Bill Simmons is Smarter Than You Are

That’s why he sees all the real stories. Behind the numbers. Behind the uniforms and canned quotes, Simmons is able to break it all down for us. Why did Lebron have a great season in ’08-09? Give up? Kobe Bryant played in the Olympics.

From the mailbag.

I'd bet anything that Kobe secretly regrets being on the Redeem Team. He gained nothing exposure-wise because they showed every game in America in the wee hours;

But he gained something exposure wise with the tens of millions of people around the world who watched Olympic basketball. Is there anyone in the US who doesn’t know who Kobe Bryant is? Also, wasn’t that first game against China on at like 10AM Eastern time on a Sunday?

all he did was put unnecessary mileage on his knees when he could have been resting.

That’s all he did. That’s all that was accomplished in Beijing. When Kobe Bryant is 60 and his grandchildren ask him about the Summer of ’08, his first memory will be…. “Oh that was the summer I put some more mileage on my knees. Nothing else of substance happened. Next topic.” Then they’ll probably ask him about Shaq or about winning the dunk contest in ’97 or being accused of rape or something.

If that's not bad enough, he SINGLE-HANDEDLY altered the course of his main rival's career.

SINGLE-HANDEDLY! This needs to be in all caps, so you know how important it is to his point. That rival? None other than Lebron James, who was an underachieving, underperforming pile of crap before the Beijing Olympics. Lebron James...the guy whose high school games were nationally televised. The number 1 pick in the draft a few years back. That guy. His career path was altered by the Olympics. Right.

Fun fact – Lebron’s per game averages for Points, Rebounds, Assists, Steals and Blocks either stayed the same or decreased from the season prior to the Olympics. Although he did play a couple less minutes because there were more blowouts. Still, his course was not altered any more than it would have been if Lebron had stayed home.

LeBron intimated as much himself: Only after watching Kobe's daily workout routine and nonstop commitment to defense did LeBron realize that he was selling himself short to some degree.

Did playing with Kobe Bryant (and Dwyane Wade, and Chris Paul, and…) make Lebron James better? Probably. How could playing with those guys not help your game? Is this something that we should credit with making him turn some sort of corner? No. This is like saying that Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade and Paul Pierce all wouldn’t have been the players they are today if they were drafted 1-3 slots higher. Oh wait, Simmons is convinced of that point too. He and other sportswriters love to take small, innocuous parts of the story, and make them the story. Because that’s what they think they are paid to do – point out the little things that dummies like you and me (especially you) miss because we aren’t as perceptive.

And when Kobe took over as the alpha dog in the gold-medal game (and everyone let him do it), that made LeBron realize, "I'm not quite there yet."

I bet a million dollars that Lebron James didn’t realize this, or think this after the gold medal game, and Bill Simmons is making up that he did so that he can tie it into his nice little bullshit anecdote.

Of the many reasons MJ skipped the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, I guarantee these were two of them:

The 1984 Olympics and the 1992 Olympics? Those are the two main reasons. He already had two gold medals. Just kidding. Bill is right. He was afraid that people would realize why he’s really good at basketball, in 1996, when he was 33 years old and had just unretired and led the Bulls to 72 wins.

"Why should I show these guys I'm trying to beat how I prepare every day?"

Double or nothing on the million dollars that Michael Jordan being afraid to show these guys how he prepares every day had nothing to do with him not playing in the 1996 Olympics.

and "Why should I give my foes any insight into what makes me me."

That’s the same thing as reason one. But very true, I doubt any of those guys knew much about Jordan in 1996. He had 4 rings, 8 scoring titles and 4 MVP's at the time .

He remembered how the 1992 Dream Team experience rejuvenated Barkley's career and didn't want to make the same mistake twice.

Um, I’m pretty sure the 1992-93 season coinciding with Barkley being traded to a good Suns team with a good blend of stars (KJ, Majerle) complementary players (West, Ainge, Chambers, Ceballos) and young guys who would pull productive years out of their asses (Oliver Miller, Richard Dumas) had more to do with his success in 1993 than the Olympics OR MICHAEL JORDAN PLAYING IN THE OLYMPICS. Barkley didn’t play remarkably better in ’93 than he had before; he just played with a better team than he had been dealt in Philly.

