13 May 2010 – Not my King, never my King

Some LeBron James-related scribbles:

• I first heard about LeBron James when I was living in Irvine, CA as a college student.  James was in high school then, and Dan Patrick (who was still with ESPN) talked about him on his show.
• Dan Patrick enthused so much about James’ abilities on the court and correctly predicted that one day James would be drafted into the NBA straight out of high school and immediately be a superstar.
• I’ve never forgotten how Dan Patrick told his audience about the time when, as a high school senior, LeBron bought his mother a Hummer (as I recall, he paid for it with some money that Nike had paid him as part of an endorsement deal) and bought himself a radio-controlled miniature of the same vehicle.
• I’ve also never forgotten about when, before one of his high school games, he arranged to have the gym emptied so he could play with his radio-controlled Hummer on the court.

It’s probably quite obvious that my enthusiasm for LeBron James is contained.  Actually, it would be more precise to say that it is non-existent.

While James is impressive as a stats producer and as a physical specimen – I think that he is like Magic Johnson, albeit a much stronger, much quicker, more agile version of the Laker great – I’m not as impressed with him as a basketball player.

“But what do you mean by that?,” you may be asking.  “How can you not be impressed with him?”

Heresy, some of you might be screaming.

For all the people who say that LeBron James is now the greatest basketball player in the NBA, I’m not ready to anoint him thus.  For one thing, I think that there are a few players who I would rate higher than him.

Steve Nash, I think, is better.  Why?  I think he improves the play of his teammates and lifts up the performance of his entire team.  He’s a pure shooter, makes great decisions as a court general as befits his position as the point guard of his team, and is a defensive nightmare:  He can beat you from the outside, with his ability to penetrate, and with his ability to dish to his teammate in the best position to score.

Dirk Nowitzky is arguably better.  Dirk is a far better shooter, a clutch performer at the free-throw line (LeBron has never been one in truly big, must-win games to the best of my recollection).  And since when have we seen a 7-footer who can score in as many ways as Dirk can, or can handle the ball as well as Dirk?  The only negative thing I can say about Dirk is that he doesn’t have the killer instinct when the chips are down.  He tends to wilt under ultimate pressure.

Kobe Bryant is still better than LeBron.  Kobe is a better outside shooter, has a higher skill level, a better defender, and is THE guy to have in the endgame.  He’s absolutely cold-blooded when the game is on the line and can still produce the goods despite so many injuries.

“Wait, wait, wait, how can you say all this?,” you might be saying.  “LeBron’s stats prove you’re wrong, buddy!”

Okay, so maybe LeBron has better numbers than all three I cited here.  His scoring totals for this year:  All in LeBron’s favor.  Rebounds?  Check.  Assists?  He beats all but Nash.  Blocks?  Even there, he leads the three I nominated.  Steals?  Yup.

But this is where stats simply just don’t tell the story.  Let’s take blocks as an example.  LeBron has great numbers here, but when you watch the games, the highlights, you begin to understand why.  Quick question:  What percentage of those blocks were done when LeBron was guarding his own man?  Okay, so some might counter-argue, LeBron’s just being a good help defender.  A block is still counts as a missed shot opportunity for the opposition.  I’ll grant you that, but don’t ever use the shot block statistic as a metric for good defense, especially if the bulk of those stats was accumulated in help situations when the guy with the ball seldom sees a superhuman athlete playing help defense.

(In other words, if another player had LeBron’s legs and power and height and wherewithal to swat shots, he could probably accumulate the same stats in that particular category.)

How about scoring?  In my opinion, as impressive as sheer points per game is, far more important is how many key points have you produced for your team when they really need them?  Cleveland looked quite scary during the regular season, winning games by huge margins more often than the other contenders in either the West or the East.  How often did LeBron come up with the key baskets when the games were close?  Kobe Bryant, for one, is peerless when it comes to this particular part of the game.  Plus you can also argue that Kobe simply doesn’t need to score as much since he’s got a better team around him.

Then there’s the injury angle.  Kobe’s performance, particularly this season, has been affected by the accumulated damage on his body, but still finds ways to lead his team (along with Pau Gasol, it has to be said) to the brink of a third straight NBA Finals appearance.  LeBron’s got a sore elbow during the playoffs which suddenly just sounds like a convenient, ready-made excuse in case LeBron fails to lead the Cavaliers to the Finals.

