The supposedly unconventional belief that 'size doesn't matter' has become so normal these days that it isn't even questioned. Sure, we laud players like Kevin Durant for their wing-spans, and players like Yao Ming for their heights, and players like LBJ for their physiques, but we never linger on the shortness of Michael Beasley or Allen Iverson. We congratulate them for succeeding in spite of their physical deficiencies while ignoring the myriad problems that persist *because* of those deficiencies. Height is very important in the NBA. It's a vertical game. We see short players come into the league and display their talents and convince ourselves that height is overrated, but it isn't. All of those numbers accrued by these tiny savants (Monte Ellis, Ben Gordon, etc.) mask underlying problems: defense, toughness, shooting percentage, shot selection, etc.

A Disclaimer: This is about RELATIVE Size - I'm not suggesting that every NBA player be 7' tall. It's about position. Derrick Rose is a giant, but Michael Beasley is a Lilliputian, despite the fact that Beasley is 4" taller, because Rose plays at a position where he's about 2" taller (and 200% more athletic) than his average counterpart, while Beasley is going to be at least 2" shorter than everyone he plays against. It's all relative.

Shrimps Can't Play Defense - Alright, that's not entirely fair, but it's generally true. There have been plenty of short players throughout history who were superlative defenders (Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace, etc.), but a hugely disproportionate number of small players have been defensive liabilities. It's obvious why: defense neutralizes talent. Allen Iverson is the most talented player in the NBA, but he stinks on defense. It's not because he doesn't try (well, not when he was with the 76ers, anyway), it's because he has a tiny little body that can't cause much trouble other than nabbing a few steals. Hypothetical: Nate Robinson is the best defender in the world, what's gonna happen if you stick him on Marvin Williams for an entire game? Marvin's gonna score 50 points because Nate can't affect his shots. Nate can try by jumping 40", but defenders make themselves vulnerable when they're in the air, and Marvin will take advantage by taking a foul or by bringing the ball down and sliding towards the basket. That'll never happen in a game, but that illustrates why size is so important for a defender, and why so many under-sized guys struggle, even if they only come up short by an inch or two. Obviously some players are so horrific at defense (or simply don't care) that it doesn't matter how big they are, like Eddy Curry. But height helps, in a very profound way. Some have learned how to compensate, but most haven't, or can't.  

Offense? Yes, but ... - It's pretty obvious that short players can't be relied on for defense. But offense? Yes, many short players throughout history have been superior offensive players. Talent is more important on the offensive end, lots of short guys have an abundance of talent, they generally practice harder, and there are hundreds of ways to get the ball in the hoop (many of which are not reliant on height). Uber-talented players will find a way to score no matter how short they are. Elton Brand, Allen Iverson, Earl Boykins and Charles Barkley are just some of the players who have thrived despite their height. They put up lots of points, because they've learned how to compensate for their deficiency. They put up quick shots, have a high release, practice athletic tear-drops, are fast enough to get open jumpers, throw their body around to get to the free-throw line, and their Napolean Complexes drive them to work their butts off. But there are many problems here. 1st) Statistics are overrated. Most 20+ PPG scorers don't have much impact on their team. In the NBA there is a huge gap between 'productivity' and 'impact'. Most 'good' players only deliver the former (Iverson, Redd, Carter); many 'average' players deliver only the latter (Bowen, Posey, Kurt Thomas); and the 'superstars' deliver both (Duncan, Bryant, LBJ, Paul). 2nd) Shorter players are forced to be more reliant on lower-percentage shots, thus the abundance of tall dudes on the shooting percentage leaderboards. 3rd) Short guys handle the ball more often, so they willfully take more shots, despite the fact that they're less accurate. This is why guys like Stephon Marbury and Gilbert Arenas are losers, they embrace a play-style that is inherently ineffective.