Anyway, if Kobe never plays in the 2008 Olympics, then LeBron and Wade become alpha dogs by default and spend the whole time playing poker or Bid Whist in Worldwide Wes' hotel room ... and Kobe is cruising to the title right now. He has to be kicking himself.

Sure.

Do you think Kobe has spent 5 minutes since he left Beijing thinking about the impact his presence at the Olympics may or may not have had on the other players? I don’t.

Colin Cowherd Thinks Lebron James is Boring to Watch Play Basketball

I didn’t address yesterday’s comments from Colin Cowherd when he said there’s been 70 great guards in NBA history but only a few (I think he said 8) great centers, all to (somehow) support his theory that guards are more important than big men (ignoring the fact that 8 of the last 10 championships have been won with Duncan and Shaq). It all made no sense, so I gave up on writing a post. This happens a lot with Colin. I listen to something and say “man, that’s terrible – I should post on that”…but I have a hard time describing what the fuck he was saying and I’m too lazy to transcribe it. This happened last year when he said that Kauffman Stadium was the worst baseball park to watch a game in because the Royals were terrible. I stared at my keyboard for a good 5 minutes there.

Anyway, here are some of quotes from today’s show, about Lebron James.

“I just don’t like watching him play.”

“Lebron doesn’t entertain me.”

“I don’t find him that visually stimulating, he doesn’t have much of a jumper, he scores a lot of points at the free throw line. I know he’s great, he just doesn’t move me artistically like a Kobe.”

“Lebron is not super-vertical, he’s not artistic like Kobe…. he’s not that consistent.”

So, in conclusion – Lebron James – is boring to watch play basketball. He’s not “super-vertical” – which must mean he doesn’t have great ups…not enough of a dunker for Colin. THIS GUY IS NOT ENTERTAINING, AND IS NOT “SUPER VERTICAL”.

Seriously – he played a bad game – 2 for 18 with 10 turnovers. That’s some ugly shit. No reason to make sweeping statements about the guy. Inconsistent? He had a bad game. He led the league in scoring this year. Isn’t that, like, consistently scoring a lot of points? I know you need radio fodder but c’mon. The guy did a through the leg dunk in a high school game – don’t say he’s not super-vertical.

One of his main complaints is that Lebron scores too high a percentage of his points at the line. Um, Lebron averaged more points than Kobe this year, but scored 1 less point per game than Kobe from the line. So….that….point…would apply to Kobe, right? His game is not as smooth as Kobe Bryant’s, but no one’s is. Is that where we draw the line between an entertaining player and a boring player?

Colin Cowherd’s NBA analysis is scary bad.

Let’s Talk Most Valuable

Sorry folks, I was on vacation for a week and generally haven’t been reading much beyond The Big Lead and the FJM’s lately. It’s either a testament to your devotion to reading this blog or a sign that you have no life that the “recurring visitors” that I get has remained constant. I'll go with the former.

Today I listened to (Boston) Sports Talk Radio during my lengthy commute to work, and by the end I was sort of yelling at my radio in annoyance at the general tone of their NBA MVP discussions. Here’s a little synopsis of the events:

Gerry Callahan and John Dennis are the hosts, and they both (Dennis more vehemently so) conveyed that Kevin Garnett should be the NBA MVP. They had their share of points and whatnot, but I can make this real real simple. Here are the basic reasons that were given to support Garnett:

1. Ultimately will be the best player on a team with the best record in the NBA.

2. Ultimately will be the best player on a team that had the biggest turnaround in NBA history, and he wasn’t on the team last year so he has been the major reason for that impact.

Now, let me tell you the real reasons why they believe that Garnett should be the MVP:

1. They are sports talk radio hosts in Boston.

2. They are not sports talk radio hosts in New Orleans, Los Angeles, or Cleveland. If they were, they’d be using the many arguments for those players instead.

Now, we first need to take a step back a little bit. The award, for right or wrong (wrong) is called “Most Valuable Player”. While I will always believe that the intent of the award should just be to award the basketball player who played the best basketball over the course of the basketball season (Most Outstanding Performance at Playing Basketball - MOPPB), it is unfortunately called the MVP – which does have a better ring to it.

Why am I discussing this? Because at one point John Dennis read a dictionary definition of the fucking word valuable. They frequently noted that the award was not for the most outstanding, but the most VALUABLE, in support of Garnett. This is maddening, but unfortunately we’re left with the word valuable to deal with.

