My family moved to Arizona from Michigan permanently during the summer of 1979. I was still five years old, and we had lived here when I was three, so it wasn't anything scary for me. Oddly enough, it wasn't the Phoenix summer that caused me to dislike living here so much, it was the winter time. Being so young, all my memories were of snow and white Christmases, and I pined every year for that rarest of miracles -- the snow storm in the Valley of the Sun. Of course, it never happened.
When I was old enough, I saved enough money to move to Chicago. It wasn't Michigan, but it was the Midwest, and I had friends there already. It was a blustery mid-May morning when I arrived at O'Hare. My thermal speedometer had gone from 100 to 60 in a little less than five hours, and life was good. I spent the summer enjoying the weather, playing basketball, and experiencing all the gourmet pleasures my friend had told me about.
Two words: Maxwell Street.
I had never had a Polish on a bun before, and I have been addicted ever since my first bite of this pedestrian culinary masterpiece. A Maxwell Street Polish with a sack of greasy, soggy thin French fries and an ice-cold can of Coke (I have since switched to Pepsi) tops anything you'll find in any restaurant of any quality anywhere in the world. But it has to be from Jim's Original, where the sausages are cooked on a large metal grill with onions and pork chops, soaking up the oil and flavor. Throw it on a bun with a few lines of mustard, and we're talking heart attack heaven.
I moved back to the Phoenix area permanently July, 1998. I took a Greyhound bus, and arrived some time in the early afternoon. I stepped off the bus into 117 degree heat, and I was not thrilled.
It was a long trip. I was tired, I was hungry, and I was in no mood to mess around. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that a "Chicago" hot dog joint opened up in Tempe. I was ecstatic. I was excited. Anxious to share my glorious food find with my brother-in-law, I convinced him to go with me and share in the experience. He's from Toledo, and had never experienced a Chicago Polish, so it was an easy sell.
This "Chicago restaurant" (a glorified hot dog stand in strip mall form, the name of which I have intentionally eliminated from my memory) did not grill their Polishes with onions. They did not grill them at all. I watched in horror as the man behind the counter pulled my purchase from a pot of boiling water, placed it on a bun, and loaded it into a wax paper bag with dry, crispy thick fries and handed it to me with a large wax paper cup of fountain soda.
I won't go into all the gory details of eating a bland, watery Kielbasa with grocery store fries. I ate it, complaining about the method of preparation the entire time, and apologized to my sister's husband for wasting his time, money, and taste buds.
Nine years later, the Suns open the season against the Seattle (Super)Sonics, and I'm left with the same feeling of "I'm starving, so I'll take it, but this is not how this should be."
Excited as I have been for the new Suns season to start, I knew that it wouldn't be everything I remembered from the playoffs (controversy and results notwithstanding). The level of play, the intensity, the feeling that we were trying to accomplish something huge -- I didn't expect any of it. But it's Suns basketball, and we have ALL needed a fix for months.
I won't go into all the gory details of watching a bland, sloppy game with preseason defense. Unlike the Phoenix faux Polish, the Suns game against the Sonics yielded at least some positive feelings.
For starters, Amare Stoudemire is beginning to look like the Amare of 2004 again, despite his wind not having caught up with his ambition quite yet. The Suns went to him early and often, and he did not disappoint as he threw down two arena rattling slams, the second of which came on a moh-hoh-honsterous windmill as he flashed across the lane, passing two Sonic defenders before reaching across his body to throw it down -- HARD. He even managed to avoid committing his first foul for a full ten minutes, which has to be a record for him.
The big question about Amare coming in, though, concerned his defense. Well ... he only had one foul in the first quarter. He had two in the second, but one of them was the offensive variety, and the other came off the ball (admittedly, I don't remember even seeing that foul). Some might say that Amare decided to let guys blow by him rather than reach in late. Well ... is that not an improvement over previous seasons? He still managed to record a steal and a block to go along with his 11 rebounds.
And Nick Collison, who should be best remembered by Suns fans as snagging 21 rebounds in a Phoenix win last season (25.5 points on 22-31 shooting and 18 rebounds in two of the games against Amare), went off for a whopping 8 points and 7 rebounds in 33 minutes this time. It's not Defensive Player of the Year, but it's a step in the right direction.
Speaking of the right direction - did I mention that Marcus Banks seems to have turned the corner a bit? I think I did. I'll admit that I was not too thrilled with his performance in the first half, but three straight three pointers to account for 9 points in a 13-0 run that brought the Suns back from a nine point deficit late in the third quarter goes a long way to repairing bad memories. So I think I'll forget that first half. I'll take 12 points and one turnover in 14 minutes of playing time every night, though I would like to see a few assists in there, as well.
On the opposite end of the three-point spectrum stands Grant Hill. I cannot for the life of me figure out why he took seven shots beyond the arc, but he did, missing all but one. He started his scoring with a pair of free throws that he received after being fouled while slashing to the basket. It was a great move, and he should have stuck with it the whole game because those were the only two free throws the Suns shot in the first half.
Fortunately, someone talked some sense into him. He got back to his slashing ways in the third quarter, gliding beautifully to the basket twice in the second half to go along with one of his long-sought-after mid-range jumpers. I don't mind if he takes the occasional three once he gets comfortable with it in a game situation, but for the most part, I want to see the Grant Hill that brings the mustard to the picnic. Seriously...he scored 13 points on 12 shots while missing six three pointers. There's no reason that he shouldn't average five or six fouls shots a game. If we wanted to see a bunch of threes clanking off the front of the rim, the team would have kept James Jones.
For the most part, I am happy to have had a taste of the sustenance that I've been missing for the last 5 1/2 months. For certain, there are improvements to be made, but we have another six months to worry about those. These are our Phoenix Suns, and they hadn't won a season opener in the Steve Nash Era, Part Zwei. I take what I can get with the full faith that the team will work itself into shape, just as it has every season for the last three years.
And in doing so, they just may bring that rarest of miracles to the Valley of the Suns. I'm not going back to Chicago, so I hope it snows in Phoenix real soon -- preferrably in June.
I'll take that over a Maxwell Street Polish every day of the week.
November 2, 2007
October 31, 2007
Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda
First, a word from the commissioner.
Sure, we're all over it as much as we can be. What's done is done, and there is no changing the past. Still, I find it rather telling that the former MVP is heady enough to allude to an apparent miscarriage of justice, especially in the face of Stern's new-found leniency when it came time to drop the hammer on the referees, without explicitly questioning the decision.
Again, I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just pointing out pertinent facts that need to be considered when making our preseason predictions.
The Suns as a team understand just how close they were to climbing the mountain in the 2007 playoffs. To a man, they will all say that they should have and could have won that series. It was just an unfortunate turn of events, to be politically correct. And to their credit, they believe they can win it this year.
I have yet to see the annual D'Antoni quote that "anyone can win it" and that "there are a lot of good teams" who can beat any other team in a seven game series. If you pay attention, you will hear it in the words they so carefully choose when speaking with the media. They believe, so why doesn't anyone else?
No one wants to question the outcome, that's why. What's done is done, and we can't change the past, so only the end result matters. The Spurs won, so they should be the favorites this year.
Barnyard excrement.
Those who cite those simplistic reasons for picking the Spurs to beat the Suns - should they meet in the playoffs again - are either ignoring history or are completely oblivious to the evidence available to anyone with an Internet connection, which all of them obviously have at their disposal.
Being the pseudo-logician that I am, I do not buy into conspiracy theories. There is simply too much speculation and not enough tangible evidence involved in drawing such outlandish conclusions about a simple sports league.
But that doesn't mean that I can't indict the professional media for corporate kowtowing. There is far too much money to be made in sponsorship deals and marketing campaigns for these "journalists" to question Stern's integrity - and by virtue of that, questioning the integrity of the league itself. After all, Turner and Disney have invested a fortune for the rights to carry NBA games and events. Why bite the hand they're feeding?
That does not explain, however, our own local media's reticence to address Stern's hypocrisy or their reasoning for predicting another Spurs championship. I can't imagine why they would so easily fall in line with media entities that consistently disrespect Phoenix, its fans, and its teams.
Remember how Dan Bickley and Scott Bordow fumed at the idea that David Stern would dare lay blame on the Suns assistant coaches for Amare's and Boris' game four actions?
Neither do I.
It didn't happen.
If a journalist is asked by his editor to make his predictions, and he chooses the Spurs, then that's his prerogative. I won't argue it because there are good reasons to go the safe route. But when those reasons ignore the facts, I have to question what the hell is going on out there.
Maybe I'm wrong about Stern. Maybe he isn't such a raving egomaniac out to usurp control of the league from its owners. Maybe he's absolutely right.
Maybe his powers ARE that extensive.
Update: That rug is getting lumpy. Keep sweepin', boys.
I'm not considering any range of disciplinary action, but my powers are very broad if I choose to exercise them.
- David Stern
Well, the Suns have yet to play a game in the 2007-08 season, but the consensus is already in. They can't beat the Spurs. They're too small. The "experts" agree, mostly, that there's no reason not to pick the defending champs. That's the logical choice, it seems.
Fine. If the "experts" want to pick the Spurs by virtue of last year's title, who am I to argue?
I'll tell you who I am. I'm the guy who relishes any opportunity to put the self-proclaimed experts in their collective place because they too often pander to the league itself rather than exercise honesty (let alone journalistic integrity). Here we have a group of professional individuals who would sooner rewrite history than acknowledge it. This is the same group of individuals who whispered "hypocrisy" just loud enough and long enough to claim that they did their jobs in exposing David Stern for the egomaniacal autocrat that he makes himself out to be.
The people who pick the Spurs to win this year - more specifically, those who believe the Suns can't beat the Spurs - are forgetting something very important in their reasoning. The statistics do not support their argument in the least.
I like logic, so let's see how I do with it.
- The Suns out-shot AND outscored the Spurs in the series.
- The Spurs outrebounded the Suns by only 10 -- FOR THE ENTIRE SERIES.
- The Suns had only two more turnovers and one less blocked shot -- FOR THE ENTIRE SERIES.
- The Suns were called for 10 fewer fouls, but the Spurs shot 14 more free throws.
I don't consider myself a statistical nut by any means, but I do rely heavily on stats in order to get a good idea how games are won and lost. They are a handy tool, if somewhat imperfect. But a few things jump out in light of those bullets.
For starters, the Suns defended the Spurs shooting very well, holding them to 45.7% shooting for the series. Conversely, the Spurs allowed the Suns to shoot 47.4%.
Then we look at the possessions in rough terms (as I am in no mood to calculate a more accurate estimate - the inherent flaw being the arbitrary measure of free throw attempts in the equation). The Spurs grabbed 13 more offensive rebounds, stole the ball 16 more times, and committed two fewer turnovers in the series. That's an extra 31 possessions that yielded all of four more field goal attempts than the Suns. Of those four extra shots, the Spurs made six fewer than the Suns. That might be explained by the free throw disparity, if not for the fact that the Suns committed 10 fewer fouls.
Now consider the intangible evidence.
- The Suns annihilated the Spurs in game two, winning 101-81.
- The Suns humiliated the Spurs in San Antonio in game 4.
- The Suns lost game five by three points in the last three minutes shorthanded.
- Game three.
Here's the thing - the Spurs never won a game by double digits. They also blew a double digit fourth quarter lead in game four at home. The Spurs won the controversial game three by seven points (I'm not going into that one again, as I've already spent countless hours breaking down that game).
OK. So the Suns were able to hang with the Spurs in that series. That's why the departure of Kurt Thomas will supposedly prove so detrimental to the Suns' chances this year. Of course, that is completely ignoring the fact that the great KT held Duncan to a measly 26.8 points and a minuscule 13.7 rebounds per game.
Some might argue - with a decent amount of validity - that the Spurs got a lot of help from suspect officiating in that series, at least in the third game. They certainly got a boost from Stern and his "rules are rules" stance on the suspensions of Amare and Boris for the aforementioned game five in Phoenix.
What was that about a logical choice?
But of course, "the better team won" and I should "stop whining about it!" For the record, I am over it as much as anyone in the Suns organization -- like Steve Nash.
I'm not into worrying about what Stern is doing. I figure I'm not going to win that battle anyway. I've lost it in the past so why bother getting involved.
If I let it, it'll distract me. I'll be pissed off all the time. And that's like every other week, a decision comes down that you don't understand. So just stay out of it. Bowen stepped on Amaré's ankle and kneed me in the balls. No suspension, whereas other guys...maybe less infractions get suspended on the first one. I'm not in the office. I don't know why they decide what they decide. Therefore, I'm not going to even bother to start judging their decisions because I don't get it.
Sure, we're all over it as much as we can be. What's done is done, and there is no changing the past. Still, I find it rather telling that the former MVP is heady enough to allude to an apparent miscarriage of justice, especially in the face of Stern's new-found leniency when it came time to drop the hammer on the referees, without explicitly questioning the decision.
Again, I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just pointing out pertinent facts that need to be considered when making our preseason predictions.
The Suns as a team understand just how close they were to climbing the mountain in the 2007 playoffs. To a man, they will all say that they should have and could have won that series. It was just an unfortunate turn of events, to be politically correct. And to their credit, they believe they can win it this year.
I have yet to see the annual D'Antoni quote that "anyone can win it" and that "there are a lot of good teams" who can beat any other team in a seven game series. If you pay attention, you will hear it in the words they so carefully choose when speaking with the media. They believe, so why doesn't anyone else?
No one wants to question the outcome, that's why. What's done is done, and we can't change the past, so only the end result matters. The Spurs won, so they should be the favorites this year.
Barnyard excrement.
Those who cite those simplistic reasons for picking the Spurs to beat the Suns - should they meet in the playoffs again - are either ignoring history or are completely oblivious to the evidence available to anyone with an Internet connection, which all of them obviously have at their disposal.
Being the pseudo-logician that I am, I do not buy into conspiracy theories. There is simply too much speculation and not enough tangible evidence involved in drawing such outlandish conclusions about a simple sports league.
But that doesn't mean that I can't indict the professional media for corporate kowtowing. There is far too much money to be made in sponsorship deals and marketing campaigns for these "journalists" to question Stern's integrity - and by virtue of that, questioning the integrity of the league itself. After all, Turner and Disney have invested a fortune for the rights to carry NBA games and events. Why bite the hand they're feeding?
That does not explain, however, our own local media's reticence to address Stern's hypocrisy or their reasoning for predicting another Spurs championship. I can't imagine why they would so easily fall in line with media entities that consistently disrespect Phoenix, its fans, and its teams.
Remember how Dan Bickley and Scott Bordow fumed at the idea that David Stern would dare lay blame on the Suns assistant coaches for Amare's and Boris' game four actions?
Neither do I.
It didn't happen.
If a journalist is asked by his editor to make his predictions, and he chooses the Spurs, then that's his prerogative. I won't argue it because there are good reasons to go the safe route. But when those reasons ignore the facts, I have to question what the hell is going on out there.
Maybe I'm wrong about Stern. Maybe he isn't such a raving egomaniac out to usurp control of the league from its owners. Maybe he's absolutely right.
Maybe his powers ARE that extensive.
Update: That rug is getting lumpy. Keep sweepin', boys.
October 25, 2007
It's Our Time
I am not a fan of the Suns marketing campaign this season. I understand the idea behind Planet Orange - the tie-in to the science museum or whatever, embracing a population of fans outside Arizona, staying away from the "pressure" of an Eyes on the Prize billboard - but the whole thing smacks of cold and tentative thinking. It says nothing about the path the Suns have taken over the last three seasons (let alone the 36 seasons prior to those), and it doesn't speak to the sense of urgency and determination the team is sure to show us this season.
It's Our Time. That's my marketing slogan for this season. Three words that say everything that every Suns fan already knows.
