So I was watching VH1 Classic, and they showed a bit with Slayer where they were asked about '80s hair bands, and they said, "we wanted to be completely different than them."
Well guys, you were, in that you couldn't come up with melodies and hooks like they did, and so you replaced with it really fast guitar playing and growling vocals. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Slayer simply wasn't as good as some (not all, there were plenty of bad hair bands) of those other bands. And while they'd like to act like they're superior because those bands were all image and no substance, what exactly was Slayer about? There are some people who truly like their music, but mostly the attraction to Slayer is the dark, Satanic imagery and anti-authoritarion messages. Slayer's really no different than a hair band, in that they had to create an image to generate a fan base. The only difference is, hair bands made songs that sound good, while Slayer made songs that simply sound fast.
Slayer gets tossed in with Metallica, Megadeth and Anthrax as the "big four of '80s speed metal," but that's always been completely unfair to Metallica and Megadeth. They made songs and albums that sounded good, while Slayer and Anthrax made songs and albums that sounded like a whole lotta nothing. There's more to music than just fast guitars, and Slayer and Anthrax didn't have it. Metallica and Megadeth, on the other hand, were talented and were able to play fast and yet have a good song underneath it all.
It just bothers me when bands like Slayer act like they're morally superior to hair bands, when in fact they had to rely on their image just as much as, say, Poison did. The imagery was completely different, but the effect on the fan base was the same. And while Poison wasn't all that talented either, they did write good pop songs that were just heavy enough to please hard rock fans. I just wish that when Slayer goes on a show, that the host would call them on their bullshit. Okay, I get it, you're jealous because those other bands sold millions of records and you didn't. Staying underground didn't make you morally superior, it just made you irrelevant.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
A true disaster movie
When Hollywood decided to make the awful spoof Disaster Movie, it should have just been footage of the Minnesota Timberwolves' draft history. I was perusing it for fun, and it's even worse than you think. The gory details:
From 1990-1996, the Timberwolves possessed the 6, 7, 3, 5, 4, 5, and 5th picks. Any competent organization should be able to produce a pretty good starting lineup out of that bevy of lottery picks, right? That's 7 top-7 picks, so even if you miss on a couple, you should still be able to get a good foundation out of that. Instead, they ended up with Felton Spencer, Luc Longley, Christian Laettner, Isaiah Rider, Donyell Marshall, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen (who was traded on draft day for Stephon Marbury). By 1998, all the Timberwolves had to show for all of those picks was Kevin Garnett and Terrell Brandon, who they traded Marbury for.
In 1999, the Timberwolves possessed the 6th and 14th picks. With the 6th pick, they took Wally Szczerbiak. Immediately taken after him were Richard Hamilton, Andre Miller, Shawn Marion and Jason Terry, meaning of the next four picks, every single one of them was better than what Minnesota ended up with. With the 14th pick they took William Avery, a forgotten Duke point guard. Immediately after him was the comical Frederic Weis (somehow there's a franchise run worse than the Timberwolves, and it's been the Knicks), but after him was Ron Artest, and two picks after that was James Posey. The Timberwolves could have ended up with a nice combination of players out of that draft to work with Garnett for the next decade. Garnett-Hamilton-Artest is a nice trio of players.
The next three years, the Timberwolves did not possess a single first round pick. Why, you might ask? Because they had to give superduperstar Joe Smith an under-the-table contract in order to keep him, which the NBA deemed illegal and docked the Timberwolves their next few first round draft picks for. This ensured that while Kevin Garnett was going through his prime, no young talent would be joining him. But hey...at least they kept Joe Smith, who any day now should be having his Hall of Fame plaque hung up.
When the Timberwolves finally rejoined the first round in 2003, who did they select? None other than high school stud Ndudi Ebi. I guess missing all of those first round picks wasn't so bad after all; at least it saved the fanbase from having to endure laughable selections like this one. Who was taken directly after Ebi? To be fair, Ebi was taken with the 26th selection, where you usually don't find good players. Except in this draft; taken directly after Ebi were Kendrick Perkins, Leandro Barbosa and Josh Howard.
