Christmas in March

How great is Selection Sunday?  

The hour between 6 and 7 p.m. on the East cost, 5 to 6 p.m. for those in my neck of the woods was pure bliss.  Granted, this year Syracuse was comfortably in the tournament as opposed to the last two years when they were left out.  I know, that makes a difference.  I can't say it doesn't.

But I still love this day, and I love this tournament.  Unlike Scott, and like many of you, I prefer the college game to the NBA game.  And not for the stupid reason people usually give that the college athletes are playing for the name on the front rather than the name on the back, or that they care about the passion of the game and NBA players don't.  Exhibit A for why that argument is ridiculous are guys like Dwyane Wade, Kobe or LeBron.

It's the grand nature of it.  It's the controversy, the pairings, the anticipation of weekends filled with game after game after game.  It's the match-ups that pit David vs. Goliath.  It's the ability to participate in a pool.  It's the constant barrage of entertainment and the countless hours of discussion.

Oh how I love it.  And it begins on Thursday.  I can't wait.

Let Me Give Them Their Props

I've been critical of ESPN in the past.  My complaint has always been that their coverage is too star driven and has too many biases, which questions their ability to be fair and balanced.

But here's the bottom line: star driven content sells.  If it didn't, they wouldn't discuss it so much.

Scott and I have been working on this blog for just over three months.  The most discussed posts on our blog almost always have to do with Alex Rodriguez or Terrell Owens.  I may criticize ESPN for over-publicizing every move that each of these stars makes, or having clear biases towards east coast teams or sexy story lines.

Yet it's these topics that get sports fans to talk.  And that's all the network can ask for.

They cover sports.  That's their job, sure.  But their job is also to entertain.   Apparently, A-Rod, T.O., Kobe, and LeBron are the topics that sports fans want to hear about most.  It's easy for us as sports fans to blame ESPN or other media for spending too much time on these topics.  Yet the fact remains that when they talk about it, we talk about it.  Consequently, if we talk about it, we're going to watch more coverage of it, and media like ESPN continue to flourish.  

So let me give ESPN their props.  Do I get annoyed with wall-to-wall coverage of T.O.?  Yep.  As sports fans we all get sick of it at some point.  But the Worldwide Leader knows what it's doing when it comes to topics to cover.

When you start to get annoyed again that you're hearing too much about these superstar players, ask yourself whether you've been discussing the same things recently.  The answer is probably yes.  And that's why you're hearing about it so much on ESPN.

The Obvious Conclusion

There was only one thing I could think watching the NBA All-Star Game last night. Shaquille O'Neal is angling to head back to the Lakers. And the Lakers are angling to get Shaq back in the City of Angels.

There's no other explanation for this warm reunion between two men who couldn't co-exist after three championship runs in L.A.

Phil Jackson coached the West all-stars by putting both Kobe Bryant and Shaq on the floor together. They won the co-MVP award of the game. There was lots of reminiscent commentary from players and coaches about what could have been if Kobe and Shaq stayed together. More than three titles? Maybe five or six?

It seems to me it was all part of the newest conspiracy to get the Kobe and Shaq relationship all warm and fuzzy again so that they can reunite to take the Lakers back to the promised land.

Think about it. As Scott mentioned already today, the Suns are in disarray. Terry Porter was fired, the team is underachieving, and Amar'e could be traded by the deadline. The Lakers lost Andrew Bynum until at least the playoffs, and they could use another center to compliment Pau Gasol.

What could be better than adding back one of the most popular Lakers of the last twenty years, and make the Suns worse in the process?

Don't be surprised to see Shaq and Kobe together again soon.

And The NBA's Best Team Is...

The Los Angeles Lakers. Might not seem like much of a shocking, dangerous piece of news to many, given the Lakers just handed the Cavs their first home loss of the season, and completed a season series sweep of the Celtics earlier this week.

But, the Celtics still have more wins, still are the defending champions, and still, in the minds of some, are the best team in the league.

Not in my mind. There's the obvious stuff, mentioned above. Clearly, beating a team like the Celtics twice (the second one coming on the back end of a back-to-back situation) is impressive. Then, ending a 23 game home winning streak for the season, in convincing fashion also is impressive.