1. We've been through hell, and we're not going back.
2. We've been robbed of too many chances.
3. We're not giving it away, and no one is taking it away. Not this time.
4. We're not waiting to win anymore. We're taking this one, once and for all.
I've been telling myself those things all summer long, trying to remain optimistic in light of the biggest travesty of (in)justice in Suns history. After watching the Suns in action tonight (sans Barbosa), that optimism has turned to pure confidence.
Yes, it was "just a preseason game." But we learned a lot about this season's Suns in those 48 meaningless minutes of basketball. This was our first look at the new components of the team, and a lot of the question marks are now exclamation points.
Amare Stoudemire.
It was obvious from the start that D'Antoni's goal was to get Amare Stoudemire into the flow of the game as quickly as possible. Despite a few early miscues (three turnovers in his first five possessions), I have no doubt in my mind.
He's back. No question about it, Amare showed the athleticism and at least flashes of the dominance that put him in elite status the first year of the Nash experiment. He also showed signs that he stuck to his word that he would improve his defense over the summer.
Early in the first quarter, Stoudemire found himself guarding Carmelo Anthony. Carmelo tried to drive. Amare was there. Carmelo spun around to free himself. Amare was there. Carmelo went up for a shot. Amare was there. All in one sequence, Amare Stoudemire defended Carmelo Anthony better than anyone I've seen in the last four years. Stat was so quick on Anthony, he made Shawn Marion look like . . . well, Amare Stoudemire.
Grant Hill.
At the end of the season, the "experts" will be lauding Steve Kerr for pulling off the best free agent signing of the summer, forgetting that they ever downplayed it in light of the Kurt Thomas trade. Hill showed the quickness, finesse, and court savvy that made him a seven-time All Star.
A few weeks ago, near the end of training camp, Mike D'Antoni posited that Grant Hill would take around 150 three pointers for the season, and would make around 40%. Hill was 1-2 from downtown (would have been 2-3 if not for the tip of his sneakers on the line). If those numbers pan out for the season, then D'Antoni will be called a prophet by the same "experts" that criticized his assertion.
Marcus Banks.
What can I say? We all wanted him traded last February, and the sentiment held throughout the off-season. It seems, though, that a year in D'Antoni's system under his belt just might pay off. He maintained his focus, didn't get called for any stupid touch fouls, and he kept the ball and himself moving on offense. He only took six shots from the field and made two, but one make was a three pointer in the flow of the offense, and one miss was a slashing lay up that spun off the side of the rim. We forgave Leandro for that last year in Utah, we can let a few of those slide with Banks.
He also recorded the game winning assist, milking more than 20 seconds off the clock in the process. We didn't see that last year - at all.
DJ Strawberry.
Banks looked especially good when paired with the late second round rookie, who showed us all why he was so coveted by the Suns. He also showed 29 other teams why they were fools to pass on him 58 times. The kid can play defense, for sure, and questions about his poor shooting seem completely unfounded, as he shot 6 for 9 from the field, including 2 for 4 behind the arc (both of them long, high-arching rainbow bombs).
Consider that his second three-ball turned out to be the game winner, and we can only conclude that DJ Strawberry is indeed the steal of the draft. Was I the only one who jumped out of his seat yelling "DEEEEEEE JAYYYYYYY" after that shot? (And we're expected to believe that GMs are better judges of league talent than every day sports writers? Please.)
As for his defense - believe the hype. DJ knows the meaning of "no easy baskets," as at least two of his five fouls were committed knocking a driving guard out of the air at the basket. The kid is certainly tough. To top it off, he had an amazing sequence early in the game where he guarded Allen Iverson - one of the quickest players in the league with THE deadliest cross over. As Amare did with Carmelo, DJ did not give an inch to AI. The current killer cross over became Iverson's fight for life as he tried to maintain his dribble with Strawberry covering like a wet blanket on a burn victim.
The defense, the shooting, the passing, the toughness . . . I'm convinced. It is a personal tradition to choose one Suns player at the beginning of the season as my designated favorite for the year. In 2004, it was Amare Stoudemire. In 2005, it was Boris Diaw. Last year, it was Leandro Barbosa. DJ Strawberry earned the honors this year.
Although the Nuggets put up a 66 point first half, mostly due to lackadaisical defense by the starters, there really isn't much to worry about on the defensive end. The Suns came out flat, which is understandable considering the magnitude of the meaninglessness of the game. The Nuggets seemed to be taking the game very seriously, though (Iverson and Anthony weren't even going to play, apparently, until they found out that TNT picked up the game).
So the 12 point first half deficit didn't bother me, especially when the starters came out of half time with a completely different attitude. Suddenly, it was a game. It seemed as if they didn't take too kindly to the bench crew outplaying them. The starters were responsible for both double digit deficits in the half. And the bench (particularly Diaw, Banks, and Strawberry) were largely responsible for the recovery in between.
Some question marks still have to be straightened out, though.
Alando Tucker.
He definitely has an inside game, but Alando Tucker is not ready for prime time with the Suns. Like Strawberry's defense, Tucker's shooting came as advertised. All of his points came underneath the basket, where he showed some nice moves, spinning and juking defenders out of their socks and onto his back. But that's not the Suns' style, even though the offense curiously went through his post-ups late in the fourth quarter. It may be a handy skill come playoff time, but Tucker surely won't be in the rotation when the games mean something. A year of working on his perimeter game (and that godawful jump shot) and absorbing all things Grant Hill, and he definitely has a bright future on the team. But this is now, and his place is on the bench.
Sean Marks and Brian Skinner.
We didn't get to see much of Brian Skinner aside from a couple of nice rebounds, a blocked shot, and his woeful free throw shooting. He at least seems to have a good attitude, cheering his team mates from the bench and giving congratulatory high fives going into time outs.
I have to be honest...I'm not liking Sean Marks. The offense that I saw from him against the Nuggets didn't make up for the lack of defensive presence. He finished with eight rebounds, but none of them memorable. More on my mind are the moments that he forgot to box out or the times he got beat to the basket. The energy is there, but the results aren't.
One key moment came in the fourth quarter, with the Suns holding onto a five point lead. Marks was on the floor with the smallest lineup possible (Banks, Strawberry, Tucker, and Piatkowski), and he ended up shooting a three from the corner that clanked off the side of the rim and ricocheted back to him. Unfortunately, he had already released, leaving Tucker and Strawberry to fend for the rebound. Not a good sign when the only big man on the floor is shooting threes and guards are forced to fight for rebounds.
Yes, it was a preseason game. I know it. You know it. But the point of the preseason is to get the team in shape, as well as to work out the rotation. Aside from some sloppy first half play, the gang did alright.
The team scored 116 points, and the high scorer was Grant Hill -- with 17 points. They also converted 26 assists, less than half of them by our main man and 3* time MVP Steve Nash. Ball movement and balanced scoring are the hallmarks of Mike D'Antoni's system, and this team looks to have a better handle on it than all of the previous teams.
There were some negatives to the game, to be sure. The rebounding was mostly atrocious, but Amare and Shawn played a combined 41 minutes for the game. It did seem to pick up in the second half, though, when the Suns decided to turn on the intensity. And like the scoring, there was nice balance all around. As long as Marks stays closer to the paint, and Skinner stays healthy, the rebounding should be no worse than previous years. Hey...we're Suns fans. We should be used to it by now.
For now, I'll be happy with what I witnessed during our lone televised preseason game this year. It was a good snapshot of what we have to look forward to this season, and I think the Suns are going to be a lot better than most people are predicting. Sure, many "experts" have the Suns winning the Pacific Division (duh) and finishing among the top three in the Western Conference, but they all seem to stop there.
We've not been given a chance to advance deep into the playoffs this year due to the loss of Kurt Thomas ("the only guy who did a decent job on Tim Duncan"). But the Suns aren't playing Tim Duncan for the title. They are playing 29 other teams, and will be facing the usual suspects in the playoffs - except the Lakers, who will be watching from the ESPN Zone in San Bernardino.
I'll remind everyone that these same "experts" picked the Suns to claim the eighth seed and get knocked out of the first round in the 2006 playoffs. If that doesn't jog your memory, then I'll have to say that the Suns were a torn calf away from making it to the Finals that year. That team also did it without the services of Kurt Thomas. Now we have Amare Stoudemire, Grant Hill, an improved Marcus Banks and Leandro Barbosa, and my new favorite Sun, DJ Strawberry.
Experts, indeed. Someone should remind them . . . It's Our Time.
It's Our Time. That's my marketing slogan for this season. Three words that say everything that every Suns fan already knows.
1. We've been through hell, and we're not going back.
2. We've been robbed of too many chances.
3. We're not giving it away, and no one is taking it away. Not this time.
4. We're not waiting to win anymore. We're taking this one, once and for all.
I've been telling myself those things all summer long, trying to remain optimistic in light of the biggest travesty of (in)justice in Suns history. After watching the Suns in action tonight (sans Barbosa), that optimism has turned to pure confidence.
Yes, it was "just a preseason game." But we learned a lot about this season's Suns in those 48 meaningless minutes of basketball. This was our first look at the new components of the team, and a lot of the question marks are now exclamation points.
Amare Stoudemire.
It was obvious from the start that D'Antoni's goal was to get Amare Stoudemire into the flow of the game as quickly as possible. Despite a few early miscues (three turnovers in his first five possessions), I have no doubt in my mind.
He's back. No question about it, Amare showed the athleticism and at least flashes of the dominance that put him in elite status the first year of the Nash experiment. He also showed signs that he stuck to his word that he would improve his defense over the summer.
Early in the first quarter, Stoudemire found himself guarding Carmelo Anthony. Carmelo tried to drive. Amare was there. Carmelo spun around to free himself. Amare was there. Carmelo went up for a shot. Amare was there. All in one sequence, Amare Stoudemire defended Carmelo Anthony better than anyone I've seen in the last four years. Stat was so quick on Anthony, he made Shawn Marion look like . . . well, Amare Stoudemire.
Grant Hill.
At the end of the season, the "experts" will be lauding Steve Kerr for pulling off the best free agent signing of the summer, forgetting that they ever downplayed it in light of the Kurt Thomas trade. Hill showed the quickness, finesse, and court savvy that made him a seven-time All Star.
A few weeks ago, near the end of training camp, Mike D'Antoni posited that Grant Hill would take around 150 three pointers for the season, and would make around 40%. Hill was 1-2 from downtown (would have been 2-3 if not for the tip of his sneakers on the line). If those numbers pan out for the season, then D'Antoni will be called a prophet by the same "experts" that criticized his assertion.
Marcus Banks.
What can I say? We all wanted him traded last February, and the sentiment held throughout the off-season. It seems, though, that a year in D'Antoni's system under his belt just might pay off. He maintained his focus, didn't get called for any stupid touch fouls, and he kept the ball and himself moving on offense. He only took six shots from the field and made two, but one make was a three pointer in the flow of the offense, and one miss was a slashing lay up that spun off the side of the rim. We forgave Leandro for that last year in Utah, we can let a few of those slide with Banks.
He also recorded the game winning assist, milking more than 20 seconds off the clock in the process. We didn't see that last year - at all.
DJ Strawberry.
Banks looked especially good when paired with the late second round rookie, who showed us all why he was so coveted by the Suns. He also showed 29 other teams why they were fools to pass on him 58 times. The kid can play defense, for sure, and questions about his poor shooting seem completely unfounded, as he shot 6 for 9 from the field, including 2 for 4 behind the arc (both of them long, high-arching rainbow bombs).
Consider that his second three-ball turned out to be the game winner, and we can only conclude that DJ Strawberry is indeed the steal of the draft. Was I the only one who jumped out of his seat yelling "DEEEEEEE JAYYYYYYY" after that shot? (And we're expected to believe that GMs are better judges of league talent than every day sports writers? Please.)
As for his defense - believe the hype. DJ knows the meaning of "no easy baskets," as at least two of his five fouls were committed knocking a driving guard out of the air at the basket. The kid is certainly tough. To top it off, he had an amazing sequence early in the game where he guarded Allen Iverson - one of the quickest players in the league with THE deadliest cross over. As Amare did with Carmelo, DJ did not give an inch to AI. The current killer cross over became Iverson's fight for life as he tried to maintain his dribble with Strawberry covering like a wet blanket on a burn victim.
The defense, the shooting, the passing, the toughness . . . I'm convinced. It is a personal tradition to choose one Suns player at the beginning of the season as my designated favorite for the year. In 2004, it was Amare Stoudemire. In 2005, it was Boris Diaw. Last year, it was Leandro Barbosa. DJ Strawberry earned the honors this year.
Although the Nuggets put up a 66 point first half, mostly due to lackadaisical defense by the starters, there really isn't much to worry about on the defensive end. The Suns came out flat, which is understandable considering the magnitude of the meaninglessness of the game. The Nuggets seemed to be taking the game very seriously, though (Iverson and Anthony weren't even going to play, apparently, until they found out that TNT picked up the game).
So the 12 point first half deficit didn't bother me, especially when the starters came out of half time with a completely different attitude. Suddenly, it was a game. It seemed as if they didn't take too kindly to the bench crew outplaying them. The starters were responsible for both double digit deficits in the half. And the bench (particularly Diaw, Banks, and Strawberry) were largely responsible for the recovery in between.
Some question marks still have to be straightened out, though.
Alando Tucker.
He definitely has an inside game, but Alando Tucker is not ready for prime time with the Suns. Like Strawberry's defense, Tucker's shooting came as advertised. All of his points came underneath the basket, where he showed some nice moves, spinning and juking defenders out of their socks and onto his back. But that's not the Suns' style, even though the offense curiously went through his post-ups late in the fourth quarter. It may be a handy skill come playoff time, but Tucker surely won't be in the rotation when the games mean something. A year of working on his perimeter game (and that godawful jump shot) and absorbing all things Grant Hill, and he definitely has a bright future on the team. But this is now, and his place is on the bench.
Sean Marks and Brian Skinner.
We didn't get to see much of Brian Skinner aside from a couple of nice rebounds, a blocked shot, and his woeful free throw shooting. He at least seems to have a good attitude, cheering his team mates from the bench and giving congratulatory high fives going into time outs.
I have to be honest...I'm not liking Sean Marks. The offense that I saw from him against the Nuggets didn't make up for the lack of defensive presence. He finished with eight rebounds, but none of them memorable. More on my mind are the moments that he forgot to box out or the times he got beat to the basket. The energy is there, but the results aren't.
One key moment came in the fourth quarter, with the Suns holding onto a five point lead. Marks was on the floor with the smallest lineup possible (Banks, Strawberry, Tucker, and Piatkowski), and he ended up shooting a three from the corner that clanked off the side of the rim and ricocheted back to him. Unfortunately, he had already released, leaving Tucker and Strawberry to fend for the rebound. Not a good sign when the only big man on the floor is shooting threes and guards are forced to fight for rebounds.
Yes, it was a preseason game. I know it. You know it. But the point of the preseason is to get the team in shape, as well as to work out the rotation. Aside from some sloppy first half play, the gang did alright.
The team scored 116 points, and the high scorer was Grant Hill -- with 17 points. They also converted 26 assists, less than half of them by our main man and 3* time MVP Steve Nash. Ball movement and balanced scoring are the hallmarks of Mike D'Antoni's system, and this team looks to have a better handle on it than all of the previous teams.
There were some negatives to the game, to be sure. The rebounding was mostly atrocious, but Amare and Shawn played a combined 41 minutes for the game. It did seem to pick up in the second half, though, when the Suns decided to turn on the intensity. And like the scoring, there was nice balance all around. As long as Marks stays closer to the paint, and Skinner stays healthy, the rebounding should be no worse than previous years. Hey...we're Suns fans. We should be used to it by now.
For now, I'll be happy with what I witnessed during our lone televised preseason game this year. It was a good snapshot of what we have to look forward to this season, and I think the Suns are going to be a lot better than most people are predicting. Sure, many "experts" have the Suns winning the Pacific Division (duh) and finishing among the top three in the Western Conference, but they all seem to stop there.
