I didn't think so. I mean, I suppose he could have been HIV positive, but it's tough to say that impacted his play (see numbers below). Also, it's not an injury. Bill Simmons felt the need to throw his "injury" into his on-the-fly list of the 10 biggest playoff injuries in the past 25 years:
(The 10 biggest playoff injuries of the past 25 years, in no particular order: Manu in '08; Isiah in '88; McHale and Walton in '87; D-Wade in '05; Duncan in '00; Malone in '04; Worthy in '83; Pippen in '98; Magic in '91; Doc Rivers in '94. All of those injuries potentially swung the Finals except for Pippen's back injury in '98 -- that was the year when Pippen played at 50 percent and MJ said, "Screw it, we're winning anyway.")
I don’t recall Magic being injured in the 1991 playoffs. In the 1991 finals, Magic Johnson played 43, 43, 50 (OT), 44, and 48 minutes. In the 1991 playoffs, Magic averaged 43.3 minutes, 21.8 points, 12.6 assists and 8.1 rebounds per game. That’s, you know, pretty good.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Colin Cowherd, That's Not What he Meant
On yesterday's radio show, Colin Cowherd discussed how he believed European players can't really be relied on to win an NBA championship.
It was a long (felt long) and painful discussion that included the following:
NBA General Managers love drafting European guys over American kids, not because they’re better, but because of the mystery or the unknown. That’s what I always say about Yoga. Do you know why Yoga is so popular? Because it’s so popular in India. If it was from Nashville, they’d call it stretching. But it’s from India – and they don’t have bathrooms, there’s rubble, and it’s different and most people haven’t been there – it’s mysterious – and we like what we can’t have.
If you've heard Cowherd you realize this kind of stuff is the norm. He basically puts down the general work ethic of the entire continent of Europe and implies that their basketball players are sort of lazy and soft. It was pretty stupid, but I don't have the energy to parse through it.
Anyway, this was near the end of his discussion:
Look at what Sasha Vujacic said about Ray Allen… "He got me. I was afraid to foul him – he just got me."
Afraid? You don’t hear a kid from Chicago say that. And I know I’ll get soccer fans or a guy listening on the web overseas. “Colin, you’re such an ugly American”. What…eva. (yeah, he said it like that).
Vujacic was not literally fearful of the physical contact that comes with fouling a player, dipshit. He didn't want to send the seventh best FT shooter in NBA history to the free throw line.
It was a long (felt long) and painful discussion that included the following:
NBA General Managers love drafting European guys over American kids, not because they’re better, but because of the mystery or the unknown. That’s what I always say about Yoga. Do you know why Yoga is so popular? Because it’s so popular in India. If it was from Nashville, they’d call it stretching. But it’s from India – and they don’t have bathrooms, there’s rubble, and it’s different and most people haven’t been there – it’s mysterious – and we like what we can’t have.
If you've heard Cowherd you realize this kind of stuff is the norm. He basically puts down the general work ethic of the entire continent of Europe and implies that their basketball players are sort of lazy and soft. It was pretty stupid, but I don't have the energy to parse through it.
Anyway, this was near the end of his discussion:
Look at what Sasha Vujacic said about Ray Allen… "He got me. I was afraid to foul him – he just got me."
Afraid? You don’t hear a kid from Chicago say that. And I know I’ll get soccer fans or a guy listening on the web overseas. “Colin, you’re such an ugly American”. What…eva. (yeah, he said it like that).
Vujacic was not literally fearful of the physical contact that comes with fouling a player, dipshit. He didn't want to send the seventh best FT shooter in NBA history to the free throw line.
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.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Deadspin’s ESPN’s Featured Comment of the Day
Every day Deadspin picks on the ESPN comment of the day (rightfully so), and the commenters mock the ESPN comment.
I’m not a Deadspin commenter – and my fear of rejection has scared me away from the audition process (well, mostly it’s my fear of killing more than 15 minutes a day on the site). I really tense up and start pulling a Chris Farley and slapping myself upside the head and calling myself an idiot. Anyway, I may occasionally do my own comment here, for you, the readers of this blog. So basically Deadspin, which is a great site if you live under a rock and have never been, has done something clever, and instead of burying my comment in with the dozens or hundreds of theirs, I’ll just post it here instead.
Here’s today’s Featured Comment:
"I would only watch golf if it was full contact." — exposrangers
Here’s what I would post in the comment section if I was funny enough to be a Deadspin commenter:
“I would only watch gay animal porn if it was bull contact”
Or
“I only watch vintage Atlanta Hawks highlights if it’s full Koncak”
Wicked hilarious, right? See, Jon Koncak was a dorky looking stiff.
I’m not a Deadspin commenter – and my fear of rejection has scared me away from the audition process (well, mostly it’s my fear of killing more than 15 minutes a day on the site). I really tense up and start pulling a Chris Farley and slapping myself upside the head and calling myself an idiot. Anyway, I may occasionally do my own comment here, for you, the readers of this blog. So basically Deadspin, which is a great site if you live under a rock and have never been, has done something clever, and instead of burying my comment in with the dozens or hundreds of theirs, I’ll just post it here instead.
Here’s today’s Featured Comment:
"I would only watch golf if it was full contact." — exposrangers
Here’s what I would post in the comment section if I was funny enough to be a Deadspin commenter:
“I would only watch gay animal porn if it was bull contact”
Or
“I only watch vintage Atlanta Hawks highlights if it’s full Koncak”
Wicked hilarious, right? See, Jon Koncak was a dorky looking stiff.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Some Sanity and Some Jibberish
I skimmed ESPN Page 2 today and noted that Tim Keown had a brief write-up on Robert Horry not being a Hall of Famer. It’ll be interesting to see how many posts I have up on this site after Horry retires responding to writers who argue for Horry to make the Hall, so I figured I’d link this now.