Toughness - It's hard for me to accuse short players of lacking toughness because of Allen Iverson, arguably the toughest professional athlete alive (assuming he isn't an android). He is completely unbelievable. He plays like a rabid punching bag. He's the NBA's equivalent of an NFL power RB, whose careers are lucky to make it to 30. Iverson's 33!!! And he's still putting up nearly 30 PPG!!! I don't understand it. I'd accuse him of taking HGH but he barely weighs 160 pounds. Even with his lack of defense and his refusal to practice, I admire the heck out of the guy. If he'd had fewer off-the-court issues and had one a Championship he'd be a legend who we'd be telling stories about for generations. Okay, enough of that. Short guys, in general, need to be tougher. Alright, sure, plenty of them are bursting with pride, feistiness, competitiveness, etc. But far too many are reluctant to play defense (because of their tiny frames), and reluctant to practice hard (because their tiny frames are worn out by plowing through the regular season), and reluctant to post anyone up (because it's easier and more glamorous to take jump-shots). Some of these things are understandable. I certainly couldn't do any better. I'm not necessarily blaming them, but rather I'm simply addressing the fact that shortness results in these problems, and this needs to be acknowledged. 

Stubborn Shooting Guards - This is a very, very real problem that needs to be fixed immediately. I've talked about this extensively in a previous blog, so I'll stay brief. The short SGs who become 'stars' in high school and college because stubborn, unmanageable fools who harm their teams by refusing to learn how to play PG. Ben Gordon, Nate Robinson, Allen Iverson, and too many others demand to be SGs for the entirety of their careers, not caring that they're turning their back-courts into undersized defensive liabilities. Even if they do cave in and play a little PG, they do so reluctantly, and take an inordinate number of shots, which ends up with the coach announcing the following at a press conference: 'We're gonna be moving him back to the position that's best for his skill-set, so he can help this team win by putting the ball in the basket.' Uh huh. These players are poison. Competitiveness is great. Competitiveness derived from pride that drives a player to abject selfishness is not great. 

It's about Championships - Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone, Julius Erving, James Worthy, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Dennis Johnson, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett. On Championship-winning teams since 1980, these were the star players with good size. Here's the list of undersized star players on those same teams: Isiah Thomas, Dwyane Wade ... Paul Pierce? ... maybe not. (By the way, Dwyane Wade had Shaq, and they were playing against a team of world-class chokers.) These lists are not flukes (though Isiah Thomas is a fluke, in more ways than one). How many of the players on these lists were defensive liabilities? A few were, at times, but they were surrounded by plenty of other big guys who *were* good on defense. I'll make the connection for you, in case you haven't done so already: defense wins championships, bigger players are better at defense, therefore bigger players win championships. 

Shortcomings - Many short players have come into the league and become stars, but they never win Titles. Charles Barkley, Allen Iverson, and Adrian Dantley never won anything. There are countless others. They've had their flirtations, but there are usually caveats (like Iverson's run through the horrible East, only to get his lunch handed to him by a significantly better Lakers team). Relative to their talent they are *tremendous* underachievers. Look at the current crop. Iverson is on one of the most talented teams in the league with a terrific coach and they're going absolutely nowhere. Brand's never done anything.

Position Matters - Size is much more important at the larger positions. A 5'11" PG is much less harmful to his team than a 6'9" C. For PGs, at both ends of the court, physicality is less important than quickness and aptitude, and there's usually a lot more space between the offender and defender. They have more room to shoot, more room to pass, more control (for which shortness actually helps, because dribbles take less time, and therefore the ball is in their hands more often), and their quickness allows them to find shooting-seams in traffic. Post players have much greater need for size because they're constantly grappling with their counterparts, and quickness is often neutralized. All of this adds up to the Isiah Thomas and Dwyane Wade flukes (odd that both of these guys have those ridiculous name-spellings). But I'll repeat that Wade had Shaq, and Isiah Thomas was a true PG.