But, what makes this team impressive is its depth. Adding Adam Morrison aside (check here to see why Vlad Rad got dealt, first sentence says it all), the Lakers have weapons for days. Andrew Bynum goes down again, no problem. Lamar Odom, the lost and forgotten player on this Lakers team, is averaging nearly 17 points and 11 rebounds in the four games since Andy Goes Down Pt. 2. Who would the Celtics have to step in if KG went down? Or, say, when he even goes out for a breather? How about if Mo Williams got hurt?

The answer is, no one. And that's no crime. Most teams in the league can't lose a guy averaging a near double-double and not miss much of a beat. Usually, only a few of the best teams in the league can. The Lakers, with Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom, have more than enough firepower to survive an injury.

And that is dangerous news.

The All Don't Give A Crap Team

Thursday night, I sat on my couch, alongside my sleeping brother, watching the final quarter and overtime of the Celtics/Lakers tilt.  The game was a good one, as are so many of their match-ups.  The Lakers, despite having played (and won) the night before in Toronto, came down and wore out the Celts, sweeping the season series.

Watching the game, I couldn't help but think we'd all be better off if they'd just cancel the rest of the regular season and let the Celtics and Lakers duke it out for the championship.  Wait until Andrew Bynum gets healthy again, and then throw them into a seven game series.

I know this post isn't about that game, but I have to do two things.  First, commend Paul Pierce for his defense on Kobe Bryant.  Living in someone's shorts for the final quarter plus has to be uncomfortable, so I applaud the effort.  Second, who would think that Glen Davis would wind up, a couple of years into his career being a more valuable player than his college running mate Ty Thomas?  That's not to say Thomas won't be better, but, Big Baby?

Anyway, on to the subject of this post...

Lamar Odom might as well be one of the Hardy Boys, because he's long been one of my favorite mysteries.  Sometimes, like last night or the 03-04 season, he plays hard and the results are nearly always positive.  Often, like the Finals last year or several years on the Clippers, he fades into the background, content to do nothing other than fill out the requirement the NBA puts on each team to play with five guys at any point in a game.

And so, watching him last night, I go to thinking, in a league filled with guys that often play lethargically and minus effort, who would make the All Don't Give A Crap Team?  Read on.

C - Erick Dampier

This guy must wake up laughing.  Damp had one good season in his entire NBA career.  Check it out.  Coincidentally, that lone good season came when he was in his contract year.  I swear, it feels like in games I've seen him "play" in, he'll just pick up two quick fouls in the first quarter on purpose so he doesn't have to come back in until the third.  And, as is the case with most of these guys, what actually bothers me is that he could be a good defensive player, rebounding and blocking shots, if he actually tried all the time.

F - Lamar Odom

Doesn't often try hard, fades in out of big games (or any game for that matter), blah blah blah.  Though out of this whole group, he's easily the most talented.  Six feet ten inches, Odom can dribble with either hand, take the ball up court, drive to the basket, post up (not great, but he can do it), shoot the ball, rebound...You get the point.

F - Tim Thomas

Mr. Don't Give Crap himself, this guy pisses me off the most because he's from my home state and he could've been so much better.  Thomas has made a career, somehow, out of being a guy that has a ton of potential (never over 16 ppg). Ray Allen once said that Thomas could be the best player in the league if he wanted to be.  Don't get Jordan, or I, started on sports cliches.  No he couldn't be.  Best player in the league?  Jeez(us Shuttlesworth), take it easy.  Thomas can score from anywhere on the court (and has) but just doesn't care to play defense (see proof, stage left) or ever try hard other than jacking up long distance 3's.

G - Ricky Davis 

Here's a guy that cares, just not about the right things.  He's a selfish s.o.b. that once tried, successfully, might I add) to get himself a triple-double by shooting at his own rim to secure a 10th rebound.  No, I'm not kidding.

G - Vince Carter

I've talked about this before, but the general gist is a refrain that I'm sure you've all heard before.  Carter can one night dominate and look the part of a top 5 player in the league, and the next, you barely know he's there.  His consistently high numbers might distort the idea that he doesn't always try, but the proof is in the pudding (or, more appropriately, in the watching of him play).

Here are a few others that I didn't mention but I know would make the bench or some kind of second string (if they cared enough to try out):  Eddy Curry, Baron Davis (sometimes), Jerome James, and Kwame Brown.

There has to be others.  Who is on your favorite team that doesn't give a damn?  I know I'm missing people.  Get at us.