Then there’s Scoop Jackson.
There's a term used in the community called "thirsty."
“The community”. How about “the world”. There’s a term in the world of English speaking people. Why be so exclusionary, buddy?
It means what you think it means, but it's now being used in different contexts. Only to make a point of the extremes to which some people will go to get what they want. More severely, what they need.
Nooo…that’s pretty much what I figured you meant. You're not writing about nutrition on ESPN.com.
Kobe Bryant, for lack of more sophisticated terminology, is thirsty.
Gotcha. So what else are we going to talk about? Matchups? Some Lakers-Celtics history?
Oh, much much much more on Kobe Bryant’s thirst?
His thirst for another NBA title is that of an amplitude we may not have ever seen before. Not in sports, business, crime, corruption or politics.
Kobe Bryant, a 3-time NBA champion, is not more thirsty than John Elway was to end his career as the guy who kept losing the big game. He’s not more thirsty than Jordan, Isiah, or Shaq were to break through and win a championship. He’s not more thirsty than Andy Fastow was to siphon money out of Enron or than Bill Gates was when he started Microsoft.
Keeping it community: He's thirsty like a fiend.
Scoop, I’m just going to come out and ask you this. Do you not want me reading this? I’m white. Is “community” supposed to be “the black community”? Are you just talking to people in that community? Can you “keep it” in a more inclusionary manner please? Is this why I never understand you? Because you don’t want me to?
Now I understand how Bill Maher it is to use a dependency as an analogy to describe Kobe's mental range, scope and capacity and how wrong it probably is to compare "the greatest player of his generation" (as TNT labeled him to promote the Western Conference finals) to Ashy Larry or Bubbles, but it fits. Like disloyalty and Scott McClellan. In technical terms, Kobe is an obligate anti-carnivore.
I have no fucking idea what that paragraph means. None. Is Dennis Miller ghost-writing Scoop Jackson columns now? That doesn’t jibe with the “community” talk but it’s the only explanation.
This thirst -- whether he admits or denies or realizes it -- comes from a needing to do this without Shaquille O'Neal. It's a needing to come as close to Jordan and Jordan's legacy as any other basketball player alive right now … and maybe in the future. It's a needing to prove to himself what he's known and told himself ever since he challenged Brian Shaw to play one-on-one at age 11.
I agree – Kobe Bryant wants to win. Do we need a column for this? I say no.
Redemption, chip on his shoulder, edge, anger. None apply. There's a fiend-like component inside Kobe that exceeds all of the above labels that no athlete in any other sport possesses,
Not Tiger Woods?
and the closer he gets to attaining another championship ring, the more impossible it is going to be for anyone -- or any one team -- to deny him. His want has gone into an almost dependence stage of validation, of recognition, of being the last man standing.
You sir, are just making stuff up to fill up a column. You are offering nothing. No examples, no analysis – just jibberish.
There is no player or collection of players on Boston's squad -- no player(s) on any team that the Lakers have faced throughout the playoffs, no entire 12-man roster in the league, to be honest -- that can match his need to win this championship.
The Lakers are a good, young team. They will be awesome for the next few years. The Celtics have maybe 2 shots at a Championship. Garnett has never won. Kobe has won 3. I think Garnett’s “need” is on par with Bryant’s.
A compulsion to prove to himself -- and us -- that he's been right all along is what's at the center of this. Right that he's not a bad guy, a prima donna, arrogant, aloof or antisocial. Right that he is engaging and personable. Right that he might be the best basketball player your kids will ever see.
Look – only a grade A-moron would confuse basketball brilliance with not being a bad guy or a prima donna. He’ll diffuse very little of that by winning this championship.
Just as he was right about publicly forcing the Lakers to make some roster moves, in every fabric of his being he has to be right about how he sees himself and what he sees himself as. Even though he said in the ESPN Sunday Conversation that he was comfortable being the No. 2 guy while winning rings with Shaq, and in so many words to please stop the Jordan comparisons because there will never be another ("He's a different person … the greatest ever … let me do me …. Thank you!"), those who have watched his evolution -- his ascendance -- know better. He tries to cover it up in interviews and private conversations, but once he gets in "black" Jack Bauer mode it becomes clear as Claritin. He's on something extra. Something that once he calls it quits about five years and three more rings from now, he's going to need some serious form of detox to get out of his system.
He’s competitive. We know this.
Hopefully he has the sense that Jordan did not and just quietly ascends into retirement instead of botching the personnel thing, trying a comeback, and then doing whatever Jordan is doing now (I know his title, but I don’t know what he actually does, other than piss off people in Charlotte).
To everyone else, this is about basketball. To him … this is about survival.
Whose?
His.
Deep.
No it’s not, it’s about basketball. Basketball is about throwing a ball into a hole. If I was actually going through any real drama in my life, like if I had cancer or something, I'd probably be offended by this column.
It's the life of a fiend. Trapped inside the shell of a basketball player who almost had the game taken from him. The fact that he could have been responsible for not being able to show the world this stage of his life probably still eats at his mind. It might be what ultimately drives him.
Did Kobe Bryant botch a suicide attempt at some point?
Maybe it's something deeper, something that revealed itself at birth. Who knows? And the beauty, he'll never -- not even in Spike Lee's documentary about him -- be the one to tell.
Do you think Scoop’s editor reads this and actually knows what the hell he is talking about?
What’s “it”. The fiendish thirst?
The Celtics are thirsty for that ring, too, but they aren't dying of thirst.