LeBron James’ arrogance, though, is his outstanding characteristic.  Even after being pushed to the brink of playoff elimination in Game 5 against the Celtics, LeBron still insists that his pathetic performance is a mere fluke.  He has the gall to chastise his team’s fan base for getting on his case because he just didn’t play up to the level expected of one with his reputation.  He not-so-subtly suggests that he lost because his teammates just aren’t as good as the guys wearing the other uniform.  True greats don’t chastise the fans when things get tough; they don’t blame their teammates for not producing, especially when the always-honest game film shows that you simply quit playing hard and checked out way before the last second ticked away on the game clock.

So much for the fallacy that LeBron James makes his teammates better, which is what people who cite his assists-per-game numbers as proof.

The truth is, LeBron James is a fraud.  King James is nothing but an emperor with no clothes.  LeBron James is nothing but an arrogant, petulant, classless poster child for the unjustly entitled NBA superstar class.

LeBron James is the King of Nothing.

6 May 2010 – Andrew Bynum (and his Haters) (or, why trade for Chris Bosh?!?)

Some Andrew Bynum-related scribbles for today:

• Despite a painful partially-torn meniscus on his right knee, Andrew Bynum improved his performance from Game 1 of the Western Conference Semifinals series.
• Granted, he’s matched up against a totally useless Kyrylo Fesenko, so you could argue that anyone would thrive with that kind of competition.
• Despite playing through the discomfort, what do you get from some of these muppets who call themselves “Lakers fans” but more calls for Bynum’s head because he’s “injury-prone”?
• I say these misguided, idiotic “Lakers fans” are all clueless; they don’t really understand basketball.  They think they do, but they really don’t.

I have to say that I’m one of the apparently few people who would declare themselves Andrew Bynum fans.  When I watch him, I can’t help but admire his ability to play with his back to the basket, his deft footwork, his sheer size and length, and his still-growing physical power.  He’s got excellent instincts, especially when you remember that the young guy didn’t really learn the game of basketball until he was about fifteen years old.  And he’s only twenty two right now!

Seven years playing the game, and he’s already the starting center for arguably pro basketball’s greatest franchise ever!

The mental midgets who accuse Bynum of being injury-prone conveniently forget that his first two big injuries to his knees were purely a result of accidents involving his teammates.  In 2008, Bynum dislocated his left kneecap when he accidentally landed on Lamar Odom’s foot on a rebound; the following year, Kobe Bryant fell onto Bynum’s right leg, which resulted in torn knee ligaments.  If someone else landed the same exact way on Lamar Odom’s foot, or if Kobe rolled into someone else’s leg the exact same way, don’t you think those people would have been injured the way Bynum was?

Insofar as those two specific injuries are concerned, which shortened those two NBA seasons for Bynum, Drew was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.  Accidents happen when you play sports; the only way to avoid getting those injuries is to not have been there at those specific times.

Luck was not Bynum’s friend as far as those two specific injuries are concerned.

This year’s litany of injuries (strained Achilles tendon, torn meniscus) is not as serious as his two big knee injuries cited above, so why the non-thinking idiot “fans” (I refuse to call them real fans because of my sheer intolerance for idiots) once again clamoring to trade Bynum for, say, Chris Bosh (who conveniently was at courtside during Game 2 against the Jazz) is incomprehensible from every angle.

For one thing, it’s swapping a good center for a good power forward.  In my book, centers are far more valuable than power forwards.  The Lakers actually have two very good ones already in the books; why pay for another one and lose a good center in the process?

Another consideration is that Bosh is going to be a free agent once this season is over.  So we can deduce some things quite easily at this point:

1. He’s going to ask for a “max” contract.
2. His current team, the Toronto Raptors, is not a big NBA market and will therefore have difficulties paying for Bosh’s services.
3. Bosh has already indicated he wants to leave Toronto, refusing to sign a simple contract extension in the past.

In other words, Bosh will be a very expensive addition to any team that acquires his services.

Defensively speaking, I think Bosh is inferior simply because he’s smaller.  The Lakers are forever being tagged as being “soft.”  Why give away your only legitimate starting-caliber low-post defender for a smaller player who’s not as strong, not as long, not as heavy?

Now explain to me why Bosh would be attractive to the Lakers, short-term or even long-term?

Too expensive, for sure.  He’ll be more expensive than Bynum is on his contract, so in terms of value for money it’s very difficult to justify.  Will you tell Jerry Buss that YOU will pay Bosh’s max contract for him?  I didn’t think so.