I Actually Respect Short Players - I do, it's true. I have fun watching Allen Iverson. I love Nate Robinson (all the way back to his days as a Husky cornerback, and that insane put-back slam against NC State). But watchability is far different from winning. Do you want your team to be the Spurs or the Warriors? If you don't care about winning, then have fun ... but it'll only last 82 games. I'm more concerned with rings, which is why I'm so angry at my Blazers (the Sonics are bye-bye, so I'm now calling them 'my' Blazers) for acquiring Jerryd Bayless. I don't care how fun he'll be to watch, because I want to cheer for a team that seeks something more profound than statistics and merchandising. This isn't a playground.

A Final Disclaimer - I avoided pre-1980 for two simple reasons: 1st) I'm young. 2nd) Size was weirder back then. Bill Russell was only 6'9", which would be tiny today, but it was pretty big back then. I didn't want to deal with the height inflation, especially when put together in disharmony with my ignorance of deep NBA history. This is not because pre-1980 history 'disproves' my theories. Yes, Wes Unseld won a ring in 1978, but the NBA sucked and they were playing the star-less Sonics. There are always exceptions to the rule.

Closing Personal Note: I'm angry at myself for my reliance on parentheses. I need to retune my writing style.

This is sort of a running diary. I'm writing it as the draft unfolds, so there'll be a few reactions to the broadcast as well as my thoughts on the picks.

1. Bulls - Derrick Rose -- I don't like PGs being picked this high, and I think they should've just stuck with Hinrich, and they need front-court scoring, BUT ... Rose is the best player in this draft, so I can't be too critical of this pick.

2. Heat - Michael Beasley -- Waiting for a trade ... Terrible. Riley hates him, not a leader, not a winner, and he's incredibly immature (he just said: '... and I love to have fun off the court! I think that's real important for a team', really, Michael? You haven't figure out that that's the reason you almost slipped out of the top 2?). Even if he grows up and figures out how to play defense and all those good things, the Heat have now locked themselves into a team led by two tweeners. Did you see the Finals? Those teams were HUGE! The Spurs were huge, the Pistons were huge (except for Ben, who wasn't important on the offensive end), the 80's Lakers were huge, the 80's Celtics were huge, the Bulls were huge (except for Rodman, ditto the Big Ben thing). Like it or not, size is VERY important in the NBA. You can't have your leaders playing 2" shorter than their counterparts. In my Mock Draft I projected this pick and said that the Heat would lose in the 2nd round for the next 10 years, I still believe I will be proven correct.

3. Timberwolves - O.J. Mayo -- Bill Simmons said something that I should've thought of: O.J. Mayo in Minnesota? He's gonna like it there? This guy almost attended Grambling and he has a borderline God Complex. He's gonna be okay on a terrible team in the middle of nowhere? This is insane. And their back-court now consists of two tweeners with him and Foye (3 if you count McCants, ugh). They've got some talent, but Mayo needs to show that he can improve a team. He led a team that got worse last year, and his teammates weren't fond of him (in the beginning of the season, anyway). Why would that situation be different on a worse team with a worse coach in a harder league with worse teammates. But I will say this: Mayo can still figure it out, and he may turn into a legitimate superstar one day; he's smart and very talented. But I don't think it'll happen, not in Minnesota.

4. Sonics - Russell Westbrook -- I love Westbrook ... as an energizing defender off the bench. Right now there's no reason to believe he'll be an elite point guard, and that's what the Sonics want him to be so they can dump Watson and Ridnour. This is much better than Bayless, though. Bayless is almost guaranteed to be more productive than Westbrook, but Westbrook will finish his career with a few hundred more wins. Bank it.

5. Grizzlies - Kevin Love -- I've soured a bit on him after hearing countless people who've said that he's simply not physically capable of making an elite contribution to an NBA team. I probably should've believed the same thing from the start, but I thought he could play the 5 on a small roster for a fast-break team like D'Antoni's Suns. I still kinda believe that, but there's no way he'll ever be a 40-minute All-Star. On the Grizzlies? Is that a fast team? Can they take advantage of outlet passes? If Rudy #### *can* run fast enough, *will* he? Will #### and Love engage in mortal combat during practice? (oh my God, that was a complete accident, I just now realized that those two names are on the same roster) Probably won't be worth the 5th pick. If they wanted a solid contributor they should've settled on Lopez.