Well that clear’s that up.
Which essentially is the difference between Kobe and them -- maybe Kobe and maybe all other human beings. And until KG, Truth and Jesus (anyone: Tiger, Roger, Peyton, LeBron, Kimbo, etc.) can equate death with what it will mean to not win a championship on these terms, until they can make themselves believe -- as Kobe has -- that their survival depends on getting this ring, then their collective and collaborative effort may not be enough.
We’re lumping Kimbo Slice in with Tiger Woods at this point? This column is redefining the sports column as we know it. It literally is about nothing. It’s just a bunch of poetic-like sentences about absolutely nothing of substance. It’s terrible.
Winning is the difference between a mission and an addiction. The Celtics are on a season-long mission against a dude that for the last five years has forced an addiction on himself to win. Winning substantiates this dude.
Dude, is Paulie Shore writing this thing? Back to back sentences referring to Kobe as "dude"?
It eliminates every doubt that may have somehow crept into his überconfident mind about his ability to carry and lead a team at the highest level of this sport. He has tasted something his competition (outside of Sam Cassell and James Posey) has never tasted, is hooked on something they've yet to sample. Addiction does not come by osmosis, whether it's meth, crack, coke, chocolate, caffeine, nicotine, sex, gambling, drinking or body art. To feel what it feels like to want to experience that same feeling again, you would have had to have it in your system before. The power of that feeling always makes those who reach that level of necessity more powerful than those who wish they knew what it felt like.
For a guy so hell bent on winning, he sure hasn’t been very good at it the last few years. Funny how the addiction is driving him this year, when he’s playing with better teammates. Last year? Not so addicted.
Kobe has that feeling. The others don't. And he is still thirsty.
That sentence strikes me to the core of my being and leaves me with the undying desire to want to experience the feeling that Kobe Bryant is living and breathing……drinking, if you will.
As those who are close to the game and those who still hate him despite what he's done since the playoffs started will testify, you can't beat a fiend at his own game when his game is basketball and basketball is all he has.
Is that sort of like “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!”?
Which leaves only one thing left that Kobe Bryant can do: Obey his thirst.
(pukes).
Then there’s Scoop Jackson.
There's a term used in the community called "thirsty."
“The community”. How about “the world”. There’s a term in the world of English speaking people. Why be so exclusionary, buddy?
It means what you think it means, but it's now being used in different contexts. Only to make a point of the extremes to which some people will go to get what they want. More severely, what they need.
Nooo…that’s pretty much what I figured you meant. You're not writing about nutrition on ESPN.com.
Kobe Bryant, for lack of more sophisticated terminology, is thirsty.
Gotcha. So what else are we going to talk about? Matchups? Some Lakers-Celtics history?
Oh, much much much more on Kobe Bryant’s thirst?
His thirst for another NBA title is that of an amplitude we may not have ever seen before. Not in sports, business, crime, corruption or politics.
Kobe Bryant, a 3-time NBA champion, is not more thirsty than John Elway was to end his career as the guy who kept losing the big game. He’s not more thirsty than Jordan, Isiah, or Shaq were to break through and win a championship. He’s not more thirsty than Andy Fastow was to siphon money out of Enron or than Bill Gates was when he started Microsoft.
Keeping it community: He's thirsty like a fiend.
Scoop, I’m just going to come out and ask you this. Do you not want me reading this? I’m white. Is “community” supposed to be “the black community”? Are you just talking to people in that community? Can you “keep it” in a more inclusionary manner please? Is this why I never understand you? Because you don’t want me to?
Now I understand how Bill Maher it is to use a dependency as an analogy to describe Kobe's mental range, scope and capacity and how wrong it probably is to compare "the greatest player of his generation" (as TNT labeled him to promote the Western Conference finals) to Ashy Larry or Bubbles, but it fits. Like disloyalty and Scott McClellan. In technical terms, Kobe is an obligate anti-carnivore.
I have no fucking idea what that paragraph means. None. Is Dennis Miller ghost-writing Scoop Jackson columns now? That doesn’t jibe with the “community” talk but it’s the only explanation.
This thirst -- whether he admits or denies or realizes it -- comes from a needing to do this without Shaquille O'Neal. It's a needing to come as close to Jordan and Jordan's legacy as any other basketball player alive right now … and maybe in the future. It's a needing to prove to himself what he's known and told himself ever since he challenged Brian Shaw to play one-on-one at age 11.
I agree – Kobe Bryant wants to win. Do we need a column for this? I say no.
Redemption, chip on his shoulder, edge, anger. None apply. There's a fiend-like component inside Kobe that exceeds all of the above labels that no athlete in any other sport possesses,
Not Tiger Woods?
and the closer he gets to attaining another championship ring, the more impossible it is going to be for anyone -- or any one team -- to deny him. His want has gone into an almost dependence stage of validation, of recognition, of being the last man standing.
You sir, are just making stuff up to fill up a column. You are offering nothing. No examples, no analysis – just jibberish.
There is no player or collection of players on Boston's squad -- no player(s) on any team that the Lakers have faced throughout the playoffs, no entire 12-man roster in the league, to be honest -- that can match his need to win this championship.
The Lakers are a good, young team. They will be awesome for the next few years. The Celtics have maybe 2 shots at a Championship. Garnett has never won. Kobe has won 3. I think Garnett’s “need” is on par with Bryant’s.
A compulsion to prove to himself -- and us -- that he's been right all along is what's at the center of this. Right that he's not a bad guy, a prima donna, arrogant, aloof or antisocial. Right that he is engaging and personable. Right that he might be the best basketball player your kids will ever see.