Sure, Bosh has good statistics, but did you ever stop to think about WHY he’s got such good numbers?  He’s the number 1 option on his current team, so of course it’s only logical he’d have good stats next to his name.  Do you think he’d produce as much if he was a Laker, with Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol sure to be ahead of him in the pecking order?  Since he rarely plays close to the basket (certainly not like Bynum does), I don’t think he would be more efficient than Bynum is on offense.

Plus there’s the related fact that he plays power forward.  The Lakers have Gasol and Lamar Odom 1 and 2 on their power forward depth chart (Gasol is #2 at the center position, even though he’s #1 during end games owing to Bynum’s youth – and therefore Phil Jackson’s decision to sit Bynum during the end of games).  Do you think someone on a max contract will want to be anything less than #1 at his position?  I suppose Gasol will play out of his position and move over to center, but that would necessarily mean that you’re reducing HIS effectiveness by shifting him out of his natural position.

Taking your second-best player out of his comfort zone and natural playing position just to accommodate a more highly-paid player playing his same position makes a whole lot of sense, yes?

(In case you’re a midget-minded idiot muppet, that last question was supposed to be sarcastic.)

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:  Basketball is still a game of big men.  A good big man is a huge asset, and a great big man is only more so.  Bynum, as young and inexperienced he still is, is already a good center; in my opinion, he has true potential to become a truly great center (better than Shaq, I’d dare say) and can become that if he works really hard at his craft, has good coaching and responds to it, and is lucky as far as health is concerned.  I believe he can be the best center of his generation (better than Dwight Howard, who is a better physical specimen perhaps but is a lesser basketball player).

So why does he have so many haters amongst the Laker fanbase?

(Why not hate on that idiot Jordan Farmar instead, for instance, who is totally useless?  I digress, but I’ll slam him hard later.)

Answer me logically, please, so I can understand the hater point of view.

1 May 2010 – It Takes a Team

Some more Lakers-related scribbles:

• The Lakers finally put the dangerous Oklahoma City Thunder away last night, winning 95-94.
• Pau Gasol’s tip-in of a Kobe Bryant miss proved to be the game-winner.
• Gasol’s put-back symbolically showed one of the best things in sports:  It takes an entire team to beat the opposition.  Pau was there to help the team when Kobe’s attempted game-winner bounced off the rim.
• Ironically, it also highlighted one of the Lakers’ greatest weaknesses at this time:  When Kobe Bryant is hot, it only takes one missed shot at the wrong time for the team to lose.
• The Thunder almost bought one more game and push this seven-game series to the limit by playing the right way, i.e., as a true team.

The Lakers could learn a lot of valuable lessons by analyzing the way the Thunder play basketball.  OKC’s team really is just that:  They are a team.  This is not just lip-service or a cliché as far as they’re concerned.  The way they play really exemplifies what team basketball is all about.

Before they played a single game in this series, some experts predicted that the Lakers would sweep the Thunder and move on to the next round of the playoffs with contemptuous ease.  Clearly, such predictions were predicated on the idea that the Thunder only had one superstar, Kevin Durant, while the Lakers had Kobe and what is arguably the NBA’s most talented front line in Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum.

Such predictions did not account for the two opposing edges of the same sword:  1)  Oklahoma City may have had “inferior” manpower, but played more and more like a cohesive unit as the series went on (and ESPECIALLY when they were in OKC), and 2)  the Lakers may have more superstars, but after Gasol and Bynum, consistent support for Kobe (who himself was as inconsistent this playoff season so far as he has ever been during his entire career) has been very difficult to find.

You don’t need statistics to see that OKC really plays like a team, though we could still use the numbers to demonstrate the point.  A striking facet of this Thunder team is that, though Durant is definitely their best player, they could still count on a myriad of players to take up the slack if/when he is handcuffed by a great defender (Ron Artest may be slammed by a lot of pundits for his inconsistent scoring, but I have nothing bad to say about his game because of his magnificent contributions on the defensive end of the floor).  It seemed to me that there was always a different Thunder player contributing major scoring/rebounding during key moments of the games as the series progressed, which ensured that the more talented and experienced Lakers never really enjoyed a comfortable degree of separation (Game 5 notwithstanding).  In various games, it was Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Serge Ibaka, or some other Thunder player being the major irritant for the Lakers; last night, the Thunder leaned heavily on Jeff Green.