I think my favorite thing about Minnesota's draft history is their propensity to select the right player, and then trade him for the wrong one. In 1996 they took Ray Allen, who would later team up with Kevin Garnett on a championship team. Of course that team wasn't in Minnesota, because they traded Allen for the incomparably selfish Stephon Marbury (self-nicknamed Starbury). In 2006 they drafted future all-star Brandon Roy. Of course he wasn't an all-star for Minnesota, as he was dealt to Portland for Randy Foye, who would later be traded to Washington and then forgotten. In 2008 they drafted O.J. Mayo and then traded him to Memphis for Kevin Love. That trade is a little more even since Love actually is a good player who could contribute to a winning team. Unfortunately, he plays the same position as Minnesota's top player, Al Jefferson, and Mayo would have provided a nice inside-outside combo with Jefferson. But hey, at least they got something in return this time.
Of all the draft day exploits the Timberwolves have had, the 2009 draft might take the cake. They were able to acquire the 5th pick from the Wizards for Foye, giving them the 5th, 6th, 18th and 28th picks in the first round. In a move that has to be unprecedented, they used their first three picks on points guards. Ricky Rubio, Jonny Flynn, Ty Lawson; every single one of them a point guard. Would you believe that the one who had the best rookie season, Lawson, did it for a team other than Minnesota? It is their history after all. Lawson was traded to Denver for a future first, and had a nice rookie season backing up Chauncey Billups. Flynn shot 41% from the field, and Rubio did not play for the Timberwolves. You won't believe this either, but the best point guard in the entire draft, Stephon Curry, went one pick after Rubio and Flynn, meaning that yet again Minnesota passed on the better player. What would have been comical is if Minnesota had won the lottery in 2010 and then had to reconcile John Wall being the best player in the draft, and them already having two young point guards on the roster (counting Rubio, which they probably shouldn't do).
It's a grisly history the Timberwolves have. A quality GM could have run roughshod over the league with these assets. They somehow made an outstanding selection with Kevin Garnett, but could never pair him with another good young player. Instead the best they ever did was two veterans in Sam Cassel and Latrell Sprewell, who imploded after one year. They could have paired Garnett with Ray Allen, or Richard Hamilton, or Brandon Roy. Instead they paired him with Stephon Marbury, Wally Szczerbiak and Randy Foye. All of these draft day misfires eventually led them to trading Garnett, and becoming one of the most irrelevent teams in the league. Teams like the Clippers and Knicks get lambasted for their mistakes over the years, and rightfully so. But it seems like the Timberwolves don't receive enough criticism for the horrid job they've done. Probably because they play in Minnesota, and nobody really cares.
From 1990-1996, the Timberwolves possessed the 6, 7, 3, 5, 4, 5, and 5th picks. Any competent organization should be able to produce a pretty good starting lineup out of that bevy of lottery picks, right? That's 7 top-7 picks, so even if you miss on a couple, you should still be able to get a good foundation out of that. Instead, they ended up with Felton Spencer, Luc Longley, Christian Laettner, Isaiah Rider, Donyell Marshall, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen (who was traded on draft day for Stephon Marbury). By 1998, all the Timberwolves had to show for all of those picks was Kevin Garnett and Terrell Brandon, who they traded Marbury for.
In 1999, the Timberwolves possessed the 6th and 14th picks. With the 6th pick, they took Wally Szczerbiak. Immediately taken after him were Richard Hamilton, Andre Miller, Shawn Marion and Jason Terry, meaning of the next four picks, every single one of them was better than what Minnesota ended up with. With the 14th pick they took William Avery, a forgotten Duke point guard. Immediately after him was the comical Frederic Weis (somehow there's a franchise run worse than the Timberwolves, and it's been the Knicks), but after him was Ron Artest, and two picks after that was James Posey. The Timberwolves could have ended up with a nice combination of players out of that draft to work with Garnett for the next decade. Garnett-Hamilton-Artest is a nice trio of players.
The next three years, the Timberwolves did not possess a single first round pick. Why, you might ask? Because they had to give superduperstar Joe Smith an under-the-table contract in order to keep him, which the NBA deemed illegal and docked the Timberwolves their next few first round draft picks for. This ensured that while Kevin Garnett was going through his prime, no young talent would be joining him. But hey...at least they kept Joe Smith, who any day now should be having his Hall of Fame plaque hung up.