6. Knicks - Danilo Gallinari -- I'm not gonna pretend like I know how this'll turn out. Did Isiah Thomas recommend this pick? Is he allowed to make decisions anymore? Drafting players was the only thing he was good at! But actually, on a D'Antoni-coached team, this guy will be an improvement on anything.

7. Clippers - Eric Gordon -- I don't care about his talent, or his numbers, or his personality. He's an undersized choke artist, and his plus-minus is going to be horrific. But because we're all hypnotized by 20+ PPG scorers, no one will have the guts to bench him, and he'll play for 15 years before joining Shareef Abdur Rahim, Stephon Marbury, and countless others in the Hall of Losers.

8. Bucks - Joe Alexander -- I never really got a chance to see him in college, so I bought into all the positive hype about him. But just recently I read that he doesn't look like he knows what he's doing in games. That's really concerning. I don't believe everything I read, but why would that get written if there wasn't some truth to it? And didn't they just trade for Richard Jefferson? And aren't average-sized 3's a dime-a-dozen? Why would any team need to stock up on these guys? What's the plan?

9. Bobcats - D.J. Augustin -- (I initially followed the crowd and projected DeAndre Jordan here, thank God the NBA wised up about that guy) When I see stuff like this I suffer a crisis of pride. Was I wrong about Raymond Felton? Isn't he a solid point guard? I keep hearing that he's not a true 1 ... really? Didn't he win an NCAA Title playing nothing but point guard? I don't get it. And they're trying to replace him with a guy who everyone knows will be a defensive liability. It's just not smart. They should've just drafted Lopez to shore up their center position and solidify their frontline by moving Okafor to the 4.

10. Nets -- Brook Lopez -- Oh my God, he sounds like a meathead from an '80s college movie. 'Hey brah, you gonna pass me a brewski or what? Hey, look, it's Nerdberg! Quick, get the water balloons full of birth secretions!' Not a big fan of Lopez, but at #10 it's not a bad pick. However, they just traded for Jianlian, and they already have Krstic. That gives them 3 7-footers with questionable toughness. This is how they're gonna woo LBJ? I don't get it.

11. Pacers - Jerryd Bayless -- I've never hid my hatred for Bayless. Even if he played defense and his teammates liked him he'd still be an under-sized 2, or a too-selfish 1. But this late in the draft I can't blame the Pacers for picking him. He's very talented, and they've wanted to replace Jamaal Tinsley for the last 34 years. He said all the right things in his interview ... but so does everyone else (except for Beasley, but we expected that).

12. Kings - Jason Thompson -- I like his size, and apparently he 'has a good motor'. I know nothing else about him, so I won't judge it. Katz is saying that the Kings' scouts were in love with him. Is that good or bad? Does this mean that Thompson will be their 4 and Hawes will be their 5? I'm not sure that's a good idea.

13. Trailblazers - Brandon Rush -- Whoa. A lot of people thought they'd take Alexis Ajinca (or whatever). The Blazers are much smarter than people think. Will Rush be a star? No, but he will contribute to a team that's getting better and more talented every year. It's times like this that I get happy that the Sonics are leaving so I can embrace the Blazers. This is a great move that'll help their defense and deepen them in a very profound way. I love it!

14. Warriors - Anthony Randolph -- Randolph is terrible, he's thinner than Durant, he gave his team no wins, and he wasn't even statistically prolific. The Warriors already have two young, thin, big men. They need another? What's the point? Do they think this guy is gonna put on 50 pounds? TELEGRAPH TO THE WARRIORS: Your bizarre philosophies worked for one round against an overrated team of chokers!

15 Suns - Robin Lopez -- Don't bother wearing the hat, Robin, you can't pull it off with that hair. This is the way they're heralding their new traditionalistic era? By drafting a guy who might be able to allow Stoudamire to play the 4 for 15 minutes a game? Meh, not a terrible pick.