It’s not just on the scoring end that the Thunder play team basketball.  I know it’s not sexy to talk about defense and rebounding, but truly these are the aspects of the game where they play like a true team.  The Lakers had so much difficulty executing their triangle offense; the Thunder would clog the lane with help from the weakside, nullifying the lob entry passes into the Lakers’ bigs.  They also did a good job at switching on screens, which took away the pick-and-roll game the Lakers like to play with Kobe and Gasol/Bynum.  The Lakers, in their impatience on offense, would have no choice but to take the only shots conceded by OKC’s style of defense, and that is the long jumpshot.  Of course, the Lakers have precious little ability to score consistently from the outside.  Inevitably, they’d miss, and the Thunder would crash the boards (three or four of their guys would be fighting for the ball, while only one or two of the Lakers would be in rebounding position), and OKC would be off to the races.

How do you know who to shut down on the other team when, if you do adjust to take away one of their options, another potent one takes his place?  How do you fight a whole five-man unit truly working as one?

Contrast that with the Lakers:  It’s no secret that they live and die with Kobe.  When he’s playing well, or if he’s being an effective distributor/facilitator, the Lakers come up with games like Game 5 of this series.  It’s no accident that the Lakers absolutely crushed the Thunder in Game 5 because OKC were forced to defend their biggest matchup weaknesses.  The Lakers attacked the inside with fluid passing into the low post, never settling for the open long shots that the Thunder conceded.  The Lakers starters were committed to feeding their big boys Bynum and Gasol first, which resulted in high percentage shot attempts.  When you make your opponent’s weakness your greatest strength, only good things will happen.

It’s basic basketball:  The closer you are to the basket, the more likely you’ll make the shot, the more likely the other team will foul you to try to stop you, the more free throws you earn.  If you make your shots, you obviously score, but more importantly you take away the other team’s ability to execute their transition offense (fastbreaks).

Transition offense was one of OKC’s greatest strengths in this past series.

Last night’s game was a showcase of Kobe the scorer.  For most of the game, his sheer willpower to score and overcome the challenge in front of him was on display.  As awesome as Kobe can be when he’s on, the Lakers become so much easier to beat because most of the damage is being done by just one man.  Notice how the big men were almost invisible on offense last night?

The bigs cannot score when the team doesn’t feed them often enough.  You put them on a diet (by not passing the ball to them), and you reduce their scoring potential to put-backs or tip-ins.  (But how can you get offensive rebounds if the other team is more committed to securing the rebound and they outnumber you 3:1 or 3:2?)

When the team invests in the idea that you have to go inside as much as possible, when you make that the focus of the gameplan, you come up with a big part of the winning equation to take the game.

Also, when Kobe is in scoring mode, his defense inevitably suffers.  It’s a matter of having only so much physical energy available at any given time.  Energy is finite in supply:  You devote so much to one part of your game, you only have so much left for anything else.  When Kobe wants to score and do just that, he lacks energy (not EFFORT) to do the other things he needs to do at maximum effect.  Kobe got in foul trouble in the third quarter, earning his fourth foul and compelling Phil Jackson to take him out of the game at a critical time, and the Thunder exploited this and closed the gap to the Lakers.  Westbrook made several key plays (key assists to Jeff Green, critical baskets and free throws) because Kobe became less effective as a defender.

A closing note:  This is NOT an indictment of Kobe Bryant, though I could understand why it may be perceived as such.  This is a critical analysis of how much the Lakers could stand to gain by analyzing the way OKC plays basketball.  Play as a team in all facets of the game, commit to a demonstrated superior strategy, and learn to depend less on your biggest superstar.

The Thunder’s same strategy used by a vastly more talented team would overcome nearly any other team in its way, I’d say.

30 Apr 2010 – Pre-Game 6 Lakers @ Thunder Thoughts

Some pre-Game 6 scribbles:

• I hope the Lakers close out the dangerous Oklahoma City Thunder tonight.  
• A lot of pundits on the radio have been casting this first round playoff series in the same light as last year’s Western Conference semifinals between the Lakers and the Houston Rockets.  
• I don’t agree with the comparison, simply because Houston last year was like a wounded animal lashing out in a bid for survival (it had neither Yao Ming nor Tracy McGrady available for most of the series); OKC is fully healthy, young, more athletic and quicker than the Lakers, and look to be better-coached than the Rockets were last year.
• More than a few experts have declared that, if the Lakers do advance into the second round and beyond, they should have an easier time against whichever teams they play than they are having against the Thunder.  So… is this a high compliment for the Thunder or a savage indictment of the rest of the Western Conference?