Look – only a grade A-moron would confuse basketball brilliance with not being a bad guy or a prima donna. He’ll diffuse very little of that by winning this championship.
Just as he was right about publicly forcing the Lakers to make some roster moves, in every fabric of his being he has to be right about how he sees himself and what he sees himself as. Even though he said in the ESPN Sunday Conversation that he was comfortable being the No. 2 guy while winning rings with Shaq, and in so many words to please stop the Jordan comparisons because there will never be another ("He's a different person … the greatest ever … let me do me …. Thank you!"), those who have watched his evolution -- his ascendance -- know better. He tries to cover it up in interviews and private conversations, but once he gets in "black" Jack Bauer mode it becomes clear as Claritin. He's on something extra. Something that once he calls it quits about five years and three more rings from now, he's going to need some serious form of detox to get out of his system.
He’s competitive. We know this.
Hopefully he has the sense that Jordan did not and just quietly ascends into retirement instead of botching the personnel thing, trying a comeback, and then doing whatever Jordan is doing now (I know his title, but I don’t know what he actually does, other than piss off people in Charlotte).
To everyone else, this is about basketball. To him … this is about survival.
Whose?
His.
Deep.
No it’s not, it’s about basketball. Basketball is about throwing a ball into a hole. If I was actually going through any real drama in my life, like if I had cancer or something, I'd probably be offended by this column.
It's the life of a fiend. Trapped inside the shell of a basketball player who almost had the game taken from him. The fact that he could have been responsible for not being able to show the world this stage of his life probably still eats at his mind. It might be what ultimately drives him.
Did Kobe Bryant botch a suicide attempt at some point?
Maybe it's something deeper, something that revealed itself at birth. Who knows? And the beauty, he'll never -- not even in Spike Lee's documentary about him -- be the one to tell.
Do you think Scoop’s editor reads this and actually knows what the hell he is talking about?
What’s “it”. The fiendish thirst?
The Celtics are thirsty for that ring, too, but they aren't dying of thirst.
Well that clear’s that up.
Which essentially is the difference between Kobe and them -- maybe Kobe and maybe all other human beings. And until KG, Truth and Jesus (anyone: Tiger, Roger, Peyton, LeBron, Kimbo, etc.) can equate death with what it will mean to not win a championship on these terms, until they can make themselves believe -- as Kobe has -- that their survival depends on getting this ring, then their collective and collaborative effort may not be enough.
We’re lumping Kimbo Slice in with Tiger Woods at this point? This column is redefining the sports column as we know it. It literally is about nothing. It’s just a bunch of poetic-like sentences about absolutely nothing of substance. It’s terrible.
Winning is the difference between a mission and an addiction. The Celtics are on a season-long mission against a dude that for the last five years has forced an addiction on himself to win. Winning substantiates this dude.
Dude, is Paulie Shore writing this thing? Back to back sentences referring to Kobe as "dude"?
It eliminates every doubt that may have somehow crept into his überconfident mind about his ability to carry and lead a team at the highest level of this sport. He has tasted something his competition (outside of Sam Cassell and James Posey) has never tasted, is hooked on something they've yet to sample. Addiction does not come by osmosis, whether it's meth, crack, coke, chocolate, caffeine, nicotine, sex, gambling, drinking or body art. To feel what it feels like to want to experience that same feeling again, you would have had to have it in your system before. The power of that feeling always makes those who reach that level of necessity more powerful than those who wish they knew what it felt like.
For a guy so hell bent on winning, he sure hasn’t been very good at it the last few years. Funny how the addiction is driving him this year, when he’s playing with better teammates. Last year? Not so addicted.
Kobe has that feeling. The others don't. And he is still thirsty.
That sentence strikes me to the core of my being and leaves me with the undying desire to want to experience the feeling that Kobe Bryant is living and breathing……drinking, if you will.
As those who are close to the game and those who still hate him despite what he's done since the playoffs started will testify, you can't beat a fiend at his own game when his game is basketball and basketball is all he has.
Is that sort of like “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!”?
Which leaves only one thing left that Kobe Bryant can do: Obey his thirst.
(pukes).
Monday, June 2, 2008
History Lessen for Bill Plaschke
Bill Plaschke has a Hi-Larious preview of the NBA finals, which could have been written by Bill Simmons if he had the restraint to be brief and not explain anything in tons of detail. In other words, it's not real analysis - it's just comparing peripheral stuff. One of the sections was in regards to which team's fanbase had the better "chant". Too funny right? That Plaschke.
Chant vs. Chant
In the early days of this championship rivalry, the Celtics fans invented the "Beat L.A." chant.
The Lakers will respond this week with a simple, "M-V-P, M-V-P."
The Boston chant is wish.
The Lakers chant is a reality.
The early days of the Celtics-Lakers rivalry were in the 1960’s. The “Beat LA” chant started in 1982. The chant was not directed at the Lakers, but instead at the Philadelphia 76ers, who were in the process of finishing off game 7 in Boston in the conference finals. The Lakers had already clinched the West.
The Boston fans had conceded defeat and sent the Philly players off with the message…. "Beat LA”. The Lakers beat Philadelphia, but Philly got them back in ’83.
Anyway – I think the Celtics fans should chant “DPOY!” and “EOY!” (Executive of the Year). That would totally rile people up. Knowing the Celtics fans, they’ll probably chant something about Kobe’s alleged hook-up with a Laker cheerleader, or even go into the vault and chant something about the rape trial. But that opens them up to some serious Paul Pierce stabbing, Ray Allen OCD, or Sam Cassell looking like Admiral Akbar chants in retaliation.
Chant vs. Chant
In the early days of this championship rivalry, the Celtics fans invented the "Beat L.A." chant.
