The "hardest" thing in sports

One of my biggest pet peeves is when people say, "hitting a pitch is the hardest thing to do in sports."  This is the dumbest statement, because it's both incorrect and pointless.  The stat people always use is "3 out of 10" is a successful hitter.  The problem is that 3 out of 10 is a batting average.  Batting average isn't hitting a pitch.  Batting average is getting a base hit.  That's not the same thing.  If you literally mean "hitting a pitch," then hitters hit pitches more than 30% of the time (they don't literally miss the ball on 70% of their swings).  And if you mean "getting a hit is the hardest thing in sports," then you're making a completely pointless statement.  Baseball is played 1 on 9.  Of course getting hit involves such a low success rate.  So can we please never use the phrase "hitting a pitch is the hardest thing to do in sports" ever again?  Because you're either saying something that's not true or you're not even saying what you mean, and what you mean is a completely pointless statement.  Either way, it's time to put that idiotic phrase to rest.

Moneyball "misrepresentation"

When Moneyball first came out, there was some discussion about the movie's omission of Hudson, Zito, and Mulder.  It seemed to bug people that three of the best players on the team weren't credited with any of its success (and it still does, because a recent article I read made a comment along those lines, which is why I feel the need to address it).  In my opinion, I think the omission of Hudson, Zito, and Mulder was acceptable (for the most part).  Not because I don't think they were valuable, but because they weren't new.  Moneyball focuses primarily on the changes the team experienced during the 2002 season.  Yes, the A's trio won an impressive 57 games.  But they won 56 games the year before.  In other words, their performance didn't make up for the departures of Giambi and Damon.  I think the same reasoning can be used for the downplaying of Tejada and Chavez.  They produced 365 hits, 68 HRs, 240 RBIs, and combined for 9.5 WAR in '02 (according to baseball-reference).  The year before, they produced 325 hits, 63 HRs, 227 RBIs, and combined for 9.2 WAR.  So it's not like they filled the holes left by Giambi and Damon either.

Obviously those five guys were important to the success of the A's (and they deserved some mention), but if their performances didn't make up for the loss of Giambi and Damon, then what did?  Those five guys with Hatteberg and Justice shouldn't have been good enough to match those five guys with Giambi and Damon.  But they did.  They lost their best player, yet finished with a better record.  That shouldn't have happened.  Yes the A's had good players, but nothing epitomized the concept of Moneyball better than replacing Jason Giambi with Scott Hatteberg and actually being more successful.  That's why it's the main point of the movie.

2012 vs. 1992

The Olympic Team vs. Dream Team story is so stupid.  It was dumb of Kobe to say the 2012 team could beat the Dream Team.  Especially considering that the 2012 team isn't even healthy.  But it's not just Kobe I disagree with.  I'm also not in complete agreement with people when it comes to why Kobe's team would lose.  The dumbest reasoning used is the outcomes of the Dream Team's games.  To pretend for one second that the competition they faced is anywhere near the quality of opposition the current team will face is asinine.  Dominating subpar competition doesn't unequivocally prove greatness; dominating a Kukoc-led team doesn't prove you could dominate a LeBron-led team.  The other point of emphasis that I'm not a big fan of is the "11 Hall of Famers" point.  Only because it could've been matched, in theory.  A team of LeBron, Durant, Carmelo, Kobe, Wade, Howard, Duncan, Garnett, Love, Paul, Rose, and Kidd (in the Larry Bird inactive role) could contain 11, or even 12, future HOFers (maybe if that team existed, Kobe's challenge of the Dream Team wouldn't look so foolish).  The lack of HOF status of the current team is more a result of circumstances than it is a result of an inability to produce potential HOF talent.  Therefore, I don't think "point differential" and "11 HOFers" should be the primary arguments for a Dream Team victory.  The real reason I think the Dream Team is the best Olympic Team ever is because of their competitiveness.  The Dream Team documentary coverage of their practices was amazing.  I don't think anyone on the current team goes at it like Barkley and Malone or Magic and Michael.  So even if a team in 2012 could come close to matching the talent, they wouldn't come close to matching the ferocity.  And that's why the Dream Team would win.