We've not been given a chance to advance deep into the playoffs this year due to the loss of Kurt Thomas ("the only guy who did a decent job on Tim Duncan"). But the Suns aren't playing Tim Duncan for the title. They are playing 29 other teams, and will be facing the usual suspects in the playoffs - except the Lakers, who will be watching from the ESPN Zone in San Bernardino.
I'll remind everyone that these same "experts" picked the Suns to claim the eighth seed and get knocked out of the first round in the 2006 playoffs. If that doesn't jog your memory, then I'll have to say that the Suns were a torn calf away from making it to the Finals that year. That team also did it without the services of Kurt Thomas. Now we have Amare Stoudemire, Grant Hill, an improved Marcus Banks and Leandro Barbosa, and my new favorite Sun, DJ Strawberry.
Experts, indeed. Someone should remind them . . . It's Our Time.
Red Stern
10-26 Update: A more rational take from *gasp* a corporate media outlet.
Stern told the truth about one thing. Regarding the report that six NBA referees were punished for violating league gambling rules, Der Kommissar insisted that it wasn't the case, that the investigation is ongoing.
As it turns out, not six but ALL of the referees gave admitted to rules violations, and not a single one of them will be punished. I repeat -- NOT A SINGLE PUNISHMENT IS FORTHCOMING!
Why?
"Our ban on gambling is absolute, and in my view it is too absolute, too harsh and was not particularly well-enforced over the years," Stern said. "We're going to come up with a new set of rules that make sense."
Now, every Suns fan on the planet (Earth, not Orange) can look at this and wonder aloud with absolute validity, what happened to strict enforcement of the rules? Rules is rules, and they are not open to interpretation, let alone absolute dismissal. But here we are, facing a controversy that strikes the very core of the league's integrity, and suddenly the rules do not apply.
Worse, they are "too absolute."
I have made it clear in previous entries that I shy away from expletives on my blog because I am well aware that it is read by the professional media. That being the case, I want to set a good example and show them that it is OK to link to A Clockwork Orange if they so desire (this has yet to happen, of course, but still I hold out hope). But I have also made it clear that there are exceptions to the rule -- ANY rule. So here goes . . .
Are you fucking kidding me?!
A rule that cost the Suns their best shot at a title was said by Stern to be set in stone. It is not open to interpretation, and the only way to change it is if the owners tell him they want it changed, public outcry notwithstanding.
It seems Stern fancies himself a clever man, as he chooses his words carefully. It "was not well-enforced," thus opening the door to act in a manner contrary to recent history. The "leaving the bench rule," after all, had precedent (though it wasn't needed). Ten years of precedent. And it had been "well-enforced" consistently.
Not to open that racial can of worms again, but exactly why is a rule governing an 85% black population so well-enforced, but a rule governing a (roughly) 70% white population not so well-enforced?
I've been down the racial road too often recently, so I will leave that argument for someone less qualified to tackle (that's your cue, cosellout). I just wanted to throw it out there, since it just conveniently popped into my mind.
Back to Stern's double-speak.
"It's too easy to issue rules that are on their faith violated by $5 Nassau, sitting at a poker table, buying a lottery ticket and then we can move along," Stern said. "And by the time I got through and I determined going into a casino isn't a capital offense ... I'm the CEO of the NBA and I'll take responsibility."
It's too easy to issue rules like that? What does that even mean?
How about rules that are, on their faith, violated by natural human instincts, such as leaping to a team mate's side when he's been body checked into the scorer's table? Was that too easy? And since we're on the subject of his dictatorship, why did Stern not take responsibility for Robert Horry's game four actions and distribute justice...well...justly?
I don't want to get into what I think about David Stern's thought processes, as they are ugly and almost inhuman, in my opinion. He cares more about protecting his ego than he does about the league of which he is the CEO (an inaccurate statement, to be sure). He blew up when Dan Patrick dared question his authority, and openly lied to Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon on Pardon the Interruption.
In sum, I am not surprised in the least at Stern's reaction to the news that all of his referees are crooked. They may not have been "hanging crimes," but they were clear rules violations. I am also not shocked that a majority white population is allowed to determine the validity of these rules on his own, while a majority black population is constrained by "the letter of the law."
What does surprise me is that players, coaches, general managers, and owners across the league aren't stopping in their tracks and saying, "Wait...what the fuck did you just say?" I'm surprised that they would let a man control their incomes with such singularity that anyone who questions his actions is destined to lose said income. This is, after all, a business. Teams are in the business of winning championships, because it is through championships that marketing deals are struck and ticket prices increase.
Capitalist competition requires a level playing field wherein each entity has an equal shot at burying the competition, so long as its strategy is sound. A dictatorial leader (commissioner and CEO are NOT equivalent in the least) handing out arbitrary rulings that differentiate each entity within the capitalist structure serves the purpose, not of the league and its components, but that leader. Thus, market capitalism has become totalitarian socialism, where the society serves the purpose of the dictator, and any dissension is met with swift and blinding retribution within "the letter of the law," above which stands his personal security force. If they can't break the rules, then what's the point of even having rules?
As I said in my last entry, it is no wonder that Stern has so excitedly cozied up to a traditionally dictatorial socialist regime in China. It seems that he has modeled the league in the image of Mao Tse Tung's red giant. Only one question remains.
Which of us will stand before the tank?
I humbly volunteer.
Stern told the truth about one thing. Regarding the report that six NBA referees were punished for violating league gambling rules, Der Kommissar insisted that it wasn't the case, that the investigation is ongoing.
As it turns out, not six but ALL of the referees gave admitted to rules violations, and not a single one of them will be punished. I repeat -- NOT A SINGLE PUNISHMENT IS FORTHCOMING!
Why?
"Our ban on gambling is absolute, and in my view it is too absolute, too harsh and was not particularly well-enforced over the years," Stern said. "We're going to come up with a new set of rules that make sense."
Now, every Suns fan on the planet (Earth, not Orange) can look at this and wonder aloud with absolute validity, what happened to strict enforcement of the rules? Rules is rules, and they are not open to interpretation, let alone absolute dismissal. But here we are, facing a controversy that strikes the very core of the league's integrity, and suddenly the rules do not apply.
Worse, they are "too absolute."
I have made it clear in previous entries that I shy away from expletives on my blog because I am well aware that it is read by the professional media. That being the case, I want to set a good example and show them that it is OK to link to A Clockwork Orange if they so desire (this has yet to happen, of course, but still I hold out hope). But I have also made it clear that there are exceptions to the rule -- ANY rule. So here goes . . .
Are you fucking kidding me?!
A rule that cost the Suns their best shot at a title was said by Stern to be set in stone. It is not open to interpretation, and the only way to change it is if the owners tell him they want it changed, public outcry notwithstanding.
It seems Stern fancies himself a clever man, as he chooses his words carefully. It "was not well-enforced," thus opening the door to act in a manner contrary to recent history. The "leaving the bench rule," after all, had precedent (though it wasn't needed). Ten years of precedent. And it had been "well-enforced" consistently.
Not to open that racial can of worms again, but exactly why is a rule governing an 85% black population so well-enforced, but a rule governing a (roughly) 70% white population not so well-enforced?
I've been down the racial road too often recently, so I will leave that argument for someone less qualified to tackle (that's your cue, cosellout). I just wanted to throw it out there, since it just conveniently popped into my mind.
Back to Stern's double-speak.
"It's too easy to issue rules that are on their faith violated by $5 Nassau, sitting at a poker table, buying a lottery ticket and then we can move along," Stern said. "And by the time I got through and I determined going into a casino isn't a capital offense ... I'm the CEO of the NBA and I'll take responsibility."
It's too easy to issue rules like that? What does that even mean?
How about rules that are, on their faith, violated by natural human instincts, such as leaping to a team mate's side when he's been body checked into the scorer's table? Was that too easy? And since we're on the subject of his dictatorship, why did Stern not take responsibility for Robert Horry's game four actions and distribute justice...well...justly?
I don't want to get into what I think about David Stern's thought processes, as they are ugly and almost inhuman, in my opinion. He cares more about protecting his ego than he does about the league of which he is the CEO (an inaccurate statement, to be sure). He blew up when Dan Patrick dared question his authority, and openly lied to Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon on Pardon the Interruption.
In sum, I am not surprised in the least at Stern's reaction to the news that all of his referees are crooked. They may not have been "hanging crimes," but they were clear rules violations. I am also not shocked that a majority white population is allowed to determine the validity of these rules on his own, while a majority black population is constrained by "the letter of the law."
What does surprise me is that players, coaches, general managers, and owners across the league aren't stopping in their tracks and saying, "Wait...what the fuck did you just say?" I'm surprised that they would let a man control their incomes with such singularity that anyone who questions his actions is destined to lose said income. This is, after all, a business. Teams are in the business of winning championships, because it is through championships that marketing deals are struck and ticket prices increase.
Capitalist competition requires a level playing field wherein each entity has an equal shot at burying the competition, so long as its strategy is sound. A dictatorial leader (commissioner and CEO are NOT equivalent in the least) handing out arbitrary rulings that differentiate each entity within the capitalist structure serves the purpose, not of the league and its components, but that leader. Thus, market capitalism has become totalitarian socialism, where the society serves the purpose of the dictator, and any dissension is met with swift and blinding retribution within "the letter of the law," above which stands his personal security force. If they can't break the rules, then what's the point of even having rules?
As I said in my last entry, it is no wonder that Stern has so excitedly cozied up to a traditionally dictatorial socialist regime in China. It seems that he has modeled the league in the image of Mao Tse Tung's red giant. Only one question remains.
Which of us will stand before the tank?
I humbly volunteer.
October 21, 2007
Mao's the Time for Change
Check this out.
Six of the alleged twenty referees Donaghy named in his Federal Court soul cleansing have been "reprimanded and punished" by the league, according to the NBA's version of Major Hochstetter, Stooge Axin'. That's all well and good, but what happened to the league's promise of transparency after the whole Donaghy scandal blew up in the first place?
Not only is Stern and Co. not releasing the names of the referees in question, they are refusing to expound on the infractions, as well as leaving the punishments to mere speculation. There are so few clues, Scooby and Shaggy couldn't figure this one out.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that ANY gambling activity is a terminable offense. The whole point is to maintain the integrity of the league's officiating so that no one can even question a referee's motivations after a dubiously called game. Tim Donaghy was supposed to have ruined the non-transparency privilege for everyone involved, including the commissioner and his hired goons.
I understand that it is a person's right to maintain his privacy to the extent that the law allows (not stepping on THAT slippery slope, thank you). But it is part of the NBA officials' collective bargaining agreement, as well it is in each contract, that any type of gambling activity is off limits. An NBA ref isn't even allowed inside a casino, except in the off season, and then only for shows. They are not allowed to be in the gambling arena. Coupled with the entire concept of "integrity," does it not stand to reason that he surrenders that particular right the moment an official scribes his name onto the parchment?
If the infractions are so minor, then there certainly should be no issue in at least releasing those details. But Stern only relates that the rules violations were "not hanging crimes." In light of the Game 3 debacle, should that not be for the fans to decide? A parolee can't even get a DUI without being tossed back into jail, and, in basketball terms, this is far worse than driving home drunk from a bar.
At this point, with Stern in Europe and his mouth-piece tightly sealed until his return, I can only assume that we will have to wait for any relevant details to leak out over time - whether by design or through public pressure. (Not that Stern ever bends to the will of "his" league's fan base.)
This is, indeed, a disturbing turn of events that only serves to exacerbate the frustration felt by fans in general - and Maverick fans in particular - as the league decided to send another mixed message to its players and fans. OOPS!
If you haven't heard - and you probably have - Josh Howard got into a little scrum during Dallas' preseason game against Sacramento when *surprise!* Brad Miller floored little Devin Harris. Apparently, the comparably sized rookie Nick Fazekas proved too tough a match. Howard punked Miller from behind with a forearm (just ONCE can't one of these guys face up like men?), and that was pretty much the end of it - the "worldwide leader in sports" glossed over the rest.
Not surprisingly, Howard found himself suspended for the first two games of the regular season, just enough time for him to return for the home opener against -- Sacramento. I hope it's televised, as well the league's marketing guru's do, I'm sure. Now, I don't know if this next part surprises me or not, considering recent history. Miller has not been, and will not be suspended for two games . . . or one game . . . or at all.
Typical Stu Jackson quote, isn't it? I'm sure the Flagrant-1 foul was appropriate at the time it was called. But it directly lead to a retaliatory response from the opposing team. Why is it that the league does not take into consideration the full effects of a player's actions when determining punishments? Why does it always seem to start and end with that player's own two hands?
The league is essentially telling us (and however many kids watch the games nowadays) that there is nothing wrong with throwing a blow, so long as nobody throws one back.
"Go ahead, kids. If someone frustrates you, or if you're upset for some reason only known to you, go ahead and shove the first person you see to the ground. But make sure he's smaller than you. We don't want any fights to break out."
Too glib?
So the Robert Horrys and Brad Millers of the world get free reign on all the Devin Harrises and Steve Nashes, apparently. And god forbid a bigger guy comes to the little guy's rescue. As the league has shown us, there is nothing worse than standing up for the defenseless -- literally.
No wonder David Stern is so busy trying to sweeten relations with China. After all . . . one good dictator deserves another.
My ego likes to think that he read this entry and realized that what was reported would be unacceptable. He'd better realize that, even if he isn't literate enough to read this.
Six of the alleged twenty referees Donaghy named in his Federal Court soul cleansing have been "reprimanded and punished" by the league, according to the NBA's version of Major Hochstetter, Stooge Axin'. That's all well and good, but what happened to the league's promise of transparency after the whole Donaghy scandal blew up in the first place?
Not only is Stern and Co. not releasing the names of the referees in question, they are refusing to expound on the infractions, as well as leaving the punishments to mere speculation. There are so few clues, Scooby and Shaggy couldn't figure this one out.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that ANY gambling activity is a terminable offense. The whole point is to maintain the integrity of the league's officiating so that no one can even question a referee's motivations after a dubiously called game. Tim Donaghy was supposed to have ruined the non-transparency privilege for everyone involved, including the commissioner and his hired goons.
I understand that it is a person's right to maintain his privacy to the extent that the law allows (not stepping on THAT slippery slope, thank you). But it is part of the NBA officials' collective bargaining agreement, as well it is in each contract, that any type of gambling activity is off limits. An NBA ref isn't even allowed inside a casino, except in the off season, and then only for shows. They are not allowed to be in the gambling arena. Coupled with the entire concept of "integrity," does it not stand to reason that he surrenders that particular right the moment an official scribes his name onto the parchment?
If the infractions are so minor, then there certainly should be no issue in at least releasing those details. But Stern only relates that the rules violations were "not hanging crimes." In light of the Game 3 debacle, should that not be for the fans to decide? A parolee can't even get a DUI without being tossed back into jail, and, in basketball terms, this is far worse than driving home drunk from a bar.
At this point, with Stern in Europe and his mouth-piece tightly sealed until his return, I can only assume that we will have to wait for any relevant details to leak out over time - whether by design or through public pressure. (Not that Stern ever bends to the will of "his" league's fan base.)
This is, indeed, a disturbing turn of events that only serves to exacerbate the frustration felt by fans in general - and Maverick fans in particular - as the league decided to send another mixed message to its players and fans. OOPS!
If you haven't heard - and you probably have - Josh Howard got into a little scrum during Dallas' preseason game against Sacramento when *surprise!* Brad Miller floored little Devin Harris. Apparently, the comparably sized rookie Nick Fazekas proved too tough a match. Howard punked Miller from behind with a forearm (just ONCE can't one of these guys face up like men?), and that was pretty much the end of it - the "worldwide leader in sports" glossed over the rest.