The Lakers will respond this week with a simple, "M-V-P, M-V-P."
The Boston chant is wish.
The Lakers chant is a reality.
The early days of the Celtics-Lakers rivalry were in the 1960’s. The “Beat LA” chant started in 1982. The chant was not directed at the Lakers, but instead at the Philadelphia 76ers, who were in the process of finishing off game 7 in Boston in the conference finals. The Lakers had already clinched the West.
The Boston fans had conceded defeat and sent the Philly players off with the message…. "Beat LA”. The Lakers beat Philadelphia, but Philly got them back in ’83.
Anyway – I think the Celtics fans should chant “DPOY!” and “EOY!” (Executive of the Year). That would totally rile people up. Knowing the Celtics fans, they’ll probably chant something about Kobe’s alleged hook-up with a Laker cheerleader, or even go into the vault and chant something about the rape trial. But that opens them up to some serious Paul Pierce stabbing, Ray Allen OCD, or Sam Cassell looking like Admiral Akbar chants in retaliation.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Cliffs Notes Version: Bill Plaschke on the Lakers Clinching the West
Same guy, same annoying, cutesy writing. Here is a trimmed down version of his column on the Lakers clinching the Western Conference.
From Finished to Finals.
From Loons to June.
From Shock to Awe.
No more punch lines, just punch…
No more laugh track, just tracks….
Whoever they play… the Lakers will not have home-court advantage.
But for the fourth time, they will have home-run advantage.
Nobody's season...
Nobody's season...
Last summer, remember, Bryant's prayer was that he leave everyone.
Now, his prayer is that everyone follow him.
How did this happen?
How did this happen?
If you don't think … then you haven't been watching.
If you don't think … then you haven't been listening.
So did the San Antonio Spurs. So did the rest of the NBA. So did we.
Now go read the column.
Done?
Didn’t you pretty much get the tone, style and point with 80+% of the words missing?
From Finished to Finals.
From Loons to June.
From Shock to Awe.
No more punch lines, just punch…
No more laugh track, just tracks….
Whoever they play… the Lakers will not have home-court advantage.
But for the fourth time, they will have home-run advantage.
Nobody's season...
Nobody's season...
Last summer, remember, Bryant's prayer was that he leave everyone.
Now, his prayer is that everyone follow him.
How did this happen?
How did this happen?
If you don't think … then you haven't been watching.
If you don't think … then you haven't been listening.
So did the San Antonio Spurs. So did the rest of the NBA. So did we.
Now go read the column.
Done?
Didn’t you pretty much get the tone, style and point with 80+% of the words missing?
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?
Friday, May 16, 2008
Are You Surprised the Spurs Won Game 6?
Gregg Doyel seemed to be. I just don’t get the angle he takes in this column.
SAN ANTONIO -- The wrong team played like there was no tomorrow. The wrong team panicked. The wrong team choked.
Well, since the Spurs were going to be eliminated from the playoffs if they lost, I’d say that they needed to play like there was no tomorrow – because there was no tomorrow.
The New Orleans Hornets blew Game 6 on Thursday night -- losing 99-80 -- and part of me wonders if they blew Game 7 while they were at it.
Nope – Game 7 is at home on Monday. They may lose that game, because the Spurs are a good basketball team, but not because they lost game 6.
If anyone was going to wilt Thursday at the AT&T Center, it should have been San Antonio.
Because they are the defending NBA champions playing at home in a conference semi-finals game against a team in the playoffs in the first time. Yeah, who expected the Spurs to not wilt in that situation!
Granted, home teams haven't done a lot of wilting this NBA postseason -- entering this game, home teams were 19-1 in the conference semifinals -- but San Antonio was facing a game unlike any of those first 20: The Spurs walked onto their home floor facing elimination. And they did so as the defending NBA champions.
Sooo…they were more likely to wilt, because of the pressure? The Popovich/Duncan era Spurs have four fucking rings.
Add that up, and throw in the fact that San Antonio's last elimination game had occurred in the 2006 postseason -- and the Spurs lost that game, to Dallas, in the conference semifinals -- and this had all the makings of a potential San Antonio panic attack.
Oh, well, I hadn’t realized it was there first elimination game (are those the only big games) in two years and they lost the last one. Who didn’t see them losing 2 in a row in that scenario (separated by a mere 2 years)?
But the Spurs were just fine.
Shocking.
The rest of the column is a typical game summary.
SAN ANTONIO -- The wrong team played like there was no tomorrow. The wrong team panicked. The wrong team choked.
Well, since the Spurs were going to be eliminated from the playoffs if they lost, I’d say that they needed to play like there was no tomorrow – because there was no tomorrow.
The New Orleans Hornets blew Game 6 on Thursday night -- losing 99-80 -- and part of me wonders if they blew Game 7 while they were at it.
Nope – Game 7 is at home on Monday. They may lose that game, because the Spurs are a good basketball team, but not because they lost game 6.
If anyone was going to wilt Thursday at the AT&T Center, it should have been San Antonio.
Because they are the defending NBA champions playing at home in a conference semi-finals game against a team in the playoffs in the first time. Yeah, who expected the Spurs to not wilt in that situation!
Granted, home teams haven't done a lot of wilting this NBA postseason -- entering this game, home teams were 19-1 in the conference semifinals -- but San Antonio was facing a game unlike any of those first 20: The Spurs walked onto their home floor facing elimination. And they did so as the defending NBA champions.
Sooo…they were more likely to wilt, because of the pressure? The Popovich/Duncan era Spurs have four fucking rings.