Redemption

The NBA Finals was a tale of two stories.  As a series, it was somewhat underwhelming.  Expectations were high that we'd witness a competitive series between two exciting teams, led by arguably the two best players in the world.  Unfortunately, that didn't happen.  The Thunder who dominated the Spurs were nowhere to be found (especially James Harden).  They seemed to succumb to their youth and inexperience, and it ended in the worst way possible.  Game 5 was an awful way to end the season.  Nothing's worse than a series closing out on a beatdown that involves fluky 3-pt shooting.  Note: I'm not saying Miami's title win was fluky, but rather the manner in which the decisive game was won.  It's one thing for a "fluky" blowout to happen in the middle of a series.  But it sucks when it happens in the close-out game, because it makes the series feel less competitive than it actually was.  A short series, ending with a one-sided beatdown, is only fun for the fans of the winning team.  And not only did we not get a competitive series with a compelling ending, we didn't get to witness a legendary battle between the two best players in the world.  Neither guy played poorly, by any stretch, but they didn't have that ultimate performance with both guys at their best, trading shots (a la Bird-Dominique or LeBron-Pierce).  The series just didn't feel like a battle between the two best players and the two best teams.  So in that way, it was disappointing.

But on the other hand, there was LeBron James.  What we witnessed from LeBron was nothing short of incredible.  He averaged 28.6 points, on 46% shooting, along with 10.2 rebounds and 7.4 assists per game.  But it wasn't just what he did that was amazing, it was how he did it.  LeBron answered every question people had about him.  Will he be an assassin?  Will he perform in the 4th quarter?  Will he develop a post game?  Check, check, and check.  He played with an edge, he hit some big shots, and he was effective playing with his back to the basket.  He did everything that was asked of him.  How can anybody be anything but impressed and respectful of that?  Fans complain about holes in players' games all the time (Kobe needs to pass more, Westbrook needs to shoot less, Rondo needs a jumper, Howard needs more post moves etc.) and rarely do those players answer the call promptly, if at all.  Well, LeBron did.  So what else do you want?

Think about what he's done.  Not only did he actually do what people asked of him, but he eliminated all but one of his flaws.  If he works on his shooting, he will be the most complete basketball player of all-time (defense, passing, rebounding, post game and shooting).  Honestly, who wouldn't want to see that?  How could anyone not want to see a player with no weaknesses?

Fans want players to dedicate themselves to their craft and to winning.  LeBron clearly did that.  You could've complained about his attitude or desire in the past, but he clearly improved his game and focused on winning, so you can't hold that against him anymore.  If he reverts to that stuff in the future, then I guess you can hold it against him then.  But as of right now, that can't be a reason to not respect him.  If you can't admire him for addressing his faults, then your dislike of him isn't based in objectivity.  Which would be a shame, because if he becomes the most complete basketball player of all-time, everyone should enjoy that.  Your dislike of who he was shouldn't affect your opinion of who he has appeared to become.  His transformation redeemed the Finals.  And if it's permanent, it has redeemed his career.

Kobe's Fault

My immediate reaction to the Lakers' loss in game 4 was that it was Kobe's fault.  In the fourth quarter, he was 2 of 10.  Meanwhile, Bynum was a mere 1 of 2 and Pau was 0 for 0.  No wonder they lost!  How did they expect to win, when their second and third best player combine for two shots in the fourth quarter?  This seemed like just another case of Kobe abandoning the game plan and resorting to hero ball.  But after the game, Kobe blamed Pau for not being aggressive enough.  So which one was it?  Did Kobe keep shooting because Pau wasn't being aggressive or was Pau not being aggressive because Kobe kept shooting?  Was it even one or the other?  Maybe the deficiency of the other Laker players on the court allowed the Thunder to focus their defense on Bynum and Pau, thereby putting Kobe on an island.  Who knows?

The problem with analyzing a playoff collapse is that people usually fall into the trap of blaming one person or thing, when the the truth is there are many.  Was it Kobe's shot selection or was it something else?  Because the Lakers had multiple problems:

• Lack of athleticism- The Lakers were an older team, and were therefore susceptible to transition baskets.  Make a mistake offense and it's pretty much two points the other way.
• Bench struggles- Jordan Hill was the only good player off the bench.  Exclude Blake's 3-PT barrage in game 7 against Denver (where he went 5 for 6), and he shot 38% from the field and 35% from 3.  Barnes was worse, shooting 27% from the field and 16% from 3.
• New Coach- Some feel that Mike Brown isn't a good coach.  Even if he is, transitioning to an entirely new system, after a lockout, isn't really conducive to success.  Maybe he's a bad coach or maybe the players didn't have enough time to settle into the system.  Either way, it wasn't exactly a favorable circumstance.
• No Odom- The value Odom brought to the Lakers was highlighted by his absence.  Not only for the bench scoring he provided, but for his usefulness late in games.  When the Lakers had Odom, they had a second person (after Kobe) who could run the offense and create his own shot.  His versatility would keep the defense honest.
• Ramon Sessions- With the Lakers, Sessions shot 48% from the field and 49% from behind the arc in the regular season.  In the playoffs, he shot 38% from the field and 19% from 3.  And because the Lakers played more inside-out in the postseason, his percentage of FGAs that were 3's went up from 17% to 22%.  So not only is he shooting a larger percentage of 3's, he's making them 30% less often.
• Pau Gasol- Pau didn't have a great year.  He averaged the third most FGAs per game in his career.  But with the second lowest FG% of his career (50%), he averaged a personal worst 17.4 PPG.  Reaching a career-low in PPG would continue in the postseason, when he averaged 12.5 points on 43% shooting.