BERNing on Yahoo

The Kobe and LeBron show of the last few nights has certainly been the talk of the sports world, and it has been no different here.  After my post last night on my conspiracy theory, it has now been picked up elsewhere.

J.E. Skeets, who does a fantastic job with the "Ball Don't Lie" NBA Blog on Yahoo! Sports, put BERNing's take on his blog.  Check it out.

Conspiracy Theory, But Maybe True

What if I told you the New York Knicks had a team meeting last week.  

In that meeting, GM Donnie Walsh, Owner James Dolan, head coach Mike D'Antoni and the powers that be with the Knicks sat around a table at Madison Square Garden and came up with an ingenious plan:  make sure that when Kobe and LeBron come to town, they have record setting games.  Play less defense, let them light up the scoreboard, and make them feel like the Garden is magical.

Let them be showered with praise by the Garden crowd.  Let them be the top story on SportsCenter for a night.  Let their performances be the talk of the town for a while.

That way, when both become free agents in the infamous summer of 2010, both will have fond memories of playing in New York.

It would certainly make it easier to entice them to join the Knicks then, wouldn't it?  

They can just look back at their all-world performances from the winter of 2009, on back-to-back games at the Garden.  Kobe pours in 61, LeBron goes for a triple-double with 52 points.  Ah, how sweet it would be to play 41 games a year in that building.  

The Knicks have already made it clear that they'll be contenders for top talent when that big summer comes around.  They've already made some moves to get them well under the cap so they can take on a couple max contracts.  And everyone knows this year the Knicks aren't going anywhere, barring an unforeseen run to the eighth seed in the East and a first round playoff defeat.  

The fans know that everyone in Manhattan is gearing up for that big summer, so they have already accepted the team will stink the next couple years.  They're all looking ahead to that summer of 2010, and are expecting a top flight free agent to be wearing orange and blue come the fall of that year.

So what better time than now to plant the seed in the players' minds?  It's not like you have to convince Mike D'Antoni to have his team play lackluster defense.

It was probably an easy sell in that meeting with his superiors, because relaxing on defense for a couple nights could mean Kobe and LeBron in a year and a half.

Why Is Mike D'Antoni Considered Such a Good Coach?

Am I missing something here?

Knicks coach Mike D'Antoni has never lead a team to the NBA Finals.  His system encourages a lack of defense.  While he has proven that he can win regular season games if given the right pieces, his teams can never turn the corner against teams that pay attention on both sides of the floor.

So why is he so desirable?

Here in Chicago, many people have been talking about whether Vinny Del Negro has taken so much flack because the Bulls could have had Mike D'Antoni or Doug Collins.  Collins hiring was mostly a story blown out of proportion, as he was never really coming here.  But D'Antoni on the other hand was the man the Bulls seemed to covet.  They didn't get him, as the Knicks swooped him up, and the media praised the Knicks for making the move to get him.

Everyone here seems disappointed the Bulls didn't get D'Antoni, believing that had he manned the Bulls bench Chicago wouldn't be 21-28 and in the 11th spot in the Eastern Conference.  The funny thing about that notion is that D'Antoni's Knicks are just one game better in the conference standings than the Bulls are.  At 21-26, New York is in the East's 10th seed.

The national media talks about D'Antoni like he's an innovator, or someone with a great system.  All I see is a man who runs a free for all offense with undersized players who can't get a team to the NBA Finals.  Is that so impressive to you?

After all, it was against D'Antoni's Knicks that Kobe Bryant dropped 61 points on a couple of nights ago.  It was a Madison Square Garden record, but the clinic of bad Knick defense was almost as impressive as Bryant's scoring.

Tonight LeBron James and the Cavaliers visit the Garden, and the question is how many points the King will drop on the woeful Knicks.  When asked about it, Knicks foward Al Harrington told the media that you can't really stop him and he'll do what he does.  D'Antoni said he's more concerned with fast break scoring than stopping LeBron.  Why?  Why isn't he, like other coaches, concerned with trying to stop him, or at least slowing him down?  Granted, the man is going to get his points, but why not just pretend that at least one of his goals is to limit his impact on the game?

He just doesn't get it.  And neither does the media, for anointing him as one of the NBA's good coaches.

Kobe Bryant or LeBron James? Or, Other?

