because I don’t know what those are, I do expect him to bring very necessary TANGIBLES for winning. Things like “hits” and “home runs”.
Sounds like a perfect fit for the Chicago Cubs.
What?
A-Rod isn't a leader, comes off as insecure and teams mysteriously seem better off when he's gone. Kobe? The three-time champion thrives under pressure and the low opinions some people have of him.
Hmm, okay. Has Kobe really performed better as an NBA player than A-Rod has as an MLB player since those low opinions were formed, primarily during his rape trial and him being accused of pushing Shaq out? Has Kobe really outperformed A-Rod in the last 3 years? A-Rod should soon have two league MVPs in that time and has helped his team get to the playoffs in each of those years. Kobe hasn’t made it out of the first round w/out Shaq. It’s a lot easier to make the NBA playoffs than the MLB playoffs – and it’s a lot easier for one player to impact his team making the playoffs in the NBA. Now, there are a million other factors at play here, but if you’re going to oversimplify to make convenient arguments then so am I.
Also – see FireJay’s post for numbers regarding A-Rod’s teams after he leaves. You are mentally retarded if you think that teams are better without the best player on the planet because he left….you can’t just look at records and ignore ALL other factors driving the change in records.
Kobe was criticized for brutally assessing the Lakers' lack of progress. But when A-Rod was a Yankee, the only thing that seemed to bother him was his own personal slumps.
Well what the fuck else should bother him? Should A-Rod criticize Brian Cashman for the Yankees’ pitching woes at points in the season? Should Derek Jeter’s slumps bother him? Should he be riding Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina and Andy Pettite to pitch better? People like you would be all over him.
Wouldn't you prefer a player who gets upset about losing more than a player who seems fine with it as long as he can stare at his pretty statistics and pay stubs? Can you blame Kobe for complaining about any plan that included passing on a skilled player who could help the Lakers in the present in favor of the long-term coddling of Andrew Bynum? Has A-Rod ever exhibited that kind of passion and determination? Has he ever given answers that didn't sound rehearsed?
Did Michael Jordan ever give answers that didn’t sound rehearsed (no)? Did Dennis Rodman (yes)? What’s your point? What reason did A-Rod have for lashing out at Yankee management? Should he just invent one to seem more passionate?
Even if A-Rod somehow wound up playing for the world champion Red Sox -- and if you're listening Boston, adding this guy to your clubhouse is akin to putting Britney Spears on "Nanny 911" -- it would be difficult to interpret A-Rod's actions as that of a man driven to win.
Putting up the best numbers in baseball = not the actions of a man driven to win.
A-Rod, of course, has the right to chase as much money as he wants. It's not his fault if the market dictates he earn an astronomical figure. There's no denying there were times he was unfairly brutalized in New York. The stalking by the tabloids was unacceptable, as was the fascination with his personal life. But the problems he had there will follow him into his next clubhouse.
Really? Did they exist in Seattle? What about Texas?
It's fair to accuse A-Rod and Kobe of being types who can't operate in a locker room unless they control it.
The difference is, there've been signs that Kobe has outgrown some of that. A-Rod doesn't seem like he ever will.
Right, because Kobe has been really mature this off-season.
There are two fundamental points not addressed by Jemele at all, as follows:
1. In the hypothetical situation that you own an NBA team and an MLB team, and you get one player to start that team (say, for 1 season, because of the impact of age in the two sports is so disparate), of course you take Kobe Bryant. But that’s because of the make-up of the sports. In the NBA, a top notch superstar helps to assure fans in the seats and a much better shot at a title contention. Baseball is just different. I don’t know how she can’t address this. If baseball was played on a smaller field with 5 players on the field and at bat, and A-Rod was able to get the most AB’s on the team by far, then the impact of Alex Rodriguez would be much much greater and he would be as valuable as a Kobe Bryant is in the NBA – probably more valuable.
2. A-Rod is all about the money and the personal accolades. That’s what she implies. He isn’t as interested in winning as Kobe. Let’s break this down:
Money: There is no salary cap in baseball. Baseball players who become free agents are truly paid market value for their services. Rodriguez, being the best player in the game, thinks he should be paid a lot of money for his services, so he gets it. You never hear about Kobe Bryant and money problems for a simple reason. In the NBA, it’s very structured. He makes damn near the most money he can possible make, per the CBA/Salary cap structure. By the way, he makes close to A-Rod money in salary. There is literally nothing for Kobe to complain about, money-wise. If it was truly a free market – with no limit on how much teams could sign free agents for and no salary cap - and Charlotte offered Kobe Bryant $40 million a year, and that was much more than anyone else was offering, would he take it? Would you fault him for taking it? This is another fundamental unfairness that never gets addressed.
Statistics/accolades/records: I don’t see a problem with an offensive player in baseball being concerned with putting up the best offensive statistics he can. It’s mind-boggling how this is turned into a negative quality in baseball.