Add that up, and throw in the fact that San Antonio's last elimination game had occurred in the 2006 postseason -- and the Spurs lost that game, to Dallas, in the conference semifinals -- and this had all the makings of a potential San Antonio panic attack.
Oh, well, I hadn’t realized it was there first elimination game (are those the only big games) in two years and they lost the last one. Who didn’t see them losing 2 in a row in that scenario (separated by a mere 2 years)?
But the Spurs were just fine.
Shocking.
The rest of the column is a typical game summary.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Bill Plaschke doesn’t like Pau Gasol Anymore
Bill Plaschke recently wrote these lines of poetry about Pau Gasol after game 1 of the playoffs. Well, now it’s crunch time (second round) and what happens? The big Spanish baby had a bad game. This is only half his latest column because I can only deal with so many one sentence paragraphs of fruity sportswriting.
Did you see the craziness of the video-game highlight, Kobe Bryant 2008, a toss against the backboard that he caught for a dunk?
Kobe Bryant 2008 is a “video-game highlight”? Huh? Anyway, yes, I saw that play.
Did you feel the floor burns of those three steals, Grand Theft Basketball 2008, consecutive heists in the final minutes?
So we’re working a video game theme I see. Plaschke, you creative dog. I hope there’s some Ikari Warriors worked into the conclusion.
Did you hear the Lakers come back from a 10-point deficit midway through the fourth quarter Friday night to silence the head-throbbing noise and nearly trash the best home court in basketball?
"We could have won this game," Lamar Odom said, shaking his head.
But the story was what you didn't see.
The moral was what you couldn't feel.
The outcome was due, in part, to what you could barely hear.
Could this guy be any more fucking full of himself?
paugasol.
Faced with the most intense, physical postseason game of his career, late-season giant Pau Gasol shrank to an indiscernible size in the Lakers' 104-99 loss to the Utah Jazz at EnergySolutions Arena.
With their first loss in seven postseason games, the Lakers weren't the only ones to reveal their spring mortality.
Gasol, a novice in these deeper waters, proved he also can sink.
Handed its first real test of June-worthiness, that great basketball brain flunked.
Faced with its first playoff adversity, that gentle smile became a whine.
Jarred for the first time with playoff desperation, those beautiful passes were junked.
I left that all in there, uninterupted, so that you can see the horrendousness of the prose.
Can you all say it with me?
JUST FUCKING SPIT IT OUT. Plaschke’s biggest fault is that he feels the need to say the same thing over and over again.
Instead of getting to the point, he stinks up the joint.
Thank you, thank you. I'll be on page 3 of LA Times Sports any time now.
And so forth. "It was loud," Gasol said. "It was intense."
Unacceptable! You aren’t suppose to feel intensity, or hear the crowd. You can only relax your calm eyes on the rim and sink jumper after jumper.
In his tired eyes you could see the confirmation of one more sentence.
No you couldn’t. You couldn’t see anything in his eyes. You’re making that up and using his eyes as some sort of literary device to make another faux poignant, obvious, crappy observation.
It was awful.
I hear you brother. I saw that in his eyes too.
For the first time in this postseason, Gasol did not dress in the crowded visiting locker area afterward, instead retrieving his clothes and dressing in a quieter spot in the back.
THAT, has meaning. I mean, like, wow! Right? Crazy shit. I mean, dressed in a quieter spot? There's so much going on there. I think that should be the name of Gasol's biography.
It was precisely that way in the game.
I know right. I mean, that was the meaning that I saw from it too. This is awesome. I’m thinking like Bill Plaschke now.
Did you notice Gasol sipping his coffee this morning with his pinky in the air? I see another flop in game 4.
Suddenly, if the Lakers aren't careful with their two-games-to-one lead, it could be that way for the rest of the summer.
I’m sorry, Bill? You lost me. It could be WHAT WAY? Like they were dressing in quiet spots instead of in the dressing room. All summer?
"I can do much better," Gasol acknowledged.
On that shot, he was perfect.
In a game in which Utah's two big men combined for 49 points, he scored 12.
Fucking failure. I mean – he should have hit so many more than 6 of his 10 shots.
In a game that featured 37 Lakers free throws, he didn't get to the foul line once.
It’s because he’s a giant passive pussy. I mean – he took 5 free throws a game in the regular season. Now he takes none. That can only be because he was afraid of getting hit like a little girly girl. What’s the matter – they don’t have hard fouls back in Spain? Go back to soccer you pussy.
No, wait. Knitting! Knit me a sweater “Pau-ssy”.
In a game that featured many touches in 40 minutes, he had just one assist.
Many touches! I hadn’t even realized that. Here I was, watching the game….and not noticing all of these non-assist creating touches.
Okay this got boring a while ago.
Did you see the craziness of the video-game highlight, Kobe Bryant 2008, a toss against the backboard that he caught for a dunk?
Kobe Bryant 2008 is a “video-game highlight”? Huh? Anyway, yes, I saw that play.
Did you feel the floor burns of those three steals, Grand Theft Basketball 2008, consecutive heists in the final minutes?
So we’re working a video game theme I see. Plaschke, you creative dog. I hope there’s some Ikari Warriors worked into the conclusion.
Did you hear the Lakers come back from a 10-point deficit midway through the fourth quarter Friday night to silence the head-throbbing noise and nearly trash the best home court in basketball?
"We could have won this game," Lamar Odom said, shaking his head.
But the story was what you didn't see.
The moral was what you couldn't feel.
The outcome was due, in part, to what you could barely hear.
Could this guy be any more fucking full of himself?
paugasol.
Faced with the most intense, physical postseason game of his career, late-season giant Pau Gasol shrank to an indiscernible size in the Lakers' 104-99 loss to the Utah Jazz at EnergySolutions Arena.