When the Timberwolves finally rejoined the first round in 2003, who did they select? None other than high school stud Ndudi Ebi. I guess missing all of those first round picks wasn't so bad after all; at least it saved the fanbase from having to endure laughable selections like this one. Who was taken directly after Ebi? To be fair, Ebi was taken with the 26th selection, where you usually don't find good players. Except in this draft; taken directly after Ebi were Kendrick Perkins, Leandro Barbosa and Josh Howard.
I think my favorite thing about Minnesota's draft history is their propensity to select the right player, and then trade him for the wrong one. In 1996 they took Ray Allen, who would later team up with Kevin Garnett on a championship team. Of course that team wasn't in Minnesota, because they traded Allen for the incomparably selfish Stephon Marbury (self-nicknamed Starbury). In 2006 they drafted future all-star Brandon Roy. Of course he wasn't an all-star for Minnesota, as he was dealt to Portland for Randy Foye, who would later be traded to Washington and then forgotten. In 2008 they drafted O.J. Mayo and then traded him to Memphis for Kevin Love. That trade is a little more even since Love actually is a good player who could contribute to a winning team. Unfortunately, he plays the same position as Minnesota's top player, Al Jefferson, and Mayo would have provided a nice inside-outside combo with Jefferson. But hey, at least they got something in return this time.
Of all the draft day exploits the Timberwolves have had, the 2009 draft might take the cake. They were able to acquire the 5th pick from the Wizards for Foye, giving them the 5th, 6th, 18th and 28th picks in the first round. In a move that has to be unprecedented, they used their first three picks on points guards. Ricky Rubio, Jonny Flynn, Ty Lawson; every single one of them a point guard. Would you believe that the one who had the best rookie season, Lawson, did it for a team other than Minnesota? It is their history after all. Lawson was traded to Denver for a future first, and had a nice rookie season backing up Chauncey Billups. Flynn shot 41% from the field, and Rubio did not play for the Timberwolves. You won't believe this either, but the best point guard in the entire draft, Stephon Curry, went one pick after Rubio and Flynn, meaning that yet again Minnesota passed on the better player. What would have been comical is if Minnesota had won the lottery in 2010 and then had to reconcile John Wall being the best player in the draft, and them already having two young point guards on the roster (counting Rubio, which they probably shouldn't do).
It's a grisly history the Timberwolves have. A quality GM could have run roughshod over the league with these assets. They somehow made an outstanding selection with Kevin Garnett, but could never pair him with another good young player. Instead the best they ever did was two veterans in Sam Cassel and Latrell Sprewell, who imploded after one year. They could have paired Garnett with Ray Allen, or Richard Hamilton, or Brandon Roy. Instead they paired him with Stephon Marbury, Wally Szczerbiak and Randy Foye. All of these draft day misfires eventually led them to trading Garnett, and becoming one of the most irrelevent teams in the league. Teams like the Clippers and Knicks get lambasted for their mistakes over the years, and rightfully so. But it seems like the Timberwolves don't receive enough criticism for the horrid job they've done. Probably because they play in Minnesota, and nobody really cares.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
A few random thoughts
* College football's conference realignment was a bigger bust than Dolly Parton (thank you, I'll be here all week). I feel like I got teased into bed by Scarlet Johannsen and woke up with Rosie O'Donnell. All the talk had been about a Pac-10 superconference with the Texas and Oklahoma schools shifting westward, and then maybe the Big Ten would take Nebraska and Missouri plus raid the Big East perhaps, and maybe even force Notre Dame to join a conference. Instead all we got was Colorado moving to the Pac-10 and Nebraska going to the Big-10. Big flippin' deal. I was looking forward to yearly Texas-USC matchups, and Oregon-Oklahoma. Instead I get Colorado-Washington St. and Nebraska-Northwestern. Hey, congrats Big-10 and Pac-10; all of that bluster, and you added two schools that haven't been relevant for about a decade.