So, do all these things exonerate Kobe?  No, they don't.  He shot 44% from the field and 28% from 3.  However, I do not blame him for their losses and subsequent elimination.  Not because he played well enough to not deserve criticism (he didn't), but because there's too many factors to consider.  How much was his poor performance influenced by the factors listed above?  How much were the factors listed above affected by Kobe's poor performance?  It's impossible to say.  So I refuse to blame Kobe (or anyone else) for the Lakers' defeat. 

But while I don't blame Kobe for why they lost, I do blame him for how they lost.  Why they lost is complex.  How they lost is not.  The fact is, the Lakers have a habit of rolling over.  They don't go down swinging.  They don't give it their all.  They don't leave everything on the table.  Kobe can point fingers all he wants, but his team's poor effort reflects negatively on him.  Why?  Because he's the leader.  

A leader isn't only accountable for their own behavior.  Kobe putting forth maximum effort isn't his only responsibility.  Trying to single-handedly take over a game doesn't absolve him of culpability in the team's loss.  If he truly believed his teammates weren't putting forth effort, then he should've tried to engage them.  Did he not even try to do that?  Or was trying to single-handedly win the game his attempt to inspire his teammates?  Either way, he failed.  If teammates not putting forth effort is the problem, shooting a bunch isn't the acceptable solution.  As he started putting up shot after shot, did Pau suddenly become aggressive?  Did Kobe's effort to win the game transfer to Pau or anyone else?  No.

Which begs the question: why does Kobe's will to win not rub off on his teammates?

Pau is passive and Bynum has reportedly become more and more of a head case who's mainly concerned with his own role.  Why is his own performance more important to him than winning?  Is it just ironic that Kobe's desire to be the alpha dog eventually trumped winning and now the same thing is happening with Bynum?  Does Bynum's attitude really have nothing to do with Kobe?  Look at Duncan.  Was there any problems with the transition from Robinson to Duncan?  Or from Duncan to Parker?  Duncan didn't stage a coup on Robinson and a coup wasn't staged on him by Parker?  Is that a coincidence?  Or is it reflective of his leadership?

Under Kobe's watch, the team has been inconsistent.  They bookended two titles with getting blown out in elimination games against Boston and Dallas.  There have been instances of players lacking effort, acting immature, or being selfish.  Kobe can point fingers at those players all they want.  Maybe they do have bad attitudes.  He should just be aware that attitude reflects leadership, captain.  Either they are following his lead, and this is what his leadership produces, or they don't even follow him?  In either case, Kobe's at fault.

Ranking the Finals Possibilities

The NBA Finals seemed to take a pretty big hit with Derrick Rose's injury and the Lakers imploding.  Now Lakers-Celtics (the rubber match), Lakers-Heat (Kobe vs. LeBron), Bulls-Lakers (Kobe needing to beat the Bulls to tie Jordan's number of rings), and Bulls-Thunder (Durant vs. Rose) are no longer possibilities.  While it's unfortunate that some great options are off the table, there are a few intriguing matchups (emphasis on "a few"). Of the remaining playoff teams, only one (Philadelphia) seems unlikely to go to the Finals.  So what are the best matchups the other five remaining teams could produce?  Here's my ranking:

1. Oklahoma City vs. Miami- This is clearly the most marketable Finals possibility.  Other than LeBron battling Kobe, LeBron squaring off with Durant is the best option.  This is certainly the most intriguing matchup, and everything I wrote about it last year still hold's true.

2. San Antonio vs. Boston- From a pure basketball standpoint, this series would deliver.  Both teams execute like clockwork, with stars that set aside ego for the success of the team.  Parker going against Rondo and Ginobli going against Allen would be fun, but the highlight would be Garnett battling Duncan.  The two best power forwards of the last decade going at it, in what may be each one's last significant playoff series, would be great to watch.  It may lack the pizzazz of OKC-Miami, but it could be one of the most well-played Finals in history.