Not surprisingly, Howard found himself suspended for the first two games of the regular season, just enough time for him to return for the home opener against -- Sacramento. I hope it's televised, as well the league's marketing guru's do, I'm sure. Now, I don't know if this next part surprises me or not, considering recent history. Miller has not been, and will not be suspended for two games . . . or one game . . . or at all.
It was our determination that the penalty of an FFP-1 assessed at the game was appropriate.
Typical Stu Jackson quote, isn't it? I'm sure the Flagrant-1 foul was appropriate at the time it was called. But it directly lead to a retaliatory response from the opposing team. Why is it that the league does not take into consideration the full effects of a player's actions when determining punishments? Why does it always seem to start and end with that player's own two hands?
The league is essentially telling us (and however many kids watch the games nowadays) that there is nothing wrong with throwing a blow, so long as nobody throws one back.
"Go ahead, kids. If someone frustrates you, or if you're upset for some reason only known to you, go ahead and shove the first person you see to the ground. But make sure he's smaller than you. We don't want any fights to break out."
Too glib?
So the Robert Horrys and Brad Millers of the world get free reign on all the Devin Harrises and Steve Nashes, apparently. And god forbid a bigger guy comes to the little guy's rescue. As the league has shown us, there is nothing worse than standing up for the defenseless -- literally.
No wonder David Stern is so busy trying to sweeten relations with China. After all . . . one good dictator deserves another.
Update: Now the league says that the New York Daily News report that six officials have been reprimanded is untrue.
"There is no truth to this report," [league spokesman Tim] Frank said. "The commissioner has made it clear that we will have details to share once the review is completed."Fine. So no one was punished...yet. That doesn't change what Stern has already said on the matter, that they're not "hanging crimes."
My ego likes to think that he read this entry and realized that what was reported would be unacceptable. He'd better realize that, even if he isn't literate enough to read this.
October 20, 2007
Blast from the Past
It had to happen. No matter how hard we try to progress as a society, some wise-acre has to degrade every argument into a question of race. Two years ago, Dan LeBatard of the Miami Herald questioned whether race played a role in Steve Nash's first MVP award. (I have looked, but the original article is nowhere to be found.)
The accusation was categorically dismissed by the voters and the majority of the mainstream media, as well as most NBA fans. Why? Because to the majority, Steve Nash absolutely deserved his award.
Not willing to let the issue die and focus on more relevant examples of racism in sports, a person working under the guise of "mainstream media watchdog" decided to dig up a dead horse. Jack McCallum responded, and away we went.
I won't bore anyone with the ugly details, nor will I rehash the argument I already made in the comments of the last link. I am not impressed with the arguments coming from either side, and I don't even think it should even have been brought up. That's the problem with bringing up racism - one side says that racism is inherent in our society, and the other side denies any racist (or racially reasoned) intent. Neither side will budge, and no minds are going to change . . . not when the haystack is not hiding a needle.
There is one central question posed in this whole argument. "Is it possible that race was a factor that the voters considered?"
That is a loaded question because there is only one answer. Yes - it is possible.
Mathematically speaking, any theory is possible until it is disproved. The only way for an event to be impossible is for its probability of occurrence to be measured at ZERO. So now that we have determined that it is, indeed, possible that race played a role in the 2005 MVP voting, all the nutcases get to come out of the woodwork screaming, "AH HA! I KNEW IT!"
Hold the phone there, Sparky. "Possible" does not imply "probable." It is possible that a meteor will strike the earth and destroy 75% of the species on the planet before I publish this post. It is possible that a bolt of lightning will strike your house, burst through your computer screen, and effectively lobotomize you while you read this.
The question then becomes, "How likely is it that race played a factor in the MVP voting?" That ain't spinach, Popeye. Those are worms.
Cosellout questions the integrity of the mainstream media for not attacking this issue more vehemently, further claiming that the media is responsible for sweeping potential racism under the rug. He wonders why they dismissed it so quickly.
I'll tell you why.
It is irresponsible journalism to take such an inflammatory topic and apply it to a debate regarding a meaningless award. Voters make their choices based on reasons known only to them, unless they tell us themselves. And if you ask them if race played a role in their decision, they will tell you that it did not. Case closed. No conjecture. No accusations. It is better to take a person at his word in an instance like this than to force them to defend themselves for something they did not do, however "subconsciously."
What do these people expect to do? Psychoanalyze through speculation and response? Force the voters to question their own decisions that they based on statistics, player performance, and team record with and without the player in question?
There were many valid reasons to vote for Steve Nash as MVP, not least of which is the incredible turn around the Suns experienced when he jumped on board - 33 games, good for fourth best in league history.
It is a fun debate, not an important one. To lay such an important and divisive issue on top of it is to spoil the fun of being a fan of the NBA. There are many cases of REAL racism and racial issues to discuss in sports.
The reason that this issue has no place on this topic is that there is no evidence to support the notion that race was involved in the vote. There is, however, plenty of evidence to support the reasons given by voters.
The human subconscious is not an appropriate place to look because it is not only completely out of our control, it is unprovable. That makes the argument moot. There is no reason to call into question the integrity of these people based on circumstantial evidence (white voters, white player). For that very reason, every court in the country would throw out the case if it were brought to them.
That the mainstream media glossed over this issue is not an indication that people are afraid to talk about race. On the contrary, it is an indication that they are responsible enough not to light a cigarette in a dry forest. Dan LeBatard was deservedly lambasted for even suggesting such a thing. He covers Shaquille O'Neal for a living . . . that should say something about the credibility of his argument. It is based less on reality and more on unsweetened vine fruit.
Your question has been answered, Cosellout. Now drop it before it gets ugly. We have enough to worry about in this world, and whether or not Steve Nash's whiteness won him an award is in the bottom one percent of the list. It didn't. Get over it.
You'd do more good questioning the media's refusal to point out political inconsistencies regarding the war in Iraq. Focus on their refusal to ask the really tough questions. Anything but an unprovable set of circumstances surrounding such a trivial aspect of life that the doesn't even concern the majority of the population.
You want to discuss race? Ask Al Sharpton why he has targeted Isiah Thomas, and not the entire mainstream music industry.
Nigga, please . . .
Update: I made an error in judgement. I hadn't read McCallum's full response, taking for granted that I was reading someone who takes his writing seriously. For this, I apologize to Mr. McCallum.
It seems that in Cosellout's zeal to defend himself, he committed an unpardonable sin in my book. Every quote he used from McCallum's piece was taken completely out of context. Cosellout attacked the weakest points of McCallum's argument, and he ignored the full scope of it. This is known as a strawman argument, and it is a fallacy.
It is shameful. Here we have a purported media watchdog violating basic journalistic ethics in order to discredit "real" journalists, wondering why no one is talking about this particular issue.
Here's a clue, jackass: It's called journalistic integrity.
If your goal is to change the way people think about the media, then you might want to consider exemplifying the standards to which you wish them to be held.
The accusation was categorically dismissed by the voters and the majority of the mainstream media, as well as most NBA fans. Why? Because to the majority, Steve Nash absolutely deserved his award.
Not willing to let the issue die and focus on more relevant examples of racism in sports, a person working under the guise of "mainstream media watchdog" decided to dig up a dead horse. Jack McCallum responded, and away we went.
I won't bore anyone with the ugly details, nor will I rehash the argument I already made in the comments of the last link. I am not impressed with the arguments coming from either side, and I don't even think it should even have been brought up. That's the problem with bringing up racism - one side says that racism is inherent in our society, and the other side denies any racist (or racially reasoned) intent. Neither side will budge, and no minds are going to change . . . not when the haystack is not hiding a needle.
There is one central question posed in this whole argument. "Is it possible that race was a factor that the voters considered?"
That is a loaded question because there is only one answer. Yes - it is possible.
Mathematically speaking, any theory is possible until it is disproved. The only way for an event to be impossible is for its probability of occurrence to be measured at ZERO. So now that we have determined that it is, indeed, possible that race played a role in the 2005 MVP voting, all the nutcases get to come out of the woodwork screaming, "AH HA! I KNEW IT!"
Hold the phone there, Sparky. "Possible" does not imply "probable." It is possible that a meteor will strike the earth and destroy 75% of the species on the planet before I publish this post. It is possible that a bolt of lightning will strike your house, burst through your computer screen, and effectively lobotomize you while you read this.
The question then becomes, "How likely is it that race played a factor in the MVP voting?" That ain't spinach, Popeye. Those are worms.
Cosellout questions the integrity of the mainstream media for not attacking this issue more vehemently, further claiming that the media is responsible for sweeping potential racism under the rug. He wonders why they dismissed it so quickly.
I'll tell you why.
It is irresponsible journalism to take such an inflammatory topic and apply it to a debate regarding a meaningless award. Voters make their choices based on reasons known only to them, unless they tell us themselves. And if you ask them if race played a role in their decision, they will tell you that it did not. Case closed. No conjecture. No accusations. It is better to take a person at his word in an instance like this than to force them to defend themselves for something they did not do, however "subconsciously."
What do these people expect to do? Psychoanalyze through speculation and response? Force the voters to question their own decisions that they based on statistics, player performance, and team record with and without the player in question?
There were many valid reasons to vote for Steve Nash as MVP, not least of which is the incredible turn around the Suns experienced when he jumped on board - 33 games, good for fourth best in league history.
It is a fun debate, not an important one. To lay such an important and divisive issue on top of it is to spoil the fun of being a fan of the NBA. There are many cases of REAL racism and racial issues to discuss in sports.
The reason that this issue has no place on this topic is that there is no evidence to support the notion that race was involved in the vote. There is, however, plenty of evidence to support the reasons given by voters.
The human subconscious is not an appropriate place to look because it is not only completely out of our control, it is unprovable. That makes the argument moot. There is no reason to call into question the integrity of these people based on circumstantial evidence (white voters, white player). For that very reason, every court in the country would throw out the case if it were brought to them.
That the mainstream media glossed over this issue is not an indication that people are afraid to talk about race. On the contrary, it is an indication that they are responsible enough not to light a cigarette in a dry forest. Dan LeBatard was deservedly lambasted for even suggesting such a thing. He covers Shaquille O'Neal for a living . . . that should say something about the credibility of his argument. It is based less on reality and more on unsweetened vine fruit.
Your question has been answered, Cosellout. Now drop it before it gets ugly. We have enough to worry about in this world, and whether or not Steve Nash's whiteness won him an award is in the bottom one percent of the list. It didn't. Get over it.
You'd do more good questioning the media's refusal to point out political inconsistencies regarding the war in Iraq. Focus on their refusal to ask the really tough questions. Anything but an unprovable set of circumstances surrounding such a trivial aspect of life that the doesn't even concern the majority of the population.
You want to discuss race? Ask Al Sharpton why he has targeted Isiah Thomas, and not the entire mainstream music industry.
Nigga, please . . .
Update: I made an error in judgement. I hadn't read McCallum's full response, taking for granted that I was reading someone who takes his writing seriously. For this, I apologize to Mr. McCallum.
It seems that in Cosellout's zeal to defend himself, he committed an unpardonable sin in my book. Every quote he used from McCallum's piece was taken completely out of context. Cosellout attacked the weakest points of McCallum's argument, and he ignored the full scope of it. This is known as a strawman argument, and it is a fallacy.
It is shameful. Here we have a purported media watchdog violating basic journalistic ethics in order to discredit "real" journalists, wondering why no one is talking about this particular issue.
Here's a clue, jackass: It's called journalistic integrity.
If your goal is to change the way people think about the media, then you might want to consider exemplifying the standards to which you wish them to be held.
October 12, 2007
Think Tank
Today is not a good day to be a Diamondbacks fan.
Forget the game one loss in the National League Championship series. Forget the controversial call by second base umpire, Larry Vanover. The Colorado Rockies played a whale of a game, and no call by any umpire was going to change that.
Maligned for a week and a half by the national and local press for not selling out fast enough for their tastes, Diamondbacks fans finally showed some passion for what happened on the field. Unfortunately for all concerned, some fans took things a little too far last night.
Now, far be it from me to tell another human being how to conduct himself. I'm all about personal responsibility, although I have no problem expressing my opinion on the behavior of others. As a cynic, it is my job to point out such things, however hypocritical it may seem. (I am not above assaulting myself for infractions of my own standards.)
Some fans at the ball park absolutely need a thrashing for what transpired. For goodness sake - throwing BEER AND WATER BOTTLES onto the playing field? Yes, fans were upset about a controversial call that turned a hard slide into second by Justin Upton into an automatic double play that didn't advance the runner, Chris Snyder, to third. It was a rally killer, to be sure, but it is at times like that when fans need to think about where they are and what they are doing, and to get behind their team, not handicap them.
The Diamondbacks were down four runs, anyway, so there is no reason to think that an umpire cost us a chance to come back late. Stephen Drew, as much of a fan of him that I am, blew it by swinging at the first pitch with the bases loaded. The D-Backs have done a lot of their damage all season with two outs, so why ostracize a man who actually put the team into a position to do just that?
Well, that's the psychology of sports in action.
As I mentioned earlier, Diamondback fans have had a rough ten days. We had to sit through the godawful, shamefully biased commentary by Dick Stockton and Ron Darling during the team's sweep of the Cubs. The broadcast director had a nice hand in the action, too, making sure that the entire country saw every Cubs fan in attendance at our home park. The bottom line was that Cubs fans are among the best in baseball, while Diamondback fans are fair weather front runners who wouldn't know how to conduct themselves at a game without the assistance of the Jumbotron.
Almost in unison, we cried foul. "East coast bias!"
Even after the team completed the sweep, the attention still lay on the difference between the teams' fan bases. But the NLCS was supposed to change things. Suddenly, we were in a big series against a team in the same boat as our team. A bunch of young unknowns who have no business being there (despite their combined 180 regular season wins). Finally, we could get past all the fan talk and focus on two great stories in baseball. That is, until the Rockies sold out before we did. Still, it should not have been an issue, according to team president, Derrick Hall.
Now everyone who took the time to defend Arizona fans on blogs, message boards, and in e-mail have to suffer the effects of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They said we were bad fans, and a few (presumably) drunk idiots gave the whole country reason to believe that we are the worst fans in professional sports, and there is nothing we can do about it. Here's why . . .
Due to the disproportionate coverage of "loyal" Cub fans and "disloyal" Diamondback fans, the national media has made evidence to the contrary (that is, there are more "good" D-Back fans than "bad") irrelevant. The general population is primed to believe anything negative said about us. This is known as the "availability heuristic." This phenomenon of the human mind suggests that we are more likely to make judgements about a person or situation based on the information that is most readily available to us. Id est, if there are a lot of articles and images portraying Diamondback fans as disloyal front runners, then people are going to assume that it is true.
No amount of information that indicates otherwise is sufficient to counter this effect due to another neat little phenomenon known as "confirmation bias." That is to say, we tend to seek out information that supports our point of view while discarding any information that contradicts that perspective. Regardless how many images we see of fans cheering their team passionately, a person arguing against us will only remember things like beer bottles thrown onto the field of play.
This effect enables a person to avoid the uncomfortable feeling of dissonance that freezes our brains when our stern beliefs are challenged. We have been primed to believe one thing, and anything that shows our beliefs to be false causes us to react irrationally, going so far as to dismiss such contradictory information (ironically enough) as but one example that does not change the overall perception created by the availability heuristic.
Moreover, people have a tendency to attribute another person's behavior to flaws in that person ("Stop making excuses why you guys aren't sold out!"), rather than seeking to understand the circumstances surrounding the behavior in question. This is known as the "fundamental attribution error." When explaining the behavior of others, it is much easier to assume that the other person is flawed in such a way that makes them fundamentally inferior to us rather than understanding their situation (there are myriad reasons for not selling out games, and they are all valid). Oddly enough, it is also a person's tendency to allow situations and circumstance to explain his own behavior. Egocentric thinking at its finest (though I simply call it hypocrisy).