So why do I disagree with them? Let’s discuss the two main arguments put forth:

1. Ultimately will be the best player on a team with the best record in the NBA.

Well that’s definitely a nice place to start an MVP argument, and the Celtics’ 24-5 record against the West means that for right or wrong we sort of have to throw out the conference argument. But the Celtics were 7-2 when he was out, which, while not being many games, is right on par with their overall winning percentage. Note that I don't think this is a disqualifier, but I note it just to point out that he has pretty good teammates contributing to that best record, if that's what you're hanging your hat on. Garnett isn’t carrying this team by any stretch. Paul Pierce is still the best offensive player on the Celtics, and he and Ray Allen alleviate a tremendous amount of the scoring load off of Garnett, versus what Mr. James is going through in Cleveland. But basketball isn’t all scoring, and Garnett has been a good rebounder and has anchored the best defense in the NBA. If you blindly believe that the MVP should go to the best player on the best team than there’s just nothing I can say, Kevin Garnett is your man.

Personally, I think that the MVP should go to a team with at least a .500 record, but other than that there’s too much to consider to just give the best player/best team the award. If you have a team with 3 stars and 5 good complementary players and they win 67 games and another team with 1 star, 2 good complementary players and a bunch of scrubs and they win 58 games with the Superstar averaging 30/8/8….then my MVP vote is probably going to the player on the second team. It’s really not as simple as checking the standings.

I don’t think John Dennis would have made much of an argument for Chauncey Billups winning the ’06 MVP (unless he lived in Detroit), or Clyde Drexler beating out Michael Jordan for the ’91 MVP. Allen Iverson would have to cough up his ’01 hardware to Tim Duncan, who would have to hand his ’02 MVP award to…Chris Webber. It’s just not that simple.

2. Ultimately will be the best player on a team that had the biggest turnaround in NBA history, and he wasn’t on the team last year so he has been the major reason for that impact.

Now this is why I wrote this post, as what he said in defense of this point led me to literally yell at the radio. Dennis pointed out that the Hornets won 39 games last year! They were 39-42. Not nearly as bad as the Celtics! The Lakers were 42-40! The Celtics were 24-58….this year they have the best record! The implication being that best player they added was Garnett, therefore he’s the MVP, because the other teams were already not-so-bad. Clearly they’ve improved, but they didn’t come from the same depths that the Celtics did!

Do you see the flaw in this logic? That led to me yelling this in my car:

CHRIS PAUL WAS ON THE MOTHER FUCKING HORNETS LAST YEAR YOU FUCKING MORON! KOBE BRYANT WAS ON THE LAKERS! THEY ARE THE REASON WHY THEIR TEAMS WON THOSE GAMES LAST YEAR!

With me yet? You can’t give the MVP to Garnett on the basis of the turnaround unless you have some magical ability to forecast what Cleveland, LA, and New Orleans records would have been last year minus their MVP candidates (not nearly as good). Next year, when the Celtics probably regress by a few games, will Dennis eliminate Garnett from MVP contention because they went backwards? Of course not, and he shouldn’t. It’s a stupid criteria for basing the highest individual achievement in the sport on. Let’s talk about which basketball players played the best basketball THIS YEAR, why does last year mean anything at all? The Celtics roster is totally different anyway – it’s basically like a new team.

In summary, let’s just rename the award please.

Scoop Jackson Says Lebron is the New He!

Can you believe it? We finally have a new HE?? I've been waiting for so long. If this doesn't make any sense to you, I'll let Scoop take it away.

LeBron has made the NBA Finals. What does that mean?

That he had a great conference finals and he has shown us a glimpse of how dominant he can be? No....much much much much more??

It means the city of Cleveland can breathe. Breathe in a way it's never breathed before. It means Art Modell, Earnest Byner, Craig Ehlo and every member of the '97 Indians can breathe.

What the hell did Craig Ehlo do wrong? Are people in Cleveland cursing him out because he didn't block Jordan's ‘jump in the air, going left, pump game winner jumper' in 1989? Those are some hard-ass fans. More likely, though, is that Scoop just threw that in there without thinking about it. In fact, Ehlo hit a tough layup with 3 seconds left to give the Cavs the lead in that game. Jordan had hit a jumper with 8 or 9 seconds left to put Chicago up one.

It means tanking games works. Sometimes.