Will the Lakers win tonight?  I sure hope so.  If nothing else, it will prevent a pivotal Game 7 on Sunday, which is also my birthday.  So why is this a big deal?  Well, for most of my life, whenever there is a sports event on my birthday, the team or player(s) I support will lose more often than not.  

I’m not kidding.

Even in sports events I played in on my birthday (for three summers in the Philippines, I played summer league basketball), my team ALWAYS LOST ON MY BIRTHDAY.  It’s a freaky kind of jinx which persists to the present day.  In all honesty, I feel a certain kind of terror when I find out the Lakers (or, if there’s a car race on my birthday, my favorite team or driver) are competing on my birthday because they almost inevitably lose.  

If the Lakers lose tonight and play Game 7 on Sunday (my birthday), I’m so afraid they’ll lose.  

Not because the Thunder are playing better or are the better team, but because they’re playing on my birthday.  Absurdly, if they DO lose Game 7 on my birthday, I’m going to feel so responsible…

(I’m praying like crazy the Lakers win tonight!)

21 Apr 2010

Scribbles for today:

• I don’t like attending events where there is sure to be a crowd, but one exception was yesterday’s unveiling of Chick Hearn‘s statue in the courtyard of the Los Angeles Lakers‘ home court, the Staples Center.
• I still remember when Chick died in the summer of 2002; it was one of the few times when the death of a public figure had me on the verge of tears.
• One of the great inevitabilities of losing someone like Chick is, as with all all-time greats (Chick will never lose his place amongst the greatest play-by-play sports broadcasters on radio or television, no matter what sport we’re talking about – and Chick actually broadcast in many sporting events, which highlighted his versatility), there will never be anyone like him.
• It just kills me that a chump like Joel Meyers is the Lakers’ TV play-by-play guy.  It is an incomprehensible, unforgivable situation given Meyers’ ineptitude, pretentiousness, and degree of inadequacy compared to the (admittedly impossible-to-achieve) standards Chick established.
• At least the youthful, yet thoroughly accomplished, Spero Dedes is in the radio play-by-play seat.  Spero must replace that insufferable Meyers someday.  (The sooner this happens, the better.)

I wasn’t there, but per the numerous reports of the event that I’ve read, Magic Johnson and Lakers owner Dr. Jerry Buss were conspicuous (to me) for their absence for the unveiling of Chick’s statue.  I can somewhat understand why Dr. Buss wasn’t there (he’s in his mid-70s, and it was raining during the ceremonies), but Magic’s absence is more glaring.  When Chick was alive, Magic was clearly one of his favorites, and you can just tell whenever he talked about Magic that in some ways Chick loved Earvin Johnson the man as much as he did Magic Johnson the Laker great.  For Magic to not have been there seems a little off-putting to me, to be perfectly honest.

Quick Slants – 19 Apr 2010 Edition

Today’s quick slants:

• So…  where are all the Andrew Bynum haters amongst the Lakers fans right now?  His performance on both offense and defense in Game 1 of the NBA Western Conference quarterfinals was a big part of the win.
• Ron Artest‘s defense on the Oklahoma City Thunder‘s Kevin Durant (the NBA’s top scorer in 2009-2010) played just as big a role as, if not bigger than, Bynum’s control of the low post.  Ron-Ron was practically glued to Durant for most of the game, bothering him on most shot attempts and frustrating the prolific Thunder shooting forward.
• The 2010 Formula One season is four races old, with fifteen to go, and so far it has been brilliant.  So many great performances from a variety of drivers and teams.
• Robert Kubica of Poland, who drives for the Renault factory F1 team, is probably this season’s most pleasant surprise.  His performances in the first four Grands Prix seem to be flattering his car.  That’s not to suggest that the Renault is a great car, or even a very good one.  To see the Renault’s true performance potential, watch Russian F1 rookie Vitaly Petrov in the sister car.
• Michael Schumacher is still a dirty driver.  He edged most of the drivers attempting to overtake him off the track during the Grand Prix of China.  Why no one seems to take him to task for such tactics is one of those mysteries that I’ve never solved or understood.
• I want to like Lewis Hamilton – he is probably one of the three most talented F1 drivers today, along with Fernando Alonso and Sebastian Vettel – but he unfortunately indulges in same kind of questionable tactics as Michael Schumacher and the late Ayrton Senna did.  Transcendent talent and great statistics and results are not the end-all, be-all for me; just as important is a respect for old-school racing ethics.  Racing is an inherently dangerous sport on its own; hooliganism of the ilk that Hamilton sometimes uses only elevates that danger level unacceptably.

