The Mavericks were the better team. They're more athletic, deeper, better-coached, they play harder, better defensively, they have a better owner, and MUCH better chemistry. But they lost, because, as I've stated before, the NBA is about superstars. The Heat had Wade and Shaq. The Mavericks only have Nowitzki (who I'll get to in a minute), who isn't as good as Wade or as impactful as Shaq.

 

---

 

I won't Gloat about my Pick

I actually picked the Heat to win this title two years ago, and again after the conference finals. But I won't take credit for it, because I already admitted that I thought I was wrong about the pick after game 3, and because of the officiating controversy (which I don't have an opinion about, I'm just leaving the possibility open...).

 

---

 

We can now agree about Nowitzki

After his 50-point game, everyone and their illegitimate child proclaimed with glee that 'THIS IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE GAME'! Except for me, I was wrinkling my nose while sheepishly asking: 'Really? One good game on a great team makes a jump-shooter the best player in the game?' Well, time has passed, Dirk has come back down to Earth, and everyone has backed down from their ridiculous assertions. In two weeks Dirk has returned to his proper place: a very good all-star who isn't capable of carrying a team on his back to a title. Wade put Dirk in his place with a worse team behind him, that's all you need to know.

 

---

 

Anyone else feel terribly for Stan Van Gundy?

I was going to just call this a 'coup', but then I thought, why not make an analogy? Yippee! (I apologize if this is too literary, I'm in the mood to reference the Iliad, though this analogy doesn't stick to that storyline)

Agamemnon goes to war against Troy with an army led by a cadre of badasses in Achilles, Diomedes, Odysseus, etc. They're on the cusp of victory, but then Zeus, in his obtuse machinations, flings lightning bolts at the kneecaps of all of Agamemnon's heroes, crippling all of them! The Trojans, led by Hector (the Michael Jordan of the actual literary war) beats Agamemnon's crew back to their boats, nearly annihilating them. But then, just as Achilles and the boys recover from their injuries, Menelaos stabs Agamemnon in the back and takes over! Achilles, with divine help, kills Hector, and they run rampant over the Trojans and win the war. Menelaos re-bags his wife Helen and is hailed as a hero. Paris even joins the two in bed for a twisted bigamist orgy.

Alright, that was awful. But everyone knows what happened, Stan was robbed.

 

---

 

The Future

Who wins next year? It's very interesting. I don't think that the Heat can do it again, Shaq's declining too quickly, and that chemistry isn't going to be improving anytime soon (if it did, Wade *could* lead a team that talented to a championship without Shaq, but I doubt this will happen). So who's in the running? My pick has to be the Spurs, but here's a breakdown of the levels of probability:

1 - The Spurs. Only team with a dominant post-player in his prime.

1a - Wait for it .... the .... MAGIC. Yes, Orlando. Only because of Dwight Howard. But this hinges on a number of variables. What kind of offseason will they have? Will Dwight Howard continue to push this notion of being a clone of Kevin Garnett (which would be a disaster)? It's uncertain, but Howard is looking like the only current player who could potentially join the pantheon of Shaq/Duncan/Olajuwon/Jordan/etc.<br>And the Heat, they're still a possibility. A touch more probable than the following two...

2 - The Mavericks and the Pistons. Two very good teams who are dependent on others to win a title. 'Dependent' in that they need a little bad luck to happen to their superstar-led opponents.

If none of the first three teams win it, I'll be surprised. If none of these *five* teams win, I might spontaneously combust.

Though no one will care to read this, I feel that a post must be written solely to repent for my EGREGIOUS spelling error. I am ashamed, and quite angry with myself, for I take pride in my spelling and vocabulary.

I'd like to sincerely thank edclinchsaint for correcting me. There isn't enough of this in our world. Any time someone points out a spelling error, or grammatical goof, or logical flaw, people turn up their noses at 'Mr. Pompous Intellectual'. I take as good as I give it.

This may read as sarcasm, it isn't.

And I might as well take this momentum to own up to the fact that I'll probably be wrong for picking the Heat to win the whole thing. I'm not backing off the pick, I'm just saying that right now it looks like the Mavs will win. They're a fantastic team, even if Nowitzki is overrated.