Like it or not NBA haters, there are some serious stars in the game today.  While none of them carry the weight of the NBA on their shoulders like Jordan, Bird or Magic, they're pretty damn good in their own right.  But, you know that.

Not that anyone needed any reminding whatsoever, but Kobe Bryant went out last night in New York and lit up the Knickerbockers.  20 of 20 from the line, 61 points in just over 36 minutes.  Here's a look at all of those points.  

OK, so again, you knew all this.  Kobe Bryant is good at basketball.  However, around spectacular events such as the one documented in moving pictures above, there seems to always be debate generated about "Who is the best?"  Is it LeBron James?  Is it Kobe?  Is it another guy, maybe Dwyane Wade, or Chris Paul or Dwight Howard?  

Sometimes, I must say, I don't get this debate.  Who is to say which player is better?  In what category?  I'd probably rather have Kobe on my team with the game on the line, but as far as a fantasy team, I'd likely take Bron Bron.  Kobe's won championships, sure, but never on his own or without some serious help.  LeBron took his team to a championship without any serious assistance from the other 11 active Cavaliers at the time, and simply ran into a better Spurs team.  You could go over stats and awards doled out to the two players til you were blue in the face.  So, to save that likely dangerous situation, I'm changing the terms of the debate.  My question is, with all these players still in their prime, which would you take to start a team?

Right off, I'm crossing Wade off my list.  He's a phenomenal talent, has played big on the biggest of stages, and can do just about everything.  Problem with him though is two-fold.  First, he's been too injury prone in his career.  Second, dude hasn't been able to do much in the way of winning on his own.  

Next to go is Dwight Howard.  I love Superman, truly.  And, while I'm a big proponent of centering your team around your big man, especially one that can block shots and lock down the paint, I just don't think I'd take Howard over these other guys.  His game just has too many holes in it right now.  He isn't a great passer yet, can't hit free throws, and doesn't have a great offensive game (outside of putbacks and dunks).

Now for the most intriguing debate: LeBron or Kobe next? (Ooops...I think I just blew who I would take.  Damn it!).  People that don't watch a ton of LeBron think it's "in the know" to say that he doesn't really have a jumpshot.  That just isn't true.  He's worked big time on it over the past few seasons, and while it's not at Kobe's level (and likely won't ever be) it's certainly better.  He's got the great all-around statistical game that Kobe doesn't have, but there's something about Kobe's determination to simply dominate and destroy that would have me scratching off LeBron first.  Not to say Bron doesn't care, he does, no doubt.  But, Kobe seems like the kind of guy that would kill his brother if it meant guaranteeing a win. That instinct has to count for something.  Truly though, toss up between the two based on personal preference. 

The guy I'd take is Chris Paul.  I know he got hurt last night, but, assuming he's fine (word is mild groin strain) he's my choice.  Paul is that rare, once-in-a-lifetime combination of player that can be both the best scorer and best distributor in a given game, at any time.  Granted, he's far better as a distributor, but he's shown (on many occasions) that he can take a game over offensively if need.  Defensively, he's as quick with his hands and into the passing lanes as anyone in the league.  He shoots a better percentage from the line than everyone mentioned above not named Bryant (only by .2%, by the way).  He can do everything (he, not LeBron or Kobe, leads the league in triple-doubles and is third in the league in double-doubles).  

To me, the league has changed from being dominated by bigs to being dominated by guards.  Paul can anchor a team for years to come, while allowing a secondary star to blossom as well.  When your best player doesn't need to score much to be the best player in the game (think Brevin Knight, but amazing), that's a good thing.

And now, of course, your turn.  Who would you take, starting a team, tomorrow.  And no, Sam Dalembert isn't an acceptable answer.

Back and Forth: Fixing The NBA Edition

Jordan: Scott, I have two radical ways we can change the NBA so that it's no longer an inferior product. (And you can fight me on whether it's really an inferior product or not in a second.) But before you tell me I'm insane, hear me out. First, the NBA should limit timeouts to three per half. We already have built in TV timeouts, and with 7 extra team time outs per half, the game stops and starts far too much. One of the appeals of NBA basketball, or basketball in general for that matter, is it's fast paced action. The NBA has ruined that by having so many time outs, especially in the last two minutes. Second, for every foul in the last two minutes of a game, teams should be awarded three free throw tries each time. This would help prevent the 45 minutes that it takes to finish the last two minutes of an NBA game. Also, all those timeouts are full time outs, since the 20 second time outs are really just full timeouts that don't go to commercial.