Opposing fans are not the only people at the mercy of these psychological phenomena.
Interestingly enough, home field advantage can be both a blessing and a curse. Umpires and officials are human, subject to the same rules of behavior as the rest of us. Did anyone else notice Tim McClelland's expanded strike zone after the incident? "Self-verification theory" explains this event nicely. The fans boo the home plate umpire incessantly, so the tendency is to act in accordance to that behavior. Basically, we act the way people expect us to act. This is often confused with having a stubborn ego, but the reality is that it is a difficult phenomenon to overcome. If the fans support the officiating, the officials are more likely to give the benefit of calls to the home team. However, if the official feels that he is being "attacked," the calls will tend to favor the visiting team. (This is why Utah is such a difficult place for many NBA teams to play.)
Ultimately, there is nothing an Arizona fan can immediately do to repair the damage that has been done by a few lousy individuals. There is no spontaneous fix. The "ultimate attribution error" is in effect. The assumption is that, if some fans are barbaric Romans throwing rocks into the Gladiatorial arena, then they all must be barbaric Romans. We cease to be mere "fans." We are now "bad fans."
Guess what, folks -- perception is reality in this world. We have been painted by the media as dispassionate, ignorant fans, and the actions of a few have now cemented that perception. We had a chance to overcome all the bad press, but a few moronic individuals just could not control themselves, and now we all have to pay for their indiscretions. I don't like it, and no one really should.
The only thing we can do now is to be more cognizant of our behavior. Think before we act and speak, aware of the fact that changing a person's mind is near impossible without the right tools and the right amount of time. Of course, it would help if our local boys (Dan Bickley, Nick Piecoro, Bob Young, et al) took the time to present as many examples of positive fan behavior as possible, fighting the urge to fall into the trap of perpetuating myths started by an irresponsible media and even more irresponsible fans.
Granted, these journalists are as well subject to these same rules of human psychology, so we have to rely on their strengths as individuals to admit fault first.
As for the rest of us, it will be in our best interest to remain as non-combative as humanly possible. Find examples of positive fan behavior, and shove those examples down their throats. They can't ignore facts forever.
As I said earlier, it is near impossible - not completely impossible. We have to be aware of how we function as people, and work around that. If we have the intelligence to recognize these patterns, then we have the ability to counteract them.
We can start by not throwing beer bottles onto the field.
Information on the terms used can be found here.
Forget the game one loss in the National League Championship series. Forget the controversial call by second base umpire, Larry Vanover. The Colorado Rockies played a whale of a game, and no call by any umpire was going to change that.
Maligned for a week and a half by the national and local press for not selling out fast enough for their tastes, Diamondbacks fans finally showed some passion for what happened on the field. Unfortunately for all concerned, some fans took things a little too far last night.
Now, far be it from me to tell another human being how to conduct himself. I'm all about personal responsibility, although I have no problem expressing my opinion on the behavior of others. As a cynic, it is my job to point out such things, however hypocritical it may seem. (I am not above assaulting myself for infractions of my own standards.)
Some fans at the ball park absolutely need a thrashing for what transpired. For goodness sake - throwing BEER AND WATER BOTTLES onto the playing field? Yes, fans were upset about a controversial call that turned a hard slide into second by Justin Upton into an automatic double play that didn't advance the runner, Chris Snyder, to third. It was a rally killer, to be sure, but it is at times like that when fans need to think about where they are and what they are doing, and to get behind their team, not handicap them.
The Diamondbacks were down four runs, anyway, so there is no reason to think that an umpire cost us a chance to come back late. Stephen Drew, as much of a fan of him that I am, blew it by swinging at the first pitch with the bases loaded. The D-Backs have done a lot of their damage all season with two outs, so why ostracize a man who actually put the team into a position to do just that?
Well, that's the psychology of sports in action.
As I mentioned earlier, Diamondback fans have had a rough ten days. We had to sit through the godawful, shamefully biased commentary by Dick Stockton and Ron Darling during the team's sweep of the Cubs. The broadcast director had a nice hand in the action, too, making sure that the entire country saw every Cubs fan in attendance at our home park. The bottom line was that Cubs fans are among the best in baseball, while Diamondback fans are fair weather front runners who wouldn't know how to conduct themselves at a game without the assistance of the Jumbotron.
Almost in unison, we cried foul. "East coast bias!"
Even after the team completed the sweep, the attention still lay on the difference between the teams' fan bases. But the NLCS was supposed to change things. Suddenly, we were in a big series against a team in the same boat as our team. A bunch of young unknowns who have no business being there (despite their combined 180 regular season wins). Finally, we could get past all the fan talk and focus on two great stories in baseball. That is, until the Rockies sold out before we did. Still, it should not have been an issue, according to team president, Derrick Hall.
This is traditionally a late-buying fan base. Tomorrow we are just a few thousand shy, so should sell out for it, too. Our crowds really should not have been a focus of the national media. This fan base is extremely supportive, and though we had several seats open this week, we were confident in our fans.
Now everyone who took the time to defend Arizona fans on blogs, message boards, and in e-mail have to suffer the effects of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They said we were bad fans, and a few (presumably) drunk idiots gave the whole country reason to believe that we are the worst fans in professional sports, and there is nothing we can do about it. Here's why . . .
Due to the disproportionate coverage of "loyal" Cub fans and "disloyal" Diamondback fans, the national media has made evidence to the contrary (that is, there are more "good" D-Back fans than "bad") irrelevant. The general population is primed to believe anything negative said about us. This is known as the "availability heuristic." This phenomenon of the human mind suggests that we are more likely to make judgements about a person or situation based on the information that is most readily available to us. Id est, if there are a lot of articles and images portraying Diamondback fans as disloyal front runners, then people are going to assume that it is true.
No amount of information that indicates otherwise is sufficient to counter this effect due to another neat little phenomenon known as "confirmation bias." That is to say, we tend to seek out information that supports our point of view while discarding any information that contradicts that perspective. Regardless how many images we see of fans cheering their team passionately, a person arguing against us will only remember things like beer bottles thrown onto the field of play.
This effect enables a person to avoid the uncomfortable feeling of dissonance that freezes our brains when our stern beliefs are challenged. We have been primed to believe one thing, and anything that shows our beliefs to be false causes us to react irrationally, going so far as to dismiss such contradictory information (ironically enough) as but one example that does not change the overall perception created by the availability heuristic.
Moreover, people have a tendency to attribute another person's behavior to flaws in that person ("Stop making excuses why you guys aren't sold out!"), rather than seeking to understand the circumstances surrounding the behavior in question. This is known as the "fundamental attribution error." When explaining the behavior of others, it is much easier to assume that the other person is flawed in such a way that makes them fundamentally inferior to us rather than understanding their situation (there are myriad reasons for not selling out games, and they are all valid). Oddly enough, it is also a person's tendency to allow situations and circumstance to explain his own behavior. Egocentric thinking at its finest (though I simply call it hypocrisy).
Opposing fans are not the only people at the mercy of these psychological phenomena.
Interestingly enough, home field advantage can be both a blessing and a curse. Umpires and officials are human, subject to the same rules of behavior as the rest of us. Did anyone else notice Tim McClelland's expanded strike zone after the incident? "Self-verification theory" explains this event nicely. The fans boo the home plate umpire incessantly, so the tendency is to act in accordance to that behavior. Basically, we act the way people expect us to act. This is often confused with having a stubborn ego, but the reality is that it is a difficult phenomenon to overcome. If the fans support the officiating, the officials are more likely to give the benefit of calls to the home team. However, if the official feels that he is being "attacked," the calls will tend to favor the visiting team. (This is why Utah is such a difficult place for many NBA teams to play.)
Ultimately, there is nothing an Arizona fan can immediately do to repair the damage that has been done by a few lousy individuals. There is no spontaneous fix. The "ultimate attribution error" is in effect. The assumption is that, if some fans are barbaric Romans throwing rocks into the Gladiatorial arena, then they all must be barbaric Romans. We cease to be mere "fans." We are now "bad fans."
Guess what, folks -- perception is reality in this world. We have been painted by the media as dispassionate, ignorant fans, and the actions of a few have now cemented that perception. We had a chance to overcome all the bad press, but a few moronic individuals just could not control themselves, and now we all have to pay for their indiscretions. I don't like it, and no one really should.
The only thing we can do now is to be more cognizant of our behavior. Think before we act and speak, aware of the fact that changing a person's mind is near impossible without the right tools and the right amount of time. Of course, it would help if our local boys (Dan Bickley, Nick Piecoro, Bob Young, et al) took the time to present as many examples of positive fan behavior as possible, fighting the urge to fall into the trap of perpetuating myths started by an irresponsible media and even more irresponsible fans.
Granted, these journalists are as well subject to these same rules of human psychology, so we have to rely on their strengths as individuals to admit fault first.
As for the rest of us, it will be in our best interest to remain as non-combative as humanly possible. Find examples of positive fan behavior, and shove those examples down their throats. They can't ignore facts forever.
As I said earlier, it is near impossible - not completely impossible. We have to be aware of how we function as people, and work around that. If we have the intelligence to recognize these patterns, then we have the ability to counteract them.
We can start by not throwing beer bottles onto the field.
Information on the terms used can be found here.
October 7, 2007
The Bitch is Back
Let's see...where to begin? Right where I left off should work, then we'll zoom from there.
One last comment on the Matrix issue, first. I've done my defending, and if people refuse to listen or attempt to understand, then I'm not going to tie them to a tree and brand them with a human conscience. This isn't about Shawn Marion. It's about the fans. And for all of you, I have one simple question (read: complicated human psychological inquiry).
Three months ago, practically everyone was drooling at the prospect of dropping the Trix for the Tick. When we found out his camp squashed the prospect of the deal, Marion was blamed for putting himself above the team and the fans. Suddenly, Marion asks for a trade, and EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD blasted him for his disloyalty to us, called him the biggest cry baby ever to have walked the earth, and reminded him that he makes too much money not to be happy.
The question: What the hell is up with THAT?! He's a goat for not wanting to be traded, then he's a goat for wanting to be traded. And we blame HIM?!
Think about it for a while, then get back to me. I anxiously await all the hypocritically dissonant replies.
Now to join the blogger bandwagon and take a look at the upcoming season. It's too early in the morning (meaning I've been up all night) to do the whole *link thing, so forgive me if I don't take anyone's hand and guide them to my sources. I get them from the same places you get your NBA information, anyway. All they really do is make me look somewhat credible, and what's the value in that...really?
Let's start with the negative things people have had to say so far, then we'll work our way up to the positive.
"Robert Sarver is a cheap, money-grubbing owner whose only interest is in making money."
Duh.
He's a businessman. He paid $400 million for the franchise. People don't spend nearly half a billion dollars to lose money. They spend it to make more money. Fan or not, that's how it is. If you don't like it, YOU pay the tab.
Yeah...I didn't think so.
"Steve Kerr is mortgaging the future of the team to save money now."
No, he is not. Admittedly, I was skeptical about the course of action taken early in the offseason. It wasn't so much the moves he made as it was the timing. Giving away Kurt Thomas before the trading deadline when there were no viable big men replacements on the market seemed a rather odd maneuver to me. Apparently, he may have been one of the sources of chemistry issues on the team (unsubstantiated, but still a reasonable assumption given his disappearance from the rotation the second half of the season).
So let's look quickly at what Steve Kerr sacrificed in the name of "puppetry".
Kurt Thomas: $8 million + $8 million off the books for the price of two unprotected first round draft picks, and that oh-so-useful trade exception. In return, a second round pick.
Now, the myth regarding trade exceptions is that they allow a team to trade for a player more expensive than those a team jettisons without regard to the luxury tax. The truth is that it only allows the team to exceed the salary cap (hence "exception", as in "cap exception", not "tax exception"). The team still has to pay any luxury tax of salaries which exceed the cap. For the Suns, this is completely useless, as they have no intention of exceeding the cap by more than a couple million dollars.
People need to look at this move realistically. Yes, Kerr gave away KT. Yes, KT was our only low post defender. But he also missed a significant number games due to injury during his tenure here, he couldn't handle more than two laps up and down the court, his rebounding was negligible, and his shot blocking non-existent. Kerr gave up two first rounders the team would never use (seriously, to expect them to be of value to the Suns, i.e. lottery picks, is to believe the Suns will miss the playoffs next year and in 2010. Have you seen the core of young players on the team? Yeah...get over it.)
This move saved a boatload of money, allowing the team to keep Shawn Marion (Garnett's in Boston, it's not Shawn's fault, get over that one, too.) They were also able to sign a younger, stronger, more athletic big man in Brian Skinner, whose stats are almost exactly the same as Kurt's were last year. Figuring in the luxury tax, that's equal production with greater potential at one-sixteenth the price. What more could you want? A 28 year old Shaquille O'Neal?
James Jones: $3 million + $3 million off the books for the price of a first round pick.
Um...Grant Hill, anyone? Half the price, ten times the skill and experience, and a consistent jump shot. A 15 minute-a-night bench player for an All Star starter? BARGAIN!
"The Suns didn't even try to trade Banks. He's useless!"
Yeah...remember when Barbosa was "useless"? How'd that turn out? Now, I'm not saying that Banks is going to get Leandro's jumper any time soon, but there is a case to be made that young scoring point guards take time to learn and adapt to D'Antoni's system. Given another chance, Banks could prove to be a valuable asset when it comes time to shut down guys like...oh, I dunno...Tony Parker?
And if anyone thinks that teams were knocking down the door at AWA (USAC, my ass) to pry Banks away from the Suns, then they paid too much for whatever they're smoking. (Hint: Lots of powdery residue means you got junk.) Look, Marcus Banks is a talented guy. He's shown a lot of poise and class by keeping whatever frustrations he may have behind closed doors. And whenever he found court time in the middle of a game, he played his heart out. D'Antoni's system is very complicated. Banks is young and relatively inexperienced in the league. Give it a chance.
If he takes off this year, one of two things will happen, and neither of them are bad for us.
1. He will prove to be a valuable commodity, thus giving the Suns some flexibility at the trade deadline if need be.
2. He will prove to be an invaluable commodity, and he'll see significant minutes in the playoffs.
"Amare just had his THIRD knee operation, and he's only 24 years old. And we don't even have a back up for him, yet!"
The Suns DO have a back up for him. He played two years ago, and did a very fine job of helping the team reach the conference finals for the second straight year. How quickly we forget that amazing team of destiny and chemistry, defying all odds in the face of adversity. Kinda reminds you a little of the Diamondbacks, doesn't it? (I just HAD to throw a D-Back reference in there. 2007 NLCS, baby! Ahem...anyway...)
Also, the procedure Amare underwent is quite common in professional sports. Anyone who's run up and down a hard court or been tackled into the turf understands the unusual wear and tear the body goes through, and sometimes little messes have to be cleaned up. It happens ALL THE TIME, and players come back in a few weeks ready to go again. Do yourselves a favor and watch the injury reports this season. You'll see just how common arthroscopy is in all four leagues, and you'll see a lot of familiar names on the lists.
Did I miss anything?
Good. This brings us to all the wonderful things we have to look forward to this season.
Since I brought it up, do you remember that magical season two years ago? Amare went down due to microfracture surgery on his left knee, and the experts spelled out the doom the Suns faced that year -- an 8th seed in the playoffs with a quick first round exit.
Six months later - Western Conference Finals. And it took two more injuries to stop THAT run (the aforementioned Thomas followed by Raja's freak calf tear).