The Lakers don’t look like champions right now, but I must say that I was pleased and impressed to see them play the way they did in the first half in Game 1.  They played with more discipline on both offense and defense for much of the game and controlled the tempo enough to prevent the Thunder from exploiting their athleticism more than they did.  Artest’s defense on Durant had the Thunder scrambling for points, and it took them a while to start exploiting the Lakers’ most glaring weakness:  L.A.’s point guards are poor-to-awful on-the-ball defenders.

It’s obvious that the Lakers have a huge advantage in the low post, with two bona fide scoring threats in Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol.  The combination of both Bynum and Gasol is what sets the Lakers apart compared to most teams in the NBA; in my opinion, they should look to exploit this unique advantage as often as possible.  Why the Lakers sometimes seem to forget this is perplexing.  What makes things even more perplexing is often it’s the Lakers’ own impatience and lack of discipline which takes them out of the low post offense-first mentality.  Granted, sometimes some opponents (the Boston Celtics, in particular) will clog the middle and force the Lakers to have poor floor spacing and take them out of their offensive rhythm; too often, though, the Laker guards and small forwards settle for long jumpers and three-pointers.  When this happens, the result is almost 100% predictable:  The Lakers miss, they fail to get the offensive rebound (this particular aspect of their game is easily the most frustrating for me), and the opposition will start their transition offense and get an easy bucket on the fastbreak.

We saw some of that in Game 1 already.  It would do the Lakers well if they stay focused and disciplined on offense and go inside first on every offensive possession.

Quick Slants – 16 Apr 2010 Edition

Today’s quick slants:

• I’m looking forward to a weekend of football (pro and college) on the PS3.
• It’s a shame that neither current-gen console football game is available on the PC.
• If not for the various non-racing sports game I love, I doubt I’d even have a current-gen console.  PC gaming just seems so much more fun to me.
• My broom (not a mop, since I wear my hair spiked up most of the time) of salt-and-pepper (thanks, dad, for the premature white hair gene) finally gets trimmed tonight, after work.
• More writing on tonight’s personal schedule, as well as some sim racing testing.  I installed a whole mess of race circuits and car types for rFactor recently, and I’ve got to get more familiar with netKar Pro as well.

While on my monumentally-scaled messenger run today, I was listening to 710 KSPN, to the LA Sports Live show with Andrew Siciliano and ex-L.A. Laker big man Mychal Thompson (MT is amazingly entertaining).  One of the topics discussed in today’s show was the fact that the NBA protects its superstars and gives them additional advantages, one of which is awarding them with “extra” foul calls in their favor, especially when these superstars are playing on their home courts.  Siciliano made the point that, if the NBA’s referees applied the rules strictly by the letter and called every infraction and every foul that occurred during the course of the game, then the games would be impossibly long, resulting in a boring show for the fans.  As both MT and Siciliano said, no one pays to see a free throw shooting contest.

This basketball student and fan strongly begs to differ.  Personally, I HATE the David Stern-issued edict that NBA superstars should be given extra favors, especially when it comes to officiating.

I think that Siciliano’s logic is asinine in the extreme; if nothing else, it suggests that he has never played in a sanctioned basketball competition (as opposed to pickup games) in his life.  Here’s the thing:  If the refs do indeed apply the rules with as much impartiality as possible, then there is a natural consistency in how the game is officiated, and therefore the players can adjust to the established standards the officiating crew establishes.  Call a given play one way every single time, and it thus becomes the player’s job to adjust to how that call is made.  A foul will always be a foul, traveling is always traveling, three seconds in the paint is always three seconds in the paint, etc.  The way things are (and have been ever since Stern became the commissioner and tacitly mandated the “protect and promote the superstars” edict in the 1980s), you call a given play one way if a non-superstar does it – say, Sasha Vujacic pushes off on his defender on a step-back jumpshot attempt -, then call it completely opposite when a superstar does the exact same thing (who can forget Michael Jordan pushing off on Bryon Russell in the NBA Finals?  I haven’t; nor have I forgiven such an egregious example of the shitty officiating standards in the NBA).