With their first loss in seven postseason games, the Lakers weren't the only ones to reveal their spring mortality.
Gasol, a novice in these deeper waters, proved he also can sink.
Handed its first real test of June-worthiness, that great basketball brain flunked.
Faced with its first playoff adversity, that gentle smile became a whine.
Jarred for the first time with playoff desperation, those beautiful passes were junked.
I left that all in there, uninterupted, so that you can see the horrendousness of the prose.
Can you all say it with me?
JUST FUCKING SPIT IT OUT. Plaschke’s biggest fault is that he feels the need to say the same thing over and over again.
Instead of getting to the point, he stinks up the joint.
Thank you, thank you. I'll be on page 3 of LA Times Sports any time now.
And so forth. "It was loud," Gasol said. "It was intense."
Unacceptable! You aren’t suppose to feel intensity, or hear the crowd. You can only relax your calm eyes on the rim and sink jumper after jumper.
In his tired eyes you could see the confirmation of one more sentence.
No you couldn’t. You couldn’t see anything in his eyes. You’re making that up and using his eyes as some sort of literary device to make another faux poignant, obvious, crappy observation.
It was awful.
I hear you brother. I saw that in his eyes too.
For the first time in this postseason, Gasol did not dress in the crowded visiting locker area afterward, instead retrieving his clothes and dressing in a quieter spot in the back.
THAT, has meaning. I mean, like, wow! Right? Crazy shit. I mean, dressed in a quieter spot? There's so much going on there. I think that should be the name of Gasol's biography.
It was precisely that way in the game.
I know right. I mean, that was the meaning that I saw from it too. This is awesome. I’m thinking like Bill Plaschke now.
Did you notice Gasol sipping his coffee this morning with his pinky in the air? I see another flop in game 4.
Suddenly, if the Lakers aren't careful with their two-games-to-one lead, it could be that way for the rest of the summer.
I’m sorry, Bill? You lost me. It could be WHAT WAY? Like they were dressing in quiet spots instead of in the dressing room. All summer?
"I can do much better," Gasol acknowledged.
On that shot, he was perfect.
In a game in which Utah's two big men combined for 49 points, he scored 12.
Fucking failure. I mean – he should have hit so many more than 6 of his 10 shots.
In a game that featured 37 Lakers free throws, he didn't get to the foul line once.
It’s because he’s a giant passive pussy. I mean – he took 5 free throws a game in the regular season. Now he takes none. That can only be because he was afraid of getting hit like a little girly girl. What’s the matter – they don’t have hard fouls back in Spain? Go back to soccer you pussy.
No, wait. Knitting! Knit me a sweater “Pau-ssy”.
In a game that featured many touches in 40 minutes, he had just one assist.
Many touches! I hadn’t even realized that. Here I was, watching the game….and not noticing all of these non-assist creating touches.
Okay this got boring a while ago.
Friday, May 9, 2008
ESPN Editors Realize They Need To Start Fact Checking Bill Simmons
Bill Simmons wrote a piece about Barry Bonds for the magazine a few weeks ago. In it, he noted the following:
For all intents and purposes, Bonds' career has vanished into thin air. His home ballpark has had three different names (Pac Bell, SBC and AT&T), but it was mostly considered the House That Barry Built. This season, though, all traces of his dirigible-size head have been erased. Forget about a statue, inside or outside the stadium; there isn't a plaque, a banner or even a picture. It's like Bonds never happened.
That's mildly interesting, right? Problem is the May 5th issue of ESPN Magazine pointed out that it's dead wrong.
On page 16:
We whiffed when we wrote that the San Francisco Giants had removed all traces of Barry Bonds from AT&T Park. Turns out, nods to the slugger pop up in 10 places, including:
- Behind Right-Centerfield, where a plaque marks the landing spot of infamous no. 756.
- Rightfield Portal, where his name appears alongside those of the three other Giants with at least 500 HRs.
- Leftfield, where there are replicas of his five MVPs adorning the Coke-bottle platform.
- Rightfield Portwalk, where seven of the 14 monuments that line the sidewalk fence commemorate his milestones.
- AT&T Park grounds, where Bonds stars in various displays that celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Giants' arrival to the Bay.
Yeah, but after those five spots, and five other spots, they've totally erased him!
For all intents and purposes, Bonds' career has vanished into thin air. His home ballpark has had three different names (Pac Bell, SBC and AT&T), but it was mostly considered the House That Barry Built. This season, though, all traces of his dirigible-size head have been erased. Forget about a statue, inside or outside the stadium; there isn't a plaque, a banner or even a picture. It's like Bonds never happened.
That's mildly interesting, right? Problem is the May 5th issue of ESPN Magazine pointed out that it's dead wrong.
On page 16:
We whiffed when we wrote that the San Francisco Giants had removed all traces of Barry Bonds from AT&T Park. Turns out, nods to the slugger pop up in 10 places, including:
- Behind Right-Centerfield, where a plaque marks the landing spot of infamous no. 756.
- Rightfield Portal, where his name appears alongside those of the three other Giants with at least 500 HRs.
- Leftfield, where there are replicas of his five MVPs adorning the Coke-bottle platform.
- Rightfield Portwalk, where seven of the 14 monuments that line the sidewalk fence commemorate his milestones.
- AT&T Park grounds, where Bonds stars in various displays that celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Giants' arrival to the Bay.
Yeah, but after those five spots, and five other spots, they've totally erased him!
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Why I Can't Stand Bill Plaschke
It's because of lines like this, in his latest column, about the Lakers game 1 win and, more specifically, Pau Gasol.