Scott: First of all, you are insane.

J: Why am I insane?

S: Well, to be honest, for reasons unconnected to this argument, which makes some sense, but not a whole heck of a lot. Would you like me to tell you why?

J: That would be good, yes.

S: First of all, college basketball has the same sort of problem with too many timeouts and fouling at the end of games, no? And does anyone complain that the action there is too slowly paced? Honestly, does the game need all of these extra timeouts? Probably not, you're right. But I don't think that would solve the problem. The fouling thing, well that's just strategy, boring as it may be.

J: Ok, I hear you. But you never explained why I'm insane. Maybe that's assumed. Either way, the fouling and timeouts are an issue with college basketball too. I agree. But the NBA is the league declining in popularity and not college hoops. These are the better athletes in the pro game, so why shouldn't it have more interest? If you make it a faster paced game, it has a different style and likely more appeal to the mass audience that has soured on it. Oh, and the strategy of fouling ruins basketball on both levels. Try this: play defense.

S: Let's clear up the confusion. You're insane, like I've said, for reasons unconnected to this post. However, would a bit of defense help? Yes. But as far as I'm concerned, that's not the biggest problem.

J: Then what is the biggest problem?

S: Thought you'd never ask.

J: I'm an inquisitive man, Scott.

S: So I've noticed. Basically, it comes down to a lack of rivalries. Simply put, there aren't any left in the NBA. None. Think about it for a second, can you come up with any?

J: Well, no. Maybe Lakers/Spurs, Spurs/Suns, Celtics/Cavs or Celtics/Hawks. But I suppose those are just recent rivalries and not legitimate rivalries that you can count on year after year.

S: Exactly. Think back to when the NBA was truly great. Just say Michael, get it over with. You know you want to.

J: Michael Jeffrey Jordan. Whew, out of the system.

S: Good, now we can all progress.

J: Bulls/Pistons, Celtics/Lakers, Knicks/Heat, Bulls/Knicks...

S: See, that's what I'm talking about. Knicks versus everyone basically. If you were playing in the mid-90s and didn't hate the Knicks, you weren't alive. But that sort of hatred of teams and not just cities (be fair, we hate Boston more than the actual Celtics largely because they were bought a summer ago) is what is lacking in the NBA today.

J: Quite true. But how do we restore rivalries? David Stern has the marketing of the players down pat. How does he rekindle the old rivalries?

S: That I can't answer. You didn't ask me to actually solve the problem. Just address it.

J: True enough. So for the time being, my rule changes would help.

S: I can only do so much. As it is now, I'm already listening to music and talking to you. To taxing already.

J: Sorry to strain your already small mind.

S: Rule changes might help mask the problem, at least for a small while. Not solve it, that's for sure.

J: But they would ultimately help too. Wouldn't you rather the game be faster paced and have less stoppages? It doesn't solve everything, but it does make NBA a better product.

S: Yeah it would. But because in college and even in the pros back when it was viable some years back, there were the same amount of timeouts and fouling at the end of the games and all that nonsense. And yet the product was still enjoyable. There were stars back then. There are some great stars now. Maybe now, to be honest, there are more. The lacking factor here? rivalries. Of course, no one's going to be MJ. That's ridiculous. but the NBA doesn't need another MJ to restore some glory.

J: That hurts, I agree. But the renaissance with the league is over and it's time to make some changes.

S: Kobe's and LeBron's and D-Wade's are enough star power.

J: It doesn't need another MJ, but people will always negatively compare those players to MJ. That's another problem with the league. The last decade or so has been the MJ hangover.

S: Again though, I think that's because there's been nothing for the fans to focus on alternatively. If there had been some great rivalries and such, people would be focusing on the product rather than what it was missing.

J: Maybe. All I know is I'll never be as interested in it unless there are changes. Whether that's a new rivalry to watch or rule changes. But I'd rather it be rule changes because those are easier to fix. You can't call up two teams and ask them to hate each other for the good of the league. (Although It would be great if you could)

S: It just takes one tough guy like Al Horford to start some crap. And if those two teams face off again [the Celtics and Hawks] that will be fun again. All I know is, I'm starving. Not for some NBA action, but for food.

J: Well then go eat and I'll get David Stern on the phone.