Now imagine that small-ball, run it down their throats, pass it till they're puking dizzy, shoot the arena lights out attack a bit bigger, a little stronger, and a helluva lot more athletic with the addition of Amare, Hill, and rookie hopefuls Alando Tucker and DJ Strawberry (who has been drawing raves from coaches, players, and fans for his tough defense and surprising ability to handle the passing duties, and whose improving jump shot has drawn Coach D'Antoni's attention). Replace Kurt Thomas with the younger, stronger, and faster Brian Skinner, and Tim Duncan can sell beer in the stands for all the Suns care. As Kobe Bryant has shown us time and time again, one player cannot beat the Suns.
Speaking of Grant Hill, my mind hasn't changed on what he brings to the team. From the reports coming out of camp, he's looking as quick and spry as he did before injuries derailed his career. Add to the mix the Suns training staff and legs that haven't been overworked for the last five years, and there's reason to believe that the Suns could very well produce five legitimate All Star candidates this season (Leandro will be a tough guy for coaches to leave off, even if he does go to Brazil that weekend).
And apparently, Shawn really likes what Hill brings to the team. Apparently, Marion has been feasting off Grant Hill feeds all week, and we all know that Shawn likes when someone hands him a free meal. That includes the "I'm not here to steal your thunder" dinner Hill had with Marion. These guys are going to get along juuuuuust fine, I think.
Speaking of chemistry, all seems right with the world in Sunsland, according to Paul Coro's reports from camp (I'm going to make a concerted effort to be nice to the home town guys this season, as the national pricks will consume all my venom), which leads me to believe that Shawn was not the cause of those issues last season, as is the common belief. I can't say for sure, as I'm not a locker room attendant. But if the Suns say that they're happy, if Shawn is smiling and enjoying the company (and assists) of his new team mates, then there's no reason to suspect otherwise.
And is it a coincidence that suddenly the organization is talking about those issues we never heard about last year? Or does it have to do with the departures of a few veterans who came in expecting to log a full slate of minutes, only to sit helplessly on the bench as Amare and Diaw lost their freaking minds?
Jalen Rose? Gone.
Pat Burke? Buh-bye.
Jumaine Jones? We hardly knew you. (Hell, most Suns fans never even figured out that his name isn't Jermaine.)
Pike and Marks stayed, and they seem to be quality guys who understand their place in the league now. Hell, they're just happy to be getting a paycheck still.
Like I said, I can't say for sure about that, but it seems awfully strange that, even after Shawn's public request for a free ticket to LAX, the Suns are getting along famously again. The team has openly admitted to the problems of last season, so it's not exactly something they'd turn around and lie about all of a sudden. I'm prone to give our guys the benefit of the doubt. We've followed them and loved them too long not to.
To me, there is a lot to be optimistic about this season. Whatever happens, this should turn out to be a great season. Expect a slow start with Amare's return from surgery and the assimilation of the new guys. Don't be surprised to see a .500 team the first couple weeks of the season. Conversely, don't be surprised to see a 40-10 team at the All Star break.
I won't be. Despite each of the last three seasons being wholly unpredictable and clearly distinguishable from one another, I've learned that the one thing this team does better than any other is defy expectations. Speaking of which . . .
I'll be conservative and say 59-23, but only because 60 wins is getting boring. All that matters is that the Suns will win the Pacific Division by default (Golden State just got hit with a key injury to Monta Ellis, so that's 4 for 4), they'll be the number two seed in the West, and they'll have their best shot ever at winning a title.
To the experts who doubt the Suns yet again I say, you have laid the gauntlet, sirs, and I accept your challenge.
**UPDATE: Good ol' Bright Side! A blogger was fortunate enough to attend the Suns scrimmage at McKale, and nice enough to write about the experience. Seems we do have a lot of good times to look forward to.
*So I managed to give you some links. That's how cool I am. Always the martyr.
One last comment on the Matrix issue, first. I've done my defending, and if people refuse to listen or attempt to understand, then I'm not going to tie them to a tree and brand them with a human conscience. This isn't about Shawn Marion. It's about the fans. And for all of you, I have one simple question (read: complicated human psychological inquiry).
Three months ago, practically everyone was drooling at the prospect of dropping the Trix for the Tick. When we found out his camp squashed the prospect of the deal, Marion was blamed for putting himself above the team and the fans. Suddenly, Marion asks for a trade, and EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD blasted him for his disloyalty to us, called him the biggest cry baby ever to have walked the earth, and reminded him that he makes too much money not to be happy.
The question: What the hell is up with THAT?! He's a goat for not wanting to be traded, then he's a goat for wanting to be traded. And we blame HIM?!
Think about it for a while, then get back to me. I anxiously await all the hypocritically dissonant replies.
Now to join the blogger bandwagon and take a look at the upcoming season. It's too early in the morning (meaning I've been up all night) to do the whole *link thing, so forgive me if I don't take anyone's hand and guide them to my sources. I get them from the same places you get your NBA information, anyway. All they really do is make me look somewhat credible, and what's the value in that...really?
Let's start with the negative things people have had to say so far, then we'll work our way up to the positive.
"Robert Sarver is a cheap, money-grubbing owner whose only interest is in making money."
Duh.
He's a businessman. He paid $400 million for the franchise. People don't spend nearly half a billion dollars to lose money. They spend it to make more money. Fan or not, that's how it is. If you don't like it, YOU pay the tab.
Yeah...I didn't think so.
"Steve Kerr is mortgaging the future of the team to save money now."
No, he is not. Admittedly, I was skeptical about the course of action taken early in the offseason. It wasn't so much the moves he made as it was the timing. Giving away Kurt Thomas before the trading deadline when there were no viable big men replacements on the market seemed a rather odd maneuver to me. Apparently, he may have been one of the sources of chemistry issues on the team (unsubstantiated, but still a reasonable assumption given his disappearance from the rotation the second half of the season).
So let's look quickly at what Steve Kerr sacrificed in the name of "puppetry".
Kurt Thomas: $8 million + $8 million off the books for the price of two unprotected first round draft picks, and that oh-so-useful trade exception. In return, a second round pick.
Now, the myth regarding trade exceptions is that they allow a team to trade for a player more expensive than those a team jettisons without regard to the luxury tax. The truth is that it only allows the team to exceed the salary cap (hence "exception", as in "cap exception", not "tax exception"). The team still has to pay any luxury tax of salaries which exceed the cap. For the Suns, this is completely useless, as they have no intention of exceeding the cap by more than a couple million dollars.
People need to look at this move realistically. Yes, Kerr gave away KT. Yes, KT was our only low post defender. But he also missed a significant number games due to injury during his tenure here, he couldn't handle more than two laps up and down the court, his rebounding was negligible, and his shot blocking non-existent. Kerr gave up two first rounders the team would never use (seriously, to expect them to be of value to the Suns, i.e. lottery picks, is to believe the Suns will miss the playoffs next year and in 2010. Have you seen the core of young players on the team? Yeah...get over it.)
This move saved a boatload of money, allowing the team to keep Shawn Marion (Garnett's in Boston, it's not Shawn's fault, get over that one, too.) They were also able to sign a younger, stronger, more athletic big man in Brian Skinner, whose stats are almost exactly the same as Kurt's were last year. Figuring in the luxury tax, that's equal production with greater potential at one-sixteenth the price. What more could you want? A 28 year old Shaquille O'Neal?
James Jones: $3 million + $3 million off the books for the price of a first round pick.
Um...Grant Hill, anyone? Half the price, ten times the skill and experience, and a consistent jump shot. A 15 minute-a-night bench player for an All Star starter? BARGAIN!
"The Suns didn't even try to trade Banks. He's useless!"
Yeah...remember when Barbosa was "useless"? How'd that turn out? Now, I'm not saying that Banks is going to get Leandro's jumper any time soon, but there is a case to be made that young scoring point guards take time to learn and adapt to D'Antoni's system. Given another chance, Banks could prove to be a valuable asset when it comes time to shut down guys like...oh, I dunno...Tony Parker?
And if anyone thinks that teams were knocking down the door at AWA (USAC, my ass) to pry Banks away from the Suns, then they paid too much for whatever they're smoking. (Hint: Lots of powdery residue means you got junk.) Look, Marcus Banks is a talented guy. He's shown a lot of poise and class by keeping whatever frustrations he may have behind closed doors. And whenever he found court time in the middle of a game, he played his heart out. D'Antoni's system is very complicated. Banks is young and relatively inexperienced in the league. Give it a chance.
If he takes off this year, one of two things will happen, and neither of them are bad for us.
1. He will prove to be a valuable commodity, thus giving the Suns some flexibility at the trade deadline if need be.
2. He will prove to be an invaluable commodity, and he'll see significant minutes in the playoffs.
"Amare just had his THIRD knee operation, and he's only 24 years old. And we don't even have a back up for him, yet!"
The Suns DO have a back up for him. He played two years ago, and did a very fine job of helping the team reach the conference finals for the second straight year. How quickly we forget that amazing team of destiny and chemistry, defying all odds in the face of adversity. Kinda reminds you a little of the Diamondbacks, doesn't it? (I just HAD to throw a D-Back reference in there. 2007 NLCS, baby! Ahem...anyway...)
Also, the procedure Amare underwent is quite common in professional sports. Anyone who's run up and down a hard court or been tackled into the turf understands the unusual wear and tear the body goes through, and sometimes little messes have to be cleaned up. It happens ALL THE TIME, and players come back in a few weeks ready to go again. Do yourselves a favor and watch the injury reports this season. You'll see just how common arthroscopy is in all four leagues, and you'll see a lot of familiar names on the lists.
Did I miss anything?
Good. This brings us to all the wonderful things we have to look forward to this season.
Since I brought it up, do you remember that magical season two years ago? Amare went down due to microfracture surgery on his left knee, and the experts spelled out the doom the Suns faced that year -- an 8th seed in the playoffs with a quick first round exit.
Six months later - Western Conference Finals. And it took two more injuries to stop THAT run (the aforementioned Thomas followed by Raja's freak calf tear).
Now imagine that small-ball, run it down their throats, pass it till they're puking dizzy, shoot the arena lights out attack a bit bigger, a little stronger, and a helluva lot more athletic with the addition of Amare, Hill, and rookie hopefuls Alando Tucker and DJ Strawberry (who has been drawing raves from coaches, players, and fans for his tough defense and surprising ability to handle the passing duties, and whose improving jump shot has drawn Coach D'Antoni's attention). Replace Kurt Thomas with the younger, stronger, and faster Brian Skinner, and Tim Duncan can sell beer in the stands for all the Suns care. As Kobe Bryant has shown us time and time again, one player cannot beat the Suns.
Speaking of Grant Hill, my mind hasn't changed on what he brings to the team. From the reports coming out of camp, he's looking as quick and spry as he did before injuries derailed his career. Add to the mix the Suns training staff and legs that haven't been overworked for the last five years, and there's reason to believe that the Suns could very well produce five legitimate All Star candidates this season (Leandro will be a tough guy for coaches to leave off, even if he does go to Brazil that weekend).
And apparently, Shawn really likes what Hill brings to the team. Apparently, Marion has been feasting off Grant Hill feeds all week, and we all know that Shawn likes when someone hands him a free meal. That includes the "I'm not here to steal your thunder" dinner Hill had with Marion. These guys are going to get along juuuuuust fine, I think.
Speaking of chemistry, all seems right with the world in Sunsland, according to Paul Coro's reports from camp (I'm going to make a concerted effort to be nice to the home town guys this season, as the national pricks will consume all my venom), which leads me to believe that Shawn was not the cause of those issues last season, as is the common belief. I can't say for sure, as I'm not a locker room attendant. But if the Suns say that they're happy, if Shawn is smiling and enjoying the company (and assists) of his new team mates, then there's no reason to suspect otherwise.
And is it a coincidence that suddenly the organization is talking about those issues we never heard about last year? Or does it have to do with the departures of a few veterans who came in expecting to log a full slate of minutes, only to sit helplessly on the bench as Amare and Diaw lost their freaking minds?
Jalen Rose? Gone.
Pat Burke? Buh-bye.
Jumaine Jones? We hardly knew you. (Hell, most Suns fans never even figured out that his name isn't Jermaine.)
Pike and Marks stayed, and they seem to be quality guys who understand their place in the league now. Hell, they're just happy to be getting a paycheck still.
Like I said, I can't say for sure about that, but it seems awfully strange that, even after Shawn's public request for a free ticket to LAX, the Suns are getting along famously again. The team has openly admitted to the problems of last season, so it's not exactly something they'd turn around and lie about all of a sudden. I'm prone to give our guys the benefit of the doubt. We've followed them and loved them too long not to.
To me, there is a lot to be optimistic about this season. Whatever happens, this should turn out to be a great season. Expect a slow start with Amare's return from surgery and the assimilation of the new guys. Don't be surprised to see a .500 team the first couple weeks of the season. Conversely, don't be surprised to see a 40-10 team at the All Star break.
I won't be. Despite each of the last three seasons being wholly unpredictable and clearly distinguishable from one another, I've learned that the one thing this team does better than any other is defy expectations. Speaking of which . . .
Prediction: 54-28, 1st in Pacific, 4th in Western Conference (3rd playoff seed)
- John Hollinger, espn NBA statistical "expert"
I'll be conservative and say 59-23, but only because 60 wins is getting boring. All that matters is that the Suns will win the Pacific Division by default (Golden State just got hit with a key injury to Monta Ellis, so that's 4 for 4), they'll be the number two seed in the West, and they'll have their best shot ever at winning a title.
To the experts who doubt the Suns yet again I say, you have laid the gauntlet, sirs, and I accept your challenge.
**UPDATE: Good ol' Bright Side! A blogger was fortunate enough to attend the Suns scrimmage at McKale, and nice enough to write about the experience. Seems we do have a lot of good times to look forward to.
*So I managed to give you some links. That's how cool I am. Always the martyr.
October 6, 2007
The Curse of Nostradumbass
A special Diamondback edition of A Clockwork Orange.
Article title courtesy IMissBob.
(For the record, I have purposely not written about the Diamondbacks, and I still won't do so, because I am a big believer in the moachichi. I'm waiting until it's all over, even though I've come close many times since July.)
Let the excuses begin. Come on, Cub fans, bring it on.
First, a bit of destiny to think about. Two numbers, specifically - six and sixteen. That was the Diamondbacks record over the 22 games prior to Stephen Drew's tie-breaking two-run homer on July 21, 2007, the game considered by most to be the turning point in the Diamondbacks season.
Sixteen to six. The Diamondbacks outscored the Cubs 16-6 in the series.
Now about those excuses. What will it be this time? There were no black cats or Billy goats (well, there was ONE). As far as anyone knows, Steve Bartman didn't even show up to the game. Not that I don't blame him. The team he loved and supported all his life turned its collective backside on him when he needed that love returned the most.
No curses this time . . . sorry.
No. This was a bad team squeaking into the playoffs by winning a division full of bad teams. But you'd never know it with that shameful TBS broadcast, highlighting every Cubs fan at OUR ball park. The Cubs were the better team, we were told (not that any D-Backs fan believed it).
The Cubs were more experienced (only 4 Diamondbacks with postseason experience), had a better line up (if you go by batting averages), and they had the better pitching (2nd best team ERA in the league).
They were picked by some even to go to the World Series. After all, if the Cardinals could do it last year coming out of the same god-awful division, ANYTHING is possible, right?
Wrong. Well, not in this case.
Why? Because Lou Piniella decided to take Zambrano out early in game one, saving him for a game four that would never come?
Please. Don't insult the baseball gods.
That move simply expedited the inevitable. I'm sure there will be TONS of speculation in the coming week on all the opinion shows about whether or not that move cost the Cubs a shot at advancing. I can't wait to hear the domino theory some schmuck will invariably contrive to explain how that move led to the collapse.
Well, it was the sixth inning of a tie ball game. The Cubs were not leading. In fact, they just barely tied the game the previous inning. They didn't score again off Brandon Webb, Brandon Lyon, or Jose Valverde.