16. 76ers - Marreese Speights -- Say what you want about his personality, you can't teach height. I'd rather have Speights than Beasley. He's talented, and he has plenty of time to figure out how to play defense and pass and run a few laps and all that stuff. This late in the draft it's perfectly fine to take risks.

17. Pacers (via Raptors) - Roy Hibbert -- If I had no other decent options for my 5, I'd be happy to have Hibbert fill that hole. But he's a career underachiever with a low ceiling and molasses shoes.

Shot of Darrell Arther still waiting, and DeAndre Jordan is still on the board. NBA teams are getting smarter all the time.

Displayed in ESPN's runner: 'Danilo Gallinari, 1st European player selected by NY in the 1st round since Nene'. That statistic is worthless in more ways than I can count.

18. Wizards - JaVale McGee -- Good size, good pedigree, and he was on the All-WAC Defensive team. That's good enough for me.

OH MY GOD! Ike Diogu and Jerryd Bayless for Jarrett Jack and Brandon Rush?!?!?!?!? Don't like it. Smart for the Pacers, Jack will be a more reliable point. Not so smart for the Blazers, they just got smaller and much worse defensively. Bayless's problems will be tempered by Roy's point guard skills, and this gives them LOTS of offense ... but is this the right kind of offense? I'm already bitter. I hope Sergio Rodriguez emerges next year.

19. Cavaliers - JJ Hickson -- Mario Chalmers is still on the board? Yeah, they draft a point guard every year, but maybe they should try drafting a 1 who actually has a history of winning. Chalmers was also a top-10 recruit, if you'll remember, so he has plenty of talent (hidden by that deep, stat-stifling roster), and he plays hard defense. Exactly the kind of guy you need to support LBJ.

Statistic: DJ Augustin is the 3rd Longhorn drafted in the 1st round in the last 3 years ... wow ... Durant still needs to figure out that the NBA is about more than shooting, and everyone was surprised that Aldridge was productive last year, on pace to becoming a lifelong borderline All-Star. You UT people need to kill all this hype until your professional alumni start living up to the hype. And pray that Augustin at least tries to play defense.

20. Bobcats - Alexis Ajinca -- They traded a future 1st-rounder (and therefore a very high 1st-rounder) for this guy? He looks like an acrobat on stilts and he doesn't produce anything. His wing-span is 7'8"? To me, that just makes it 40% more likely that he'll suffer a compound fracture while trying to block a Josh Smith dunk.

Oh, the Blazers also gave up Josh McRoberts in the deal. That actually makes it worthwhile for the Blazers, even if Jerryd Bayless sounds like he was told he has two weeks to live.

21. Nets - Ryan Anderson -- Good point, ESPN crew. Why have I not heard anything about this guy since the season ended? He was really good! He's got size! He shoots 90% from the FT line! Defensive liability, but he'll be a good role player.

22. Magic - Courtney Lee -- Love it. Small school guys are always risky, but he's got good size and good talent. Hopefully this'll get JJ Redick off that roster.

23. Jazz - Kosta Koufos -- I didn't watch him play (the Big Ten is terrible), so I'll just take this time to say that Ohio State annoys me. Stop losing Title games, you guys are embarrassing yourselves. Start earning some of that merchandise revenue you rake in.

24. Sonics - Serge Ibaka -- Uh, yeah, cause international players have been working out so well for the Sonics ... He's got 17 brothers and sisters? And he's from the Congo? Jeez, I feel sorry for the guy. These media patsies mention that stuff like they're just charming idiosyncrasies, but that's serious business. Unless this guy is royalty he had a traumatic childhood raised by some (understandably) irresponsible people. I hope he makes it.

25. Rockets - Nicolas Batum -- Thin and French.

Darrell Arthur hasn't been selected because of a kidney problem? If that's a big deal then why wasn't this talked about before the draft? It's late and he was projected in the top 10! Just pick the guy!

26.  Spurs - George Hill -- Wha? The Spurs made the pick, so I'll trust it. But, wha? IUPUI? There are a lot of names on the board. Maybe this is genius, or maybe this is a case of a front office trying a bit too hard to be clever.