When you have inconsistent rules applications, the players can never adjust.  That’s when the players get frustrated, and educated fans get angry.  It’s like trying to hit a moving target through a smokescreen.  It also sends a terrible message:  The “haves” get even more advantages heaped upon them, and the “have-nots” get shafted.

And that’s just plain wrong, in my book.  And it always will be.

Quick Slants – 24 Mar 2010 Edition

Today’s quick slants:

• Having a trustworthy mechanic (or, better yet, a full-service auto shop crewed by a whole team of trustworthy mechanics) ought to count as one of life’s great treasures.  Once you find this in your own life, you hang on to it tight.  Plus, one of the greatest things about this is the fact that it’s a great gift to share with other people who might need it.
• I don’t like the revised overtime rules that the NFL has recently adopted.  The new rules are convoluted, needlessly complicated, potentially confusing, and inelegant.  Plus the provision that the revised OT rules will be applied only during the playoffs (at least initially) is a classic sign of hedge-betting, in my opinion.  If the rules package was really a panacea for the league’s problems in OT (uh, I honestly never thought there were any problems with how the league used to run OT), why not adopt the revised rules unilaterally (i.e., applicable to the regular season as well as the playoffs)?  I understand the old rules had separate provisions for the regular season and the post-season too, but there are whispers that the powers-that-be think it would be a good idea to apply the new rules to ALL games in the NFL.  Why not just do that in the first place, then?
• The adoption of the new OT rules package begs the question:  What was wrong with the old rules in the first place?  The idea behind the new rules is to eliminate the likelihood that the team that wins the coin toss wins the game outright.  Most teams that win the coin toss elect to receive the kickoff; they therefore go on offense and have the first crack to win the game by virtue of earning enough yards to get in position to score (via TD or FG).  Makes you think that football is all about offense, doesn’t it?  Last I heard, the defensive players and coaches also get paid a good amount of money to do their jobs and stop the other team from putting any points on the board, lest their team lose the game in overtime.  The defense of the team that doesn’t win the coin toss used to be just as important, in that they had to limit the yardage gained by the opposition, force fourth down, and effect a change in possession.  Now, at least during the first possession in OT, the defense gets a slight reprieve, in that they can give up yardage up to a certain point and concede a field goal without losing the game.  In my opinion, that sends the message that defenses really don’t matter so much anymore if they don’t concede the winning TD in OT’s first possession for each team.
• I’m hoping to finish up chapter 9 of my still-growing fanfiction “novella,” “Echoes,” sometime before the end of March.
• My brother-in-law and three nephews are coming down from Canada this weekend, and I’m so excited about it!

I love the TV show LOST, but as this show is reaching its climax I keep finding things that make me feel so dissatisfied with it.

Someday I’ll devote a post or two (or three?) about LOST.

Quick Slants – 21 Mar 2010 Edition

Today’s Lakers-flavored quick slants:

Ah, I love all the Bynum haters out in force.

Trouble with them is they never appreciate something good when they’ve got it. They only know how to kick a fella when he’s down, and they’re all too stupid to understand the game.

True, Andrew Bynum’s career history is littered with stints on the injury list, and that’s why the ignorant haters are dumping on him. But think about these points for a second:

1) He started very young as a big. When you get drafted into the NBA and get exposed to the rigors of an NBA career when your body is still developing, that obviously puts so much more stress on your body. Drew is still growing into his body; ever notice how he keeps getting bigger and heavier every year since he’s been in the league? Get a clue.

Now, before y’all say “How about Kobe, or LeBron? They weren’t this injury-prone, and they both started as teenagers.” They aren’t centers, or even power forwards. Their bodies don’t have to carry as much weight, they don’t bang around with huge men (Cs and PFs in the NBA), and therefore their bones+joints don’t get subjected to the same kinds and degrees of force as a big man would.

And don’t even cite college centers; they get hurt too. Perhaps not as much as an NBA center does, but that’s also because the rigors aren’t as severe. They play fewer games, for one thing, not to mention the fact that they don’t practice as often because of their academic responsibilities.

2) Almost every big man who has ever been great has suffered his share of major injuries. Only two centers who somewhat defy this rule come to mind: Kareem and Hakeem. But even Kareem had some ill-timed injuries as well (remember the 1980 Finals against the Sixers?). David Robinson, the unlucky Bill Walton, Shaq, Ewing (played almost his entire career with two bad knees)… those are just the greats from the modern era, not to mention someone with great potential like Sam Bowie. Bill Russell suffered quite a few nicks, as did Mikan, Willis Reed…

3) Why does practically EVERY team in the league always ask about whether or not Bynum’s available in any trade proposal?  The mental midget haters are missing what’s painfully obvious: Nobody would ask for Bynum in return for a trade if they thought he wasn’t valuable. These muppets only understand numbers without understanding the game.