So how did that Zambrano move cost them the game? Marmol was going to come in eventually. And he gave up another run in game 3, so it's not like it mattered when he came in. He was a young pitcher in over his head. It was going to happen.
Now, although that move did not lose the series, it did indicate how the series was lost. One word - disrespect. Piniella arrogantly assumed that there would even be a game four. At some point, he had to have looked onto that field, across to that other dugout, and said, "You know what? We're better than these guys. Webb's the only threat."
BIG mistake against a team whose motto is "Anybody, Anytime."
Another thing to think about, as I watch Derek Lee blame his team's early golf pro appointment on its inability to harness its own God-given talent -- in the history of professional sports, the "better team" has never - I repeat, NEVER - been swept out of the playoffs. It just doesn't happen. "Better" teams find ways to win, even when all looks lost. Even when the Billy goat is hanging from the lovable drunk (no mention of that one on the blatantly Cubs-friendly broadcast, surprisingly).
The bottom line -- no more excuses. No curses, no bonehead plays, no bad managerial moves, phantom fan interference. A 90-win team beat an 85-win team, plain and simple.
Cubs fans now have to face one unavoidable truth. They lost because they were a BAD team. They lost every other time because they were not the better team.
Never have been.
At this rate - never will be.
Lou Pinella may be a great manager, and Bob Melvin may be a "postseason neophyte", but there's just no denying that the best team won.
No complaints. No excuses. Not a peep.
Though an apology from Jay Mariotti would be nice.
Article title courtesy IMissBob.
(For the record, I have purposely not written about the Diamondbacks, and I still won't do so, because I am a big believer in the moachichi. I'm waiting until it's all over, even though I've come close many times since July.)
Let the excuses begin. Come on, Cub fans, bring it on.
First, a bit of destiny to think about. Two numbers, specifically - six and sixteen. That was the Diamondbacks record over the 22 games prior to Stephen Drew's tie-breaking two-run homer on July 21, 2007, the game considered by most to be the turning point in the Diamondbacks season.
Sixteen to six. The Diamondbacks outscored the Cubs 16-6 in the series.
Now about those excuses. What will it be this time? There were no black cats or Billy goats (well, there was ONE). As far as anyone knows, Steve Bartman didn't even show up to the game. Not that I don't blame him. The team he loved and supported all his life turned its collective backside on him when he needed that love returned the most.
No curses this time . . . sorry.
No. This was a bad team squeaking into the playoffs by winning a division full of bad teams. But you'd never know it with that shameful TBS broadcast, highlighting every Cubs fan at OUR ball park. The Cubs were the better team, we were told (not that any D-Backs fan believed it).
The Cubs were more experienced (only 4 Diamondbacks with postseason experience), had a better line up (if you go by batting averages), and they had the better pitching (2nd best team ERA in the league).
They were picked by some even to go to the World Series. After all, if the Cardinals could do it last year coming out of the same god-awful division, ANYTHING is possible, right?
Wrong. Well, not in this case.
Why? Because Lou Piniella decided to take Zambrano out early in game one, saving him for a game four that would never come?
Please. Don't insult the baseball gods.
That move simply expedited the inevitable. I'm sure there will be TONS of speculation in the coming week on all the opinion shows about whether or not that move cost the Cubs a shot at advancing. I can't wait to hear the domino theory some schmuck will invariably contrive to explain how that move led to the collapse.
Well, it was the sixth inning of a tie ball game. The Cubs were not leading. In fact, they just barely tied the game the previous inning. They didn't score again off Brandon Webb, Brandon Lyon, or Jose Valverde.
So how did that Zambrano move cost them the game? Marmol was going to come in eventually. And he gave up another run in game 3, so it's not like it mattered when he came in. He was a young pitcher in over his head. It was going to happen.
Now, although that move did not lose the series, it did indicate how the series was lost. One word - disrespect. Piniella arrogantly assumed that there would even be a game four. At some point, he had to have looked onto that field, across to that other dugout, and said, "You know what? We're better than these guys. Webb's the only threat."
BIG mistake against a team whose motto is "Anybody, Anytime."
Another thing to think about, as I watch Derek Lee blame his team's early golf pro appointment on its inability to harness its own God-given talent -- in the history of professional sports, the "better team" has never - I repeat, NEVER - been swept out of the playoffs. It just doesn't happen. "Better" teams find ways to win, even when all looks lost. Even when the Billy goat is hanging from the lovable drunk (no mention of that one on the blatantly Cubs-friendly broadcast, surprisingly).
The bottom line -- no more excuses. No curses, no bonehead plays, no bad managerial moves, phantom fan interference. A 90-win team beat an 85-win team, plain and simple.
Cubs fans now have to face one unavoidable truth. They lost because they were a BAD team. They lost every other time because they were not the better team.
Never have been.
At this rate - never will be.
Lou Pinella may be a great manager, and Bob Melvin may be a "postseason neophyte", but there's just no denying that the best team won.
No complaints. No excuses. Not a peep.
Though an apology from Jay Mariotti would be nice.
September 26, 2007
Job Satisfaction
It took four months, but the other size 16 finally dropped.
And now the message boards are flooding with speculation, criticism, and outright insanity - sometimes all three at once. But that's the Internet, and we should be used to it by now. I'm just dropping in for this to talk a little bit about finances, namely Shawn Marion's, and the Bizarro World notion that money = respect.
To counter that notion, I will simply offer that, if money means respect, then Michael Jackson must have held those little boys with the highest of regard.
The simple fact is, money has never been mentioned by anyone involved. If I recall correctly, the three year $60 million deal he's supposedly looking for was mentioned by reporters speculating on what Shawn would want after making over $17 million in his final year.
To my knowledge, Shawn has never mentioned money, nor has he ever really been asked about money. And now he's on record as saying that it isn't about money. That means that it is a combination of two things, and two things only.
1. The constant trade talk. It's enough to make ANYONE feel unwanted and unappreciated, regardless of the financial situation. Which brings us to the real reason this happened.
2. The extension. Shawn has been saying all along that the front office hasn't been willing to discuss it. For all they know, he's perfectly willing to take a pay cut (maybe even enough that Kirilenko suddenly doesn't look like such a bargain by comparison). I certainly don't know, but I'd like to believe that Shawn has that understanding of his situation.
What I'd LOVE to hear through all this (but it's NEVEREVEREVEREVEREVER going to happen) is Marion's voice saying loudly enough for everyone interested to hear, "I'll even willing to discuss taking less money than my current contract."
But "it's a business".
I'm so sick of hearing that from athletes these days. It's the standard answer for any question of a player's commitment and loyalty to a team and its fans.
Well, if we're all so clear that it's a business, then why is it such an affront to anyone's sensibilities that the highest paid player with a rapidly approaching contract date on a team hemorrhaging money (the newest addition to my hyperbole collection) due to the luxury tax and a $77 million payroll is the first one mentioned in EVERY trade proposal that comes along?
(Inside voice says: Hey, Shawn...your salary this year alone represents 22% of the team's payroll. That's Kevin Garnett, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant territory. And you're the third fucking option. Yes, Shawn. It's a BUSINESS. Now act like a professional.)
Shawn insists, though, that no one really understands him - that people who don't even know him are making assumptions about him. Obviously, I am one of them. That's never stopped me from writing or speculating about him. I've been more than generous in my defense of Shawn and his apparent moodiness, mostly because I'm confident in my knack for "knowing" people, even if I don't know them.
"Knowing" Shawn Marion as I do, I can only throw up my hands at the latest news, straight from his own mouth.
Yes? Is that a sign of betrayal, or a sign of good business sense? You're worried about an extension that the Suns, a SMALL market team, can't really afford to pay.
They found a taker who was willing to work out that extension. Not only is that good business, it shows that they do respect Shawn enough to find him a place willing to overpay for his services.
At the time, everyone was killing a deal to go to Boston. Did we forget the talk about how Boston is unkind to black players? How they're in a losing situation with no end in sight?
Did we forget this?
Gee. Didn't see THAT one coming back to bite him in the ass, did we? That article came out a month and a half before the NBA draft.
And there it is.
It's not about money. It's not about business, professionalism, or the sheer stupidity of not recognizing what an enviable basketball situation he is in. One thing that article taught us is that Shawn does not want to lose.
As long as "we'd be in the playoffs, right?"
Apparently, Shawn's enviable situation isn't so to him. He'd sacrifice winning for the right amount of losing, so long as he's the middle face on the team's official website somewhere.
Oh, and let's not forget that extension, so it would have to be permanent.
Yes, I understand Shawn Marion's state of mind on this (as far as I know), but it is such a skewed version of reality that no contract extension or amount of money or championship rings will fix it. (I don't question Shawn's sanity, just his perception of reality. Of course, that's usually the first sign.)
At any rate, Marion has stood firm in his quest for the ever-elusive quality of "respect". It has come to the point that only he knows the definition of that particular word anymore, because by most popular standards, Shawn Marion is one of the most respected players in the league - by fans, coaches, and even the media.
I think that everyone is wrong when they say that Marion will regret leaving the Suns. I think he understands exactly what's at stake. We have to understand one thing - some things in life are bigger than others, and only we can decide our own proportions.
Apparently, Shawn Marion places his job beneath himself (which is as it should be, in my opinion). He seems more concerned with righting himself than winning a title. And that's fine by me. It would be selfish to want Shawn to stay just so we could win a championship, when even that probably won't make him happy.
Like any family, we need to let Shawn go and find himself, or at least figure out what the hell he wants out of all this basketball stuff. A few more years, and he won't have it anymore. I don't think he really cares. He has other interests that are bigger than basketball, and it's time for the fans, the organization, and the media to accept that.
Marion treats basketball as the job that it is. The thing that sucks about it for him, I'd imagine, is that it's the only outlet available to him to express himself on a large scale.
So it's come down to this. I accept and understand that Shawn Marion may not be a part of our team this entire season. At the very least, barring a miraculous Dr. Phil moment, this is the last season we will see the orange and purple number 31 mad-dashing up and down the court at the Purple Palace.
End of an era, or just the beginning?
And now the message boards are flooding with speculation, criticism, and outright insanity - sometimes all three at once. But that's the Internet, and we should be used to it by now. I'm just dropping in for this to talk a little bit about finances, namely Shawn Marion's, and the Bizarro World notion that money = respect.
To counter that notion, I will simply offer that, if money means respect, then Michael Jackson must have held those little boys with the highest of regard.
The simple fact is, money has never been mentioned by anyone involved. If I recall correctly, the three year $60 million deal he's supposedly looking for was mentioned by reporters speculating on what Shawn would want after making over $17 million in his final year.
To my knowledge, Shawn has never mentioned money, nor has he ever really been asked about money. And now he's on record as saying that it isn't about money. That means that it is a combination of two things, and two things only.
1. The constant trade talk. It's enough to make ANYONE feel unwanted and unappreciated, regardless of the financial situation. Which brings us to the real reason this happened.
2. The extension. Shawn has been saying all along that the front office hasn't been willing to discuss it. For all they know, he's perfectly willing to take a pay cut (maybe even enough that Kirilenko suddenly doesn't look like such a bargain by comparison). I certainly don't know, but I'd like to believe that Shawn has that understanding of his situation.
What I'd LOVE to hear through all this (but it's NEVEREVEREVEREVEREVER going to happen) is Marion's voice saying loudly enough for everyone interested to hear, "I'll even willing to discuss taking less money than my current contract."
But "it's a business".
I'm so sick of hearing that from athletes these days. It's the standard answer for any question of a player's commitment and loyalty to a team and its fans.
Well, if we're all so clear that it's a business, then why is it such an affront to anyone's sensibilities that the highest paid player with a rapidly approaching contract date on a team hemorrhaging money (the newest addition to my hyperbole collection) due to the luxury tax and a $77 million payroll is the first one mentioned in EVERY trade proposal that comes along?
(Inside voice says: Hey, Shawn...your salary this year alone represents 22% of the team's payroll. That's Kevin Garnett, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant territory. And you're the third fucking option. Yes, Shawn. It's a BUSINESS. Now act like a professional.)
Shawn insists, though, that no one really understands him - that people who don't even know him are making assumptions about him. Obviously, I am one of them. That's never stopped me from writing or speculating about him. I've been more than generous in my defense of Shawn and his apparent moodiness, mostly because I'm confident in my knack for "knowing" people, even if I don't know them.
"Knowing" Shawn Marion as I do, I can only throw up my hands at the latest news, straight from his own mouth.
I felt like they tried to force my hand to Boston with the (Kevin) Garnett stuff.
Yes? Is that a sign of betrayal, or a sign of good business sense? You're worried about an extension that the Suns, a SMALL market team, can't really afford to pay.
They found a taker who was willing to work out that extension. Not only is that good business, it shows that they do respect Shawn enough to find him a place willing to overpay for his services.
At the time, everyone was killing a deal to go to Boston. Did we forget the talk about how Boston is unkind to black players? How they're in a losing situation with no end in sight?
Did we forget this?
So what about it, Shawn? Would you rather be a 30-point scorer and an MVP candidate on a lesser team, say, one only flirting with the postseason, than the sidekick to the sidekick in Phoenix? "Wow, that's interesting," he says thoughtfully, as if he's never entertained the prospect before.
Marion pauses nearly 10 seconds to concentrate on the question. Only the muted sound of late-afternoon traffic outside the two-story living room breaks the silence. He fiddles with the remote as if it holds the answer. "I've never been asked that," he continues. "That would be an interesting situation to be in, to really show people what I can do.
"But we'd be in the playoffs, right?"
Gee. Didn't see THAT one coming back to bite him in the ass, did we? That article came out a month and a half before the NBA draft.
And there it is.
It's not about money. It's not about business, professionalism, or the sheer stupidity of not recognizing what an enviable basketball situation he is in. One thing that article taught us is that Shawn does not want to lose.
As long as "we'd be in the playoffs, right?"
Apparently, Shawn's enviable situation isn't so to him. He'd sacrifice winning for the right amount of losing, so long as he's the middle face on the team's official website somewhere.
Oh, and let's not forget that extension, so it would have to be permanent.
Yes, I understand Shawn Marion's state of mind on this (as far as I know), but it is such a skewed version of reality that no contract extension or amount of money or championship rings will fix it. (I don't question Shawn's sanity, just his perception of reality. Of course, that's usually the first sign.)
At any rate, Marion has stood firm in his quest for the ever-elusive quality of "respect". It has come to the point that only he knows the definition of that particular word anymore, because by most popular standards, Shawn Marion is one of the most respected players in the league - by fans, coaches, and even the media.
I think that everyone is wrong when they say that Marion will regret leaving the Suns. I think he understands exactly what's at stake. We have to understand one thing - some things in life are bigger than others, and only we can decide our own proportions.
Apparently, Shawn Marion places his job beneath himself (which is as it should be, in my opinion). He seems more concerned with righting himself than winning a title. And that's fine by me. It would be selfish to want Shawn to stay just so we could win a championship, when even that probably won't make him happy.
Like any family, we need to let Shawn go and find himself, or at least figure out what the hell he wants out of all this basketball stuff. A few more years, and he won't have it anymore. I don't think he really cares. He has other interests that are bigger than basketball, and it's time for the fans, the organization, and the media to accept that.
Marion treats basketball as the job that it is. The thing that sucks about it for him, I'd imagine, is that it's the only outlet available to him to express himself on a large scale.
So it's come down to this. I accept and understand that Shawn Marion may not be a part of our team this entire season. At the very least, barring a miraculous Dr. Phil moment, this is the last season we will see the orange and purple number 31 mad-dashing up and down the court at the Purple Palace.
End of an era, or just the beginning?
August 23, 2007
Brothers and Sisters
I don't like talking about presidential races in an odd numbered year anymore than I like talking about the upcoming playoffs when the preseason hasn't even started. But Barak Obama was on the Daily Show last night, and I started thinking about things. How often is that a good thing?