3. Oklahoma City vs. Indiana- This series would be a battle between two young, energetic teams that share the ball well and play in front of very lively crowds.  Basically, this would be the best version of college basketball.  Similar style and atmosphere, just with way better players and execution.

4. Miami vs. San Antonio-  This would pit the most tenured Big 3 against the least tenured one.  While one came together subtly through the draft, the other one came together through free agency with pomp and circumstance.  Other than that, it's pretty much a similar story to last year's (the well-rounded, veteran team going against the superstar top-heavy team), just without the significant occurrence of an all-time great enhancing his legacy.

5. Boston vs. Oklahoma City- There's only one thing that would make this Finals intriguing: Oklahoma City's path to a championship going through Dallas, LA, San Antonio and Boston.  To beat the reigning champion, the franchise with the best winning percentage of the last decade, and the two most storied franchises in history would be one pretty impressive feat.

6. Indiana vs. San Antonio- This is the least appealing option, and one that would potentially be the lowest rated Finals in history.  You know David Stern has his fingers crossed that this doesn't materialize.

Unlike last year, there's a 50% chance that the Finals won't be very enticing.  Let's hope that just superstardom (Durant and LeBron) or teamwork (Spurs and Celtics) prevails and we avoid any disasters.

Just Once

The first round of the playoffs was pretty lackluster.  The Spurs and Pacers won decisively.  The Lakers and Nuggets going seven games was more about the Lakers’ lack of urgency than it was about the Nuggets actually being competitive.  The Hawks are not really interesting anymore; they’re basically the New York Jets of the NBA (a competitive playoff team with a glass ceiling that isn’t really going to make a run at a title anytime soon).  The Derrick Rose injury ruined the Bulls' postseason.  Multiple injuries ruined the Knicks-Heat series, which was the one I was looking forward to the most.  I was hoping the Knicks would do a poor man's version of last year's Mavs (Carmelo as Dirk, Shumpert as Stevenson, Chandler as himself, Smith as Terry), in addition to getting contributions from Stoudemire, Davis, Fields, and Novak, and actually give Miami a run for their money.  Not that they would've won necessarily, but a game six in the Garden would've been fun.

The two highlights of the first round were Thunder-Mavs and Clippers-Grizzlies.  The Thunder are an immensely entertaining team and the Mavs are so savvy and gritty (especially Kidd and Marion).  It may not have been very competitive, but the first two games were quite entertaining.  The Clippers-Grizzlies was obviously the bright spot of the first round, since it was the only truly competitive series.

While that's disappointing, it wasn't exactly surprising.  Unlike the Grizzlies and Blazers last year, no low-seed seemed likely to pull off an upset.  There was an obvious disparity in quality between the top seeds and the low seeds.  The good news is that as obvious as that disparity was in the first round, it appears to be non-existent in the second round.  There's not a clear favorite to make the Finals in either conference.  Every team has some kind of flaw that makes them beatable, so the second round should be especially good.

But while any team can emerge from either conference, there's really two that need to: the Heat and the Lakers.  Earlier this year, Kobe was quoted as saying that he didn't have any rivals.  For the most part that's true, but if there's one who comes close it's LeBron.  Fans have been debating who's better for years.  Unfortunately, that's the extent of the rivalry, because they've never faced each other in the postseason.  Kobe or LeBron has been in the Finals every year for the last five years, yet they've never managed to be there at the same time.  They have to play each other just once.

Not only do they need to compete against each other for a championship because it would be a travesty if they never did, but also because it's time to move on from them.  Ever since Jordan rose to prominence, the league has pretty much been about one man shows "wanting to be like Mike."  There have been enough players in the mold of Jordan.  It's time to see some in the mold of Bird and Magic.  Bill Simmons wrote about the possibility of this happening with Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose:

"You'd never think of these guys as our next Bird-Magic rivalry … but when you remember their ages (23), mind-sets (basketball-only, all the time, nothing else matters), positions (one's a guard, the other's a forward), conferences (one East, one West), situations (contenders for each), characters (everything they do is about their team), styles (balls-to-the-wall all the time), crunch-time chops (significant) and humility (you never hear either of these guys talk about himself as a brand, just a basketball player), suddenly that Bird-Magic tag isn't so farfetched."

I hope this is the future of the NBA.  I want these two guys to be the faces of the NBA.  I want to see them be in the Finals every year. I want to see them on a talk show 25 years from now talking about their championship battles.  I want LeBron vs. Kobe just once.  Then I want Durant and Rose for the next decade.