It works when you get a historically good number 1 pick. You didn’t know this already? No one was tanking to take Michael Olowokandi.

It means so many of us were so right for so long, and so wrong at the same time.

We were all right that he was good, what were we wrong about? Just because you are being abstract, it doesn't mean you're being smart.

It means he made us look like fools for doubting him after Game 1.

Game 1 of the NBA finals made me look smart for saying after game 1 of the Eastern finals that he is great but not ready to carry his team to a title, and his team isn’t good enough.

It means we can't doubt him again until he fails. It means Game 5 is bigger now than it was last week. It means the haters have been silenced. For now.

What haters? Who has been disrespecting Lebron James unfairly? Maybe I'm missing all this Lebron hate.

It means he might be He.

ABSTRACT DOES NOT EQUAL SMART!!!! "He might be He".... is a terrible attempt at sounding profound. It also means….nothing. It also means.....everything! See how that's dumb?

It means he's grown up. He is no longer a kid, and we can no longer mention his age when we talk about him.

In today’s NBA filled with high schoolers who jumped to the NBA, no one really does mention the age after like 4 years.

It means he can say to Dwyane Wade, "I got there without Shaq."

Sure. He can say it to Kobe too.

It means the league has the savior it's been looking for since … the original He retired.

Ohhhh….Michael Jordan is “he”. Or was “he”. But Lebron is the new “he”. This makes total sense. In the sense that it would only makes sense to Scoop Jackson. It would be a real mindfuck if, say, Bob Pettit was the "original He" that he's talking about. Or Connor HEnry.

It means -- as great as LeBron is -- he won't be the best player on the court in these Finals. There will be nights in this series when the world will see how great Tim Duncan really is. That will push LeBron not to settle. It will remind him that, although he is the league, he is not yet the game.

-----Me: “Scoop is Lebron pretty much ‘The League’”
-----Scoop: “Yes, but he’s not ‘The Game’, but he may be ‘The He’”
-----Me: Nods slowly, begins backing away.

Also, are people really still discovering Tim Duncan and his greatness? Didn’t I hear how great he was in 1997, when he was the number 1 pick in the draft? Or when he won the league MVP in 2002 and 2003? Or when he won championships in 1999, 2003, and 2005 and was named the freakin MVP of the Finals in which his teams won those championships? Or when he won the Rookie of the Year award? Or when he started at Center for Team USA in the Olympics in 2004? Does the world watch the Olympics? Tim Duncan has played 10 years, and has been All-NBA first team and All NBA first team Defense 9 and 7 times. The one ommission from the All-NBA first team and 3 from All NBA first team on defense, he was on the second team. I’m pretty sure the basketball fans of the world knew of this Duncan character a while ago.

It means the East is that bad. (But we can't blame the Cavs for that.) It means, years from now, we might look back at LeBron's first trip to the Finals as being more about how bad the East was -- like when Iverson took Philly to the Finals six years ago.

Please reconcile this statement with this entire column about how making the finals means something fucking grandtastic for Lebron. It means so much that you’ve written “it means” like 50 times followed by some nonsense. Then you point out that he got there in a historically crappy conference, so it shouldn’t be blown out of proportion.

It means he will further ascend, beyond basketball, into that area of pop culture reserved for the chosen few. It means LeBron-mania is here, and bootleggers will have his face on more shirts, songs will be sung in cafés, lyrics will be dropped on freestyles, poems will be written by fans and sent to columnists, to further our belief in him.

Songs will not be sung in cafes, lyrics have been dropped in freestyles about tons of players anyway (Public Enemy – Chris Webber / Redman – Marbury / Method Man & Redman – Pippen…. plus lots of Shaq and Jordan references and like a thousand others), and there will be no poem writing. Thanks.

It means Skip Bayless will have to stop calling him Prince James, and Peter Vecsey will have to stop calling him LeBrat.

Skip Bayless is a tool who jerks off every time he makes a pun or writes a play on words he finds clever. Skip Bay-less, more like “Skip WAY-Less….talent than the average writer!” That’s Skip Bayless’ style. You really can’t get too riled up by what he says.

It means the Spurs might not be the underdog in this series, but the nation will consider them the enemy. It means (more) millions will fall deeper in love with him.

Only you Scoop. “Fall deeper in love with him” is a tad dramatic for me.