I find the race between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton very intriguing. It really says a lot concerning the progress we have made as a country that we are finally willing to consider seriously a woman and a black man as president, especially after our stellar treatment of blacks and females throughout our country's history. Congratulations, United States. You've finally caught up with the rest of the world.
The crazy thing is, the whole democratic strategy seems to be revolving around experience. Namely, who has how much of what kind that will be useful in running the nation? Hillary Clinton ran for and won a Senate seat for the state of New York, and everyone knew what she was up to. She ran a very winnable race to gain experience to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Five years later, here we are saying that she's gained the experience necessary, as well as the Senate voting record, for us to visualize her as a serious presidential candidate.
Obama did the same thing in 2004. Well, not exactly the same thing, but still a similar strategy. This man came out of nowhere to challenge an unpopular incumbent for a very winnable Senate seat for Illinois, ostensibly to gain experience to be taken seriously as a legitimate presidential candidate in four years. Three years later, here we are. I don't know about his voting record, and I really don't care. He wasn't around to vote both for and against the war in Iraq, so there's nothing really to scrutinize there.
That's bullshit, though. Obama didn't join the Senate to gain experience to be a president. He ran to see if he could win something based on his "inexperience". It was a trial run for 2008, and nothing more. Ya wanna know why we haven't heard anything about Barak Obama's Senate record? No one cares. Obama made the point on the Daily Show that experience is what got us in this mess to begin with. "Experience" from two former Secretaries of Defense who insisted that we not go to war in Iraq 17 years ago told us to go in this time. Why? Because their "experience" told them that they could get away with it. And they did. Here we are.
He's right, too. If I had to, I would vote for Obama, just because I don't know a damn thing about him, but he presents himself well on television. And that's where this whole democracy thing is heading. Politically obscene as it was, the YouTube debates were a milestone in presidential campaign history. It's an outright acknowledgement that times are changing, and that they need to change. Great. Now what?
Who cares, as long as it's someone who doesn't have the experience to pull off the geopolitical crime of the century?
The way I see it, this race is coming down to Obama and Clinton. That is, if things remain the same as they are now (which they rarely do, admittedly). And that's the way it should be. We've been asking for decades if "America is ready" for a black or woman president (never both), so why not NOW? Let's do it, and get it over with. (If Fox can pull off a show about a bikini model becoming a "journalist", we may as well go all the way in both directions.)
Obama/Clinton is Suns/Spurs all over again - it's the de facto championship, long before we reach the Finals. Sure, there are "viable" candidates from the other conference, but we already know what we're getting from them - which hasn't been good in God knows how long.
Whoever wins the Democratic nomination between Obama and Clinton will most likely be the next president of the United States. But to me, the loser will be more telling than the winner. Obviously, we're ready for a this. But the loser of this race will tell us one very important thing about our society.
Who would we rather NOT run our country --a nigger or a bitch? And if neither wins, that will say alot about where we really are.
I find the race between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton very intriguing. It really says a lot concerning the progress we have made as a country that we are finally willing to consider seriously a woman and a black man as president, especially after our stellar treatment of blacks and females throughout our country's history. Congratulations, United States. You've finally caught up with the rest of the world.
The crazy thing is, the whole democratic strategy seems to be revolving around experience. Namely, who has how much of what kind that will be useful in running the nation? Hillary Clinton ran for and won a Senate seat for the state of New York, and everyone knew what she was up to. She ran a very winnable race to gain experience to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Five years later, here we are saying that she's gained the experience necessary, as well as the Senate voting record, for us to visualize her as a serious presidential candidate.
Obama did the same thing in 2004. Well, not exactly the same thing, but still a similar strategy. This man came out of nowhere to challenge an unpopular incumbent for a very winnable Senate seat for Illinois, ostensibly to gain experience to be taken seriously as a legitimate presidential candidate in four years. Three years later, here we are. I don't know about his voting record, and I really don't care. He wasn't around to vote both for and against the war in Iraq, so there's nothing really to scrutinize there.
That's bullshit, though. Obama didn't join the Senate to gain experience to be a president. He ran to see if he could win something based on his "inexperience". It was a trial run for 2008, and nothing more. Ya wanna know why we haven't heard anything about Barak Obama's Senate record? No one cares. Obama made the point on the Daily Show that experience is what got us in this mess to begin with. "Experience" from two former Secretaries of Defense who insisted that we not go to war in Iraq 17 years ago told us to go in this time. Why? Because their "experience" told them that they could get away with it. And they did. Here we are.
He's right, too. If I had to, I would vote for Obama, just because I don't know a damn thing about him, but he presents himself well on television. And that's where this whole democracy thing is heading. Politically obscene as it was, the YouTube debates were a milestone in presidential campaign history. It's an outright acknowledgement that times are changing, and that they need to change. Great. Now what?
Who cares, as long as it's someone who doesn't have the experience to pull off the geopolitical crime of the century?
The way I see it, this race is coming down to Obama and Clinton. That is, if things remain the same as they are now (which they rarely do, admittedly). And that's the way it should be. We've been asking for decades if "America is ready" for a black or woman president (never both), so why not NOW? Let's do it, and get it over with. (If Fox can pull off a show about a bikini model becoming a "journalist", we may as well go all the way in both directions.)
Obama/Clinton is Suns/Spurs all over again - it's the de facto championship, long before we reach the Finals. Sure, there are "viable" candidates from the other conference, but we already know what we're getting from them - which hasn't been good in God knows how long.
Whoever wins the Democratic nomination between Obama and Clinton will most likely be the next president of the United States. But to me, the loser will be more telling than the winner. Obviously, we're ready for a this. But the loser of this race will tell us one very important thing about our society.
Who would we rather NOT run our country --a nigger or a bitch? And if neither wins, that will say alot about where we really are.
August 20, 2007
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS JUST IN!!!
Fox News finally said, "Fuck it! We're gonna be REALLY honest with you people this time."
I am speechless.
Fox News finally said, "Fuck it! We're gonna be REALLY honest with you people this time."
I am speechless.
August 4, 2007
In the Terim
**Update: It seems that I'm being encouraged to explore my writing. As I tell people in my life the tales of my self-inflicted suffering, or share my cynical philosophies about American views on, well, everything related to our culture, I find myself repeating the same line at the end of every story - I gotta write that shit down. So I am. And I have been. Most of it comes from a deep, dark place that I choose to share with the world through fictionalized accounts of real events rather than actually "being" that person.
Be warned. It's graphic, filled with "cool swears like [a] David Mamet" play, and mostly my way of calling myself on my own bullshit. The writing itself isn't satirical, though its presence in the blog is satirical. I'm making a statement. Pay attention. End update**
There hasn't been much of note to write about lately, the big Boston trade notwithstanding. To be honest, I read Bill Simmons' piece on it, and after doing so, I couldn't think of anything pertinent to add. It's just not something that I am that passionate about.
Not to assume anything, but if there are people who enjoy my work for more literary or entertainment purposes, I do have a blog linked to this one with some of my "alternative" writing. I've started a new short story that I plan on continuing until it resolves itself. There are two chapters so far ("The Lady Killer" and "Prey for the Hunted"), both under 1800 words.
So if you're as bored with the offseason as I have been, and you need a break from wishing that the season would start already, visit 60s Consciousness from time to time. It's my first endeavour in such an on-going project, and feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks for reading. Until the next trade/scandal/retarded front office move, have a great set of days.
Be warned. It's graphic, filled with "cool swears like [a] David Mamet" play, and mostly my way of calling myself on my own bullshit. The writing itself isn't satirical, though its presence in the blog is satirical. I'm making a statement. Pay attention. End update**
There hasn't been much of note to write about lately, the big Boston trade notwithstanding. To be honest, I read Bill Simmons' piece on it, and after doing so, I couldn't think of anything pertinent to add. It's just not something that I am that passionate about.
Not to assume anything, but if there are people who enjoy my work for more literary or entertainment purposes, I do have a blog linked to this one with some of my "alternative" writing. I've started a new short story that I plan on continuing until it resolves itself. There are two chapters so far ("The Lady Killer" and "Prey for the Hunted"), both under 1800 words.
So if you're as bored with the offseason as I have been, and you need a break from wishing that the season would start already, visit 60s Consciousness from time to time. It's my first endeavour in such an on-going project, and feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks for reading. Until the next trade/scandal/retarded front office move, have a great set of days.
July 28, 2007
Foul Chart
Right off, I have to admit that I have no idea what happened to the two extra fouls (one on each team) and the two free throws missing from the Suns' total. I have looked for them as much as I can be bothered, but as I have mentioned several times, this was a TEDIOUS task. My eyes are swollen and itchy from zooming in too closely on a 15.4" LCD screen. At this point, though, I don't think that the missing statistics are relevant to the big picture. Attributing them to Donaghy does nothing to further any potential incrimination, and giving them to one or both of the other two officials would do nothing to deflect suspicion from Donaghy's foul calls.
In sum, the numbers are close enough for my purposes, which was to find any discrepancies that might be interpreted as biased foul calling on Tim Donaghy's part.
I could probably break this numbers down to say anything I want against Donaghy, but the fact of the matter is that he was almost non-existent throughout the majority of the game. He was most active in the second quarter, calling 6 fouls (4 on Phoenix, 2 on San Antonio), which equalled the number of fouls called by Willard and Rush combined in the quarter.
Perhaps not coincidentally, this was the quarter that the Suns began to pull away, leading by as many as 11, until two crucial calls from Donaghy. The the first call from Donaghy in the quarter (his third of the game, his only one on Amare) was Amare Stoudemire's second foul, an either-way foul that Jon Barry termed "a young foul". The second was the infamous late whistle that came from Donaghy a full two seconds after the play, as well as from half court, the furthest official from the play.
The Spurs finished that quarter on a 28-17 run, leading by two points going into half time. The total score at this point was 108, more than half way to the Vegas over/under line. During that quarter, Donaghy awarded 7 free throws to San Antonio, compared to the two he awarded to Phoenix.
Things turned strange in the third quarter, a period marred by several non-calls against the Spurs, mostly three second violations and Bowen's antics against Nash. Donaghy disappeared in the third, as well, calling only two fouls on San Antonio, and awarding Phoenix a mere 3 free throws.
Then we get to the fourth quarter, which San Antonio led wire to wire, with Phoenix never getting closer than 6 points (twice). Again, Donaghy was strangely absent, calling only 3 fouls total, and awarding 3 free throws between the two teams. Compare that with the 8 free throws a piece awarded by Willard and Rush. I will note, though, that all 8 of Willard's free throws went to San Antonio.
In the end, I see no big complete game discrepancy between what Donaghy called and what Rush called. The game as a whole is not so much evidence that Donaghy was on the take, but more an indictment of the horrid state of the officiating in the NBA today, regardless of gambling. By my count, Greg Willard, for the game, called 9 fouls on Phoenix and 6 on San Antonio. That's a reasonable disparity, until you consider that he awarded San Antonio three times as many free throw opportunities, allowing the Spurs to shoot 15 free throws to the Suns' 5, compliments of Willard.
Despite Rush's fourth quarter blindness, he called the most even game, handing 8 fouls to each team, and awarding Phoenix two more free throw attempts. This is comparable to Donaghy's final numbers, which give San Antonio one more foul and three more free throws (curiously inverted to what would be expected).
To be fair, eight of Willard's 15 free throws for the Spurs came in the fourth quarter, Donaghy's most conspicuously silent quarter.
I don't think anyone can deny that game three between the Suns and Spurs was the most atrociously officiated game in NBA playoff history. Not just the number of missed calls, but that all but two of them favored the Spurs is an indication that the referees do indeed interpret the rules differently depending on the team. I counted no less than six times a Spurs player standing inside the lane while his man was outside the three point line. In elementary school we called it "baby guarding the basket", and it was against the rules then, too. There is also the matter of what has been termed "physical defense", which for some teams means hard intentional fouls at the rim, and for others means quick hacks at a driver's arms. The Suns don't know from physical defense, so it's surprising that they were called for so many shooting fouls.
As an indictment of Tim Donaghy, the best evidence is the second quarter. He came alive just in time to stem a Suns momentum swing and allow the Spurs to regain control. I didn't note a single moment after the first quarter that the game was in danger of missing the over, not with the Suns averaging 24 points per quarter and the Spurs averaging 27 points. If the game cut close, then there was always room to call fouls later in the game. For the record, the over/under was beat at 1:51 in the fourth, when Tony Parker scored on a drive to push the score to 106-95 in favor of San Antonio -- 201 points for the mathematically challenged.
Oddly, though, most of those fourth quarter fouls came from the whistle of Greg Willard. Donaghy's contribution of three fouls total for the quarter hardly seem enough to push the score upward, especially considering that they weren't even timely calls. No, if Donaghy was working the spread or the over/under, he did it in the second quarter with a very timely slew of foul calls and a disproportionate number of free throws to San Antonio that not only killed Phoenix's momentum, but gave the Spurs the lead going into half time.
So whether or not this game proves to be an example of a fixed game is irrelevant at this point. Suns fans cried foul (pardon) when the game was going on, and even the media knew something wasn't right. Yet Stern continued to ignore the pleas of NBA fans everywhere right through the suspensions, and right until the news of Tim Donaghy broke. Now he has no choice but to look at that game very closely. No doubt he will draw similar conclusions to mine - ultimately, there is no conclusive proof that Donaghy inappropriately influenced this game, yet there are still numerous questionable calls and non-calls that are incongruous with good basketball.
Stern has to look closely at this game, and any game like it, and realize that his officials tend to be lazy, arrogant, and incompetent in big situations. The game may not have been fixed, but the officiating was bad enough that it may as well have been. God forbid I ever have to watch that game again.
July 27, 2007
Prohibition Works
This is how completely out of touch David Stern is. USA Today reports that Stern is still against legalized gambling.
Why?
Well, much like prohibition during the depression and California's "three strike rule" worked wonders to stop people from using drugs and alcohol, Stern expects that legislating human behavior is the answer for society's ills.
Think about it - an old New York lawyer who believes that prohibition worked, it just wasn't given enough time, apparently.
This is the guy who tells players how to dress and conduct themselves. This is the guy responsible for marketing what has become a hip-hop product. This is also the guy who believes that a young, emotionally jacked up player has the mental awareness to control the natural urge to leap to a companion's defense if that companion has been hurt.
David Stern has been telling us for years that his officials are the best in the business, that there is absolutely no credence to any conspiracy theories. Now he tells us that legalized gambling will "encourage more people to bet", which, by logical extension makes the problem even worse. I just have one suggestion.
Can someone please remind Stern about the $300 BILLION in illegal bets made last year?
Why?
Well, much like prohibition during the depression and California's "three strike rule" worked wonders to stop people from using drugs and alcohol, Stern expects that legislating human behavior is the answer for society's ills.
The NBA investigation is sure to rekindle debate about whether sports betting should be legalized. That would enable government agencies such as Nevada's Gaming Control Board to oversee and regulate the majority of bets now wagered illegally.
Stern disagrees. "Historically, I think that by making it legal, you're going to encourage more people to bet," he said Tuesday.
Think about it - an old New York lawyer who believes that prohibition worked, it just wasn't given enough time, apparently.
This is the guy who tells players how to dress and conduct themselves. This is the guy responsible for marketing what has become a hip-hop product. This is also the guy who believes that a young, emotionally jacked up player has the mental awareness to control the natural urge to leap to a companion's defense if that companion has been hurt.
David Stern has been telling us for years that his officials are the best in the business, that there is absolutely no credence to any conspiracy theories. Now he tells us that legalized gambling will "encourage more people to bet", which, by logical extension makes the problem even worse. I just have one suggestion.
Can someone please remind Stern about the $300 BILLION in illegal bets made last year?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