With his frumpy hair and delicate gait, sometimes he looked like a bird. With his long thin arms spread wide, other times he looked like a plane.
In the end, though, he looked like Super You-Know-Who, scoring 36 points with 16 rebounds to lead the Lakers to a 128-114 victory over the Nuggets in their first-round playoff opener.
Gee I didn't see where that was going.
It was a day of class, with Rick Fox bringing out the ball to start the game.
It was a day of crass, with some Lakers fans chanting, "D-U-I" when Carmelo Anthony shot his first free throws.
It was a day of sass, with Coach Phil Jackson, during pregame interviews, impulsively calling out Shaquille O'Neal for never getting his proper sleep during the playoffs.
But mostly, it was a day of Gas.
Hey! I get it! You RHYMED! How clever!!!!
I hate you.
With his frumpy hair and delicate gait, sometimes he looked like a bird. With his long thin arms spread wide, other times he looked like a plane.
In the end, though, he looked like Super You-Know-Who, scoring 36 points with 16 rebounds to lead the Lakers to a 128-114 victory over the Nuggets in their first-round playoff opener.
Gee I didn't see where that was going.
It was a day of class, with Rick Fox bringing out the ball to start the game.
It was a day of crass, with some Lakers fans chanting, "D-U-I" when Carmelo Anthony shot his first free throws.
It was a day of sass, with Coach Phil Jackson, during pregame interviews, impulsively calling out Shaquille O'Neal for never getting his proper sleep during the playoffs.
But mostly, it was a day of Gas.
Hey! I get it! You RHYMED! How clever!!!!
I hate you.
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, April 4, 2008
Chronic Injuries are No Excuse!
I haven't been reading much lately, but I received the following point from Reader Matt - who is also Commissioner of my fantasy league and who I suspect is also a local Grand Wizard of the Dungeons and Dragons Dress Up Group that just skips the board game (or whatever D&D is) and acts everything out in real costume. Maybe I made that up, but I don't know what he does with his Saturday nights so we'll go with that.
Bill Simmons recently wrote a little summary of Chris Webber's career. It included a classic Simmonsian turn where he wrote something faux-poignant that conflicted something else in the column.
Since I'm lazy I'll just copy and paste Matt's e-mail here:
-----------------------------------------
Early in Simmon’s recent piece on Chris Webber, he states:
Of all the great players who passed through the NBA and never fulfilled their promise, Webber was the only one without a legitimate excuse.
Then he almost immediately follows it up with:
During his "prime" (1994 to 2004), he played 70 games or less in nine different seasons, missed 283 of a possible 870 games and battled a never-ending assortment of freak injuries, culminating with a knee tear in Sacramento that robbed him of his explosiveness and forced him to change his style on the fly (although he somehow remained effective for a few more years).
So to summarize: Webber had no legitimate excuse for never fulfilling his promise of greatness. Unless you count that rash of injuries that hit him during his prime, including a knee injury that forced him to change his fundamental style of play.
----------------------------------------------
Bill Simmons recently wrote a little summary of Chris Webber's career. It included a classic Simmonsian turn where he wrote something faux-poignant that conflicted something else in the column.
Since I'm lazy I'll just copy and paste Matt's e-mail here:
-----------------------------------------
Early in Simmon’s recent piece on Chris Webber, he states:
Of all the great players who passed through the NBA and never fulfilled their promise, Webber was the only one without a legitimate excuse.
Then he almost immediately follows it up with:
During his "prime" (1994 to 2004), he played 70 games or less in nine different seasons, missed 283 of a possible 870 games and battled a never-ending assortment of freak injuries, culminating with a knee tear in Sacramento that robbed him of his explosiveness and forced him to change his style on the fly (although he somehow remained effective for a few more years).
So to summarize: Webber had no legitimate excuse for never fulfilling his promise of greatness. Unless you count that rash of injuries that hit him during his prime, including a knee injury that forced him to change his fundamental style of play.
----------------------------------------------
Last I checked injuries could be a drag on performance, particularly if you're not able to physically be on the court. He also notes that Bernard King and David Thompson did have an excuse....drug use and knee problems. Perhaps if Chris had developed a coke habit to go with his chronic injuries, Bill would give him a pass for not living up to his potential. Last I'll just point out how insane the definitiveness of Simmons' first statement above is. Of all the great players who didn't hit their potential, he was the only one without an excuse. Doesn't C-Webb have more an excuse than Derrick Coleman, Shawn Kemp and Vince Carter? At his best, he was more effective than any of those guys.
Friday, March 28, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Fun With Numbers: Stuart Scott Edition
From Stuart's latest chat:
Justin P. Elkhorn Wisc.: Yo Stu, I am 17 years old and Brett Favre has been the only quarterback I've known, and he retired on my birthday (great present). But, where do you think he ranks among the best?
Stuart Scott: (10:08 AM ET ) If you consider everything, passing ability, leadership, toughness, I would definitely put him top five, Marino, Elway, Montana, Johnny U. and Steve Young. I know counting Brett that's six--stop quibbling. Footnote: I don't put Brady and Peyton in there yet only b/c they are still playing.
So he puts him in his top 5, with 7 others.
Justin P. Elkhorn Wisc.: Yo Stu, I am 17 years old and Brett Favre has been the only quarterback I've known, and he retired on my birthday (great present). But, where do you think he ranks among the best?
Stuart Scott: (10:08 AM ET ) If you consider everything, passing ability, leadership, toughness, I would definitely put him top five, Marino, Elway, Montana, Johnny U. and Steve Young. I know counting Brett that's six--stop quibbling. Footnote: I don't put Brady and Peyton in there yet only b/c they are still playing.
So he puts him in his top 5, with 7 others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)