27. Trailblazers (via Hornets) -- Come on guys, don't disappoint me again -- Darrell Arthur -- Alright, fine. I don't really like him, but this is a bargain. And even if the kidney thing turns out to be a problem, the Blazers have enough talent for two rosters, they'll survive. Besides, they paid cash for this pick, and their owner is Paul Allen so they essentially got him for nothing. A top-10 guy on a winning team for nothing? Good times. I'm feeling better.

28. Grizzlies (via Lakers) -- Mike Miller was their leading rebounder? That's pathetic. The news of ####'s maturity has been greatly exaggerated. -- Donte' Green -- I'm sorry, I have to risk being offensive: what's the deal with these names? I can kinda understand the myriad spellings of 'Dante', but the addition of the apostrophe? When you're so desperate for a unique spelling of a banal name that you resort to using superfluous punctuation, just concede defeat and name the kid 'Russ'. This is not a commentary on African-American culture, it's an excoriation of *poor* culture. Kids get dumb names for the same reason that poor dudes on buses use their knees to claim space like it's a land rush. It's all about some sort of misplaced pride. I'm glad Green is an NBA player now and not an aspiring accountant, good luck explaining that name in a job interview.

29. Pistons - DJ White -- 6'9"? He's taller than I thought. But what are they gonna do about their center position? Rasheed's about done, so is Ratliff, and Maxiell's too short to be relied on. Maybe they just should've drafted DeAndre Jordan and hoped for the best. At least they'd've paid him less than Nazr Mohammed.

30. Celtics -- They need to get a 2, Ray Allen is just about cooked -- JR Giddens -- Darn. Remember this guy? I was annoyed by him from the instant I saw him. Sportscenter loud mouths were telling me that I should be glued to the tube to check out his sick dunks. I looked and said: 'Uh, yeah, thanks. There are good players out there who can dunk.' They needed a 2, but couldn't they've gotten a more mature kid with a more well-rounded repertoire? Why not just grab Douglas-Roberts? I don't get it.

Disclaimer: I'm pretty sure I repeated, or outright plagiarized (on accident) about 2 or 3 jokes in this blog. But I'm sick and this thing is huge and I'm not making any money off this, so screw it.

So many things to talk about! I'm gonna take a break from my NBA Draft stuff to indulge myself ...

Vince Young's Strange Week - The news around VY exemplifies one of the problems I have with modern media and modern discourse: our inability to analyze problems as a *whole*. Let me summarize Vince's career: he hired a terrible client, revealed himself to be a dope in the wonderlic tests, had a surprisingly good rookie year ... which apparently he hated, so he kinda-sorta thought about quitting, and then had some sort of epiphany that changed his whole outlook on life ... which resulted in a *terrible* second year and a shirtless drinking binge. Terrific. Uh ... what direction is his life taking? What are Titan fans supposed to expect from this guy?

I was Wrong about the Lakers - For the past year I never wavered on my belief that the Spurs would win the whole thing. I won't even use the non-call on Barry as an excuse, because I think the Lakers would've won anyway. The Lakers are going to win the Title because they have Phil Jackson ... or is it just because the other guy will be either Flip Saunders or Doc Rivers? Whatever.

the Magic's New GM - Thank you, Orlando, for taking another overrated Seattle property. You got Rashard Lewis away from us, and now you've hired Rick Sund for some reason. For those of you who don't know him, Sund is the most unexciting, average, uninspired, boring executive in the NBA. Why not just hire Bill Simmons? I'm not repeating a joke, I'm deadly serious. Why not? What about me? What about ... Major Applewhite?  Isn't *anything* better than mediocrity?

Doug Collins? DOUG COLLINS? - Re-read the last passage.