...I can't help it, a few quick reactions to my reactions:
- Analyzing how the ref-calls of the Super Bowl directly affected the score is a mistake (though, if you did it, you should still come up with the Seahawks winning), bad calls affect momentum, personaltiy, everything. It's possible (not probable) that the Hawks could've won by thirty if the calls had gone their way.
- I try to be objective, and probably fail.
- I should get over the travesty-that-was-the-Super-Bowl ... only to #### about the history of the Seahawks organization? Huh? They used to suck, what does that matter? It's a completely different organization now. The only part of their history worth revisiting is the Testaverde sneak, which is indicative of a history of officials beating up on this city. *rim-shot*

And THAT is the ABSOLUTE LAST THING I'll write about the officials until the regular season starts. I might even ignore this blog throughout the rest of the summer. Your disappointment is palpable!

THAT was sarcasm.

People have been responding to my Pistons-related posts as if I've been calling them a terrible team. There's a HUGE difference between bad, and overrated. I simply think the Pistons have been overrated during their poor-man's-dynasty (actually, I'd rather call it 'fool's-gold-dynasty').

The Pistons are a very good team. In fact, they're a great team. When Larry Brown was coaching them, they may have been the BEST team in the NBA. But I stress the word 'team'. Every one of those starters, and their few helpful backups, plays hard and plays well together. It's admirable.

But there's a difference between being a good team and winning. There's a difference between winning and winning titles. And in the NBA, there's a HUGE difference between being a good team and winning a title. That difference is superstarpower, typically in the post. The Pistons don't have it.

The Suns are an excellent team, arguably better than the Pistons this year. Their chemistry during these playoffs has been unconscionable (since when does Tim Thomas play like that?). Does anyone give them a chance to win the title? Of course not.

If the Pistons hadn't lucked into facing that combustible Lakers team which was right out of the Bob Whitsitt school of personnel acquisition, no one would be giving them much of a chance either. That team was the first since the '79 Sonics to win a title without a superstar. That's not a coincidence.

Another Thought
Am I the only one who's completely unimpressed by Dirk Nowitzki? Am I crazy? I don't have any reasonable rationale for this, I guess I just have a dislike for 7'0" jumpshooters (maybe owing to my bitterness at Rashard Lewis). The Mavericks were fine without Steve Nash by the way, why are we all-of-a-sudden talking about Dirk as though he's the unquestioned MVP of the league? It's not possible that's he's just another cog in the Maverick-system?

Maybe there are legitimate reasons for the official awards of professional sports to be awarded solely for regular season achievements. But we're laymen. We all know that the playoffs are a better indicator of 'value'. (By the way, I stress the 'Valuable' part of MVP, I don't think it's just about the best player)

Let's get the obvious out of the way. Can we all just admit that it was INSANE to include Chauncey Billups in this discussion? He's choking in the playoffs, is only marginally better than anyone else in the starting 5, and in my opinion isn't even close to being the most valuable player on his own team. Ben Wallace is their identity, Hamilton is their clutch shooter, Prince is their clutch defender, and Rasheed is the guy who got them over-the-top when he was acquired midseason three years ago.

Quick hits:
- No one who tanks the second half o####ame 7 to send a message to his team deserves ANY award.
- The Mavericks would be fine without Nowitzki.
- Duncan deserved more credence despite a down-year ... still shouldn't have won.
- Thank God no Nets were given serious consideration.
- Wade isn't taking over like he should.

To me it comes down to Nash and LBJ. Sure, Nash doesn't play defense and he's not coming up big in the playoffs, but what kind of shape would that team be in without him? Would Boris Diaw, Shawn Marion and ... Jason Williams be leading a team into the Western Conference Finals? They wouldn't have made the playoffs. I go with LBJ.

I know that to most people it's between the King and Kobe. It's true that LBJ doesn't play defense at the same level and he has a better (though less active) supporting cast. But the coup de grace comes two-fold:
- LBJ is about to beat the supposed best team in the NBA while Kobe is fake-laughing with the TNT crew.
- Switch Mike Brown with Phil Jackson. What happens?