“Boy, look at Johnny Hanrahan, that guy hit .215 last year and he doesn’t give a shit! He doesn’t care about his numbers! He just wants to win! Now look at selfish Bobby Smith who hit 55 home runs but cared more about hitting those home runs than he did winning. I know this because Johnny Hanrahan is killing himself out there and Bobby Smith is playing in a very smooth, unemotional manner.”
Seriously, why is this hard to understand? A-Rod, by putting up crazy numbers, is trying to win. Yes, the last few postseason series were not up to par. But it’s like 70 at-bats spread out over 4 years. He’s the best player at baseball at getting you to the playoffs, and that’s the hard part. The playoffs are a crap shoot.
Nothing against Kobe, who is an unreal basketball player, but please remember that MLB is a free market system. Also, an NBA player has significantly more impact on his team’s overall success than an MLB player who gets 4-5 at-bats a game and 2-3 balls hit to him.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Jemele Hill On The Juice
Jemele Hill’s latest and greatest is a defense, sort of, of OJ Simpson in his latest run in with 5-0. I’ll let you read it here, and decide what you want on her general point, but there were a couple of points that I thought warranted discussion.
For the record I agree that the whole thing is F’d up and the thought that OJ would have done this is sort of mind boggling (mostly because of how brazen it is), but if I thought OJ was innocent, I would not put forth some of the arguments that Jemele does, because they are retarded.
Las Vegas police aren't exactly known for their airtight police work.
Realize this is the same police department that still can't find out who murdered Tupac, WHO WAS KILLED RIGHT OFF THE STRIP. This is the same police department that can't find the assailant who paralyzed a man and endangered numerous lives when he shot up the strip club where Pacman Jones "made it rain."
Help me out here. Is there a PD in any decent size city in the US that doesn’t have piles of unsolved crimes and murders? Just because they are more high profile in Vegas, doesn’t mean their PD is worse. It could be, but give me more than 2 incidents if that’s what you’re hanging your hat on.
While Pacman wasn't immediately charged, he and his lengthy arrest record were allowed to leave town with no problem.
Okay, well he wasn’t charged.
Yet O.J. isn't allowed bail and is deemed a flight risk?
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM – Why in the name of A Fucking C would OJ Simpson ever be deemed a flight risk? HMMMMMMMMMMM?
Let's say you are among the 90th percentile that believes O.J. is a murderer. Considering the gruesome way his ex-wife and friend were murdered, would O.J. even need backup to get his stuff back?
Let’s walk through this logic.
In 1994, a 47 year-old OJ Simpson allegedly snuck up behind Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, late at night, and slit their throats and stabbed them. For some reason, he didn’t recruit help or tell many people.
THEREFORE, if you share Jemele Hill’s logic,….
In 2007, it is not reasonable to think that a 60 year-old OJ Simpson would recruit help to go into a hotel room to steal some merchandise that he insists was stolen from him. He should be a one man wrecking crew, based on how he committed double murder 13 years ago.
60 years old.
Read this again….
Considering the gruesome way his ex-wife and friend were murdered, would O.J. even need backup to get his stuff back?
That is one of the stupidest things she’s ever written.
For the record I agree that the whole thing is F’d up and the thought that OJ would have done this is sort of mind boggling (mostly because of how brazen it is), but if I thought OJ was innocent, I would not put forth some of the arguments that Jemele does, because they are retarded.
Las Vegas police aren't exactly known for their airtight police work.
Realize this is the same police department that still can't find out who murdered Tupac, WHO WAS KILLED RIGHT OFF THE STRIP. This is the same police department that can't find the assailant who paralyzed a man and endangered numerous lives when he shot up the strip club where Pacman Jones "made it rain."
Help me out here. Is there a PD in any decent size city in the US that doesn’t have piles of unsolved crimes and murders? Just because they are more high profile in Vegas, doesn’t mean their PD is worse. It could be, but give me more than 2 incidents if that’s what you’re hanging your hat on.
While Pacman wasn't immediately charged, he and his lengthy arrest record were allowed to leave town with no problem.
Okay, well he wasn’t charged.
Yet O.J. isn't allowed bail and is deemed a flight risk?
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM – Why in the name of A Fucking C would OJ Simpson ever be deemed a flight risk? HMMMMMMMMMMM?
Let's say you are among the 90th percentile that believes O.J. is a murderer. Considering the gruesome way his ex-wife and friend were murdered, would O.J. even need backup to get his stuff back?
Let’s walk through this logic.
In 1994, a 47 year-old OJ Simpson allegedly snuck up behind Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, late at night, and slit their throats and stabbed them. For some reason, he didn’t recruit help or tell many people.
THEREFORE, if you share Jemele Hill’s logic,….
In 2007, it is not reasonable to think that a 60 year-old OJ Simpson would recruit help to go into a hotel room to steal some merchandise that he insists was stolen from him. He should be a one man wrecking crew, based on how he committed double murder 13 years ago.
60 years old.
Read this again….
Considering the gruesome way his ex-wife and friend were murdered, would O.J. even need backup to get his stuff back?
That is one of the stupidest things she’s ever written.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)