Bill Bavasi gets a Vote of Confidence - One of my passionate sports-beliefs is: when a team is mediocre, *blow it up*! I said that the Mariners' 2007 season was the *worst* thing that could happen to them because it would convince everyone that the front office knew what it was doing. Everyone disagreed with me. Who's the #### now? 2007 gave this town another year of Bill Bavasi, and you're all starting to see a record that *actually* reflects the quality of this team. The Mariners are making a lot of money, and in recent years they've finally decided to spend some of that on the payroll, but it doesn't matter because they DON'T HAVE AN #### CLUE! Stop going to Safeco Field you stupid, gullible, ignorant tools.

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?

Reaction to news from the NFL Network via cnnsi.com
The Titans are putting together a 'Vince Young package', which includes the option. Yes, the F'ING OPTION! This is the happiest I've been since the Hawks made the Super Bowl. I've instantaneously gone from thinking Vince was an overrated (in talent, leadership, personality, and pretty much every other category) dope, to DESPERATELY HOPING that he isn't a flop. I can barely even see the option in CFB anymore! Now I stand a chance of watching it run in the NFL through a 6'5" tank of a quarterback and a versatile 235 lb. power back? Is this what it feels like to take ecstasy?
Ooh, just one problem. I'm going to be devastated if EA doesn't include this in their football games ...

Reaction to Scoop Jackson's Kobe article
I'm sick of this whining from Kobe apologists about how he gets criticized no matter what he does on the court. I'm not going to speak for all Kobe-haters, but here's the deal: The dude isn't just the best player on his team, he IS the team. If the Lakers lose, it's his fault (as he's admitted before, being the consummate diplomat), and that means he did something wrong. Sometimes it's because he shot too much, sometimes it's because he shot too little. Whatever it is, it deserves criticism.
If they win, then whatever he did deserves praise. I didn't say a word about the guy when it looked like they were going to win the series vs. the Suns. He was being unselfish and they were winning. Kudos. Then he rolled over in game 7 and they got their #### handed to them. He didn't shoot and they lost. Maybe they would've lost just as badly if he had shot, but we don't know. The point is that the MVP of the Lakers played in a certain, bizarre way, and disaster followed. Hence the criticism. This doesn't make Kobe a martyr.

Local broadcasting note which few people will care about
I've never listened to anyone as passionate and knowledgeable about sports as David Locke. He's a savant when it comes to statistics. I'm terribly happy for him and his success, cause he seems like a helluva nice guy.
... but the guy's broadcasting skills ... let me put it this way to those of you who've never heard him. If Howard Cosell listened to him for two consecutive minutes, he would hunt Locke down and pummel him to death (like he threatened to do to Muhammad Ali) while screaming "YOU MAKE OJ SIMPSON SOUND LIKE EDGAR R. MURROW YOU STAMMERING, INARTICULATE, UNEDUCATED IGNORAMOUS!!"

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?

First, they get the honor of facing a chemically imploding Lakers team. Then the next year they face off against a Heat team with one hobbled superstar, and another superstar who missed the final two games of the series. And now they're going up against the Cavs, whose second-best player had to leave the team because his brother died., with the prospect of facing the Heat again, who bear an eery resemblance to the '04 Lakers.

Huh? They're LOSING? I'm watching game 5 right now, and they're down by nine to a team they were supposed to sweep.

Why? Because one of their starters actually got injured ... not seriously, of course, we don't want Karma to bite *too* hard. Oh, and Flip Saunders ineffectual coaching might have something to do with it also.

Look, here's the bottom line: teams don't win championships in the NBA unless they fulfill one of three requirements:
- They have a superstar in the post (Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Russell, etc.)
- They have Michael Jordan (though LBJ might join this exclusive club soon)
- They're really damn lucky

Detroit is lucky. That's why they won it two years ago, that's why they almost won it last year, and that's why they'll win it this year. *IF* they win it, which I now don't think they will. Their infallible bodies are no longer, the players' honeymoon with Flip has ended, and they weren't that good in the first place (I don't care what their record was).

I still think they'll beat Cleveland (down by 2 at the moment, beginning of the 4th) ... but it would be awesome if they didn't.

"Both teams played hard."