Basketball is, was, and forever will be a big man’s game. All great teams, those which have sustained championship success, all have a big man who can play. The greatest teams have a great big man. It’s true in college, and it’s true in the pros. The 1980s Celtics, the Showtime Lakers, the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, the late-90s Spurs, Russell’s Celtics, Duke with Christian Laetner, UCLA under John Wooden…

Just about the only dynastic team that didn’t have a good big man was Jordan’s Bulls. They were an aberration. Of course, Luc Longley and Bill Cartwright weren’t complete stiffs, but they got the job done.

A good big man is the most precious commodity in basketball. Bynum is already a good big man; the scary thing about him is his game’s still got a lot of room to grow.

Where were all asinine Bynum haters when he was producing before he went down? ’nuff said.

Quick slants – 26 Jan 2010 Edition

Today’s quick slants:

• The Lakers have got a few problems to sort out between now and the beginning of the playoffs.  Chief of these is the bad defensive performance thus far, compared to last year’s efforts especially.
• Andrew Bynum may be the easy target for these defensive issues, but he is not the reason for these problems.  People who, for whatever reason, insist that he is the problem don’t know how to watch basketball.  If you’re insulted by this last sentence, then perhaps you ought to learn more about how the game is supposed to be played and understand what it is you’re watching and stop listening to your fellow idiot fans and idiot talking heads on sports talk radio.
• The Lakers‘ defensive issues stem from the guards’ inability to contain their counterparts; notice how easily the other team’s guards can penetrate into the lane, especially via screens/picks in the wings or above the free throw line, which forces the Lakers’ low post defenders (primarily Bynum) to rotate to account for the penetrating man.  One of three things happen as a consequence:  1)  Bynum’s rotation causes the penetrating man to throw up a bad shot; 2) Bynum’s attempt to challenge the penetrating man results in a foul; 3) Bynum’s rotation to the penetrator gets his (Bynum’s) own man open, which results in a very easy basket at close range.  Of these three possibilities, two are definitely bad for the Lakers, and the remaining one possibility might be bad for the Lakers if Bynum’s teammates don’t get the rebound.  So why is it all Bynum’s fault when the other team’s guards and small forwards can so easily penetrate into the lane?
• Oh, by the way, for a team with a lot of height, the Lakers are very poor in rebounds.  This one point annoys me very much.
• I said this very early into the current season:  The Lakers will suffer at the defensive side of the ball because Kurt Rambis left the team.
• On all the constant rumors about Bynum being trade bait for this player or that player, think about this question for a moment:  Why trade a guy that the other teams want to take from you?  The fact that the other team wants Bynum in a trade proposal with the Lakers ought to give you a clue as to the guy’s value, both presently and his projected upside.  In other words, the other team knows they’ll be improving their team by getting Bynum in return for whatever player they’re rejecting and dumping on the Lakers.  So again, why trade the man who is the best center in the west (Amar’e Stoudemire is NOT a center, despite the asinine NBA All-Star Ballot this year), or someone very close to it?
• Bynum’s performance would be much better if Phil Jackson leaves him in the game during crunch time.  Why Phil sits his best low-post defender not named D.J. Mbenga at the end of games on a defensive possession (i.e., when the Lakers are on defense) is a mystery to me.  

I’ve long told my dad the Lakers need to acquire a mean streak.  I think they need to cultivate a more aggressive attitude, especially on defense.  All this talk about them being a skill and finesse team (which is largely true) projects the image that the Lakers are soft.  In my opinion, you can do this easily when you foul someone going up for a shot inside the lane.  You punish the opponent if he beats you.  Foul him hard and make him earn his two points, instead of conceding a layup or a dunk without any resistance.  As in football, where Ronnie Lott used to say that the defense has to own the middle of the field, you have to make your opponent think twice, even make him hear footsteps, when he ventures into the softest spot of your defensive territory.

I’m not advocating thug basketball at all.  A hard foul is acceptable, but don’t hurt your opponent.  And each player has six fouls.  Six fouls for each of the five players can save as many as thirty points, assuming the opponent misses all of his free throws for a hard foul on a layup attempt.

It only takes one point to win in basketball, after all.