* I love how every off-field transgression is now referred to as a "mistake." Last night I had ESPNNEWS on and John Clayton was talking about Vince Young getting into a fight at a strip club, and he said Young had "admitted to his mistake." Hmm, I don't think "mistake" is quite the right term for getting into a fight at a strip club. A mistake is when you're doing a math problem and you forget to carry the 1. Even being in a strip club and allowing yourself to be put in that position when you're a starting QB is...how should I put this...fucking idiotic. Roethlisberger's ordeal has also been referred to as a "mistake." The term "mistake" just makes it all sound a little too honest. I mean, we all make mistakes. But we don't all go to strip clubs and get into fights, and we don't all force girls into a bathroom and then do, well whatever Ben did.
* Hi, Brad Childress here. Just letting everyone know that when my star QB misses minicamps and OTAs, I'm okay with that, but when my star RB does the same, I get pissed! Hey Adrian, sorry bud but you aren't "contemplating retirement." heh heh even I can't say that one with a straight face. But seriously, get your ass to camp. I have no problem airing my double standards in public, as you can already see. And when Brett doesn't show up for training camp because he's still "contemplating retirement" well...don't you worry 'bout that. But your ass better be there on time and in shape. There's only one person on this team who can get into shape while riding his lawnmower, and it ain't you bud.
*Seriously though, the Vikings were able to get away with Favre missing training camp last year because they opened with Cleveland and Detroit, which allowed him to ease into the season (and he eased in like a gentleman, throwing for only about 120 yards in each game). The Vikings have no such luxury this season, as they open against New Orleans and Miami. If the passing game starts off slow again, they'll be 0-2. Mark my words, Favre will not be able to get away with missing training camp again.
*Chad Qualls, the Diamondbacks' closer, has a stat line that's so bad, you have to see it to believe it. 22.1 innings pitched, 2.1 WHIP, 8.46 ERA. In other words, he's allowing a helluva lot of baserunners (over 2 per inning!) and a helluva lot of runs. The Arizona bullpen is a disaster area as a whole, but Qualls has to be the worst pitcher in baseball this season. I can't imagine anyone else with that high of a WHIP and that high of an ERA. You shouldn't be able to keep your job with numbers like that, but Qualls is gainfully employed, and still the closer as far as I know. Kyra Sedgwick would be a better option.
Fun fact: Arizona averages almost 5 runs a game, and is 12 games under .500. That's all you need to know about that particular pitching staff.
* I love how every off-field transgression is now referred to as a "mistake." Last night I had ESPNNEWS on and John Clayton was talking about Vince Young getting into a fight at a strip club, and he said Young had "admitted to his mistake." Hmm, I don't think "mistake" is quite the right term for getting into a fight at a strip club. A mistake is when you're doing a math problem and you forget to carry the 1. Even being in a strip club and allowing yourself to be put in that position when you're a starting QB is...how should I put this...fucking idiotic. Roethlisberger's ordeal has also been referred to as a "mistake." The term "mistake" just makes it all sound a little too honest. I mean, we all make mistakes. But we don't all go to strip clubs and get into fights, and we don't all force girls into a bathroom and then do, well whatever Ben did.
* Hi, Brad Childress here. Just letting everyone know that when my star QB misses minicamps and OTAs, I'm okay with that, but when my star RB does the same, I get pissed! Hey Adrian, sorry bud but you aren't "contemplating retirement." heh heh even I can't say that one with a straight face. But seriously, get your ass to camp. I have no problem airing my double standards in public, as you can already see. And when Brett doesn't show up for training camp because he's still "contemplating retirement" well...don't you worry 'bout that. But your ass better be there on time and in shape. There's only one person on this team who can get into shape while riding his lawnmower, and it ain't you bud.
*Seriously though, the Vikings were able to get away with Favre missing training camp last year because they opened with Cleveland and Detroit, which allowed him to ease into the season (and he eased in like a gentleman, throwing for only about 120 yards in each game). The Vikings have no such luxury this season, as they open against New Orleans and Miami. If the passing game starts off slow again, they'll be 0-2. Mark my words, Favre will not be able to get away with missing training camp again.
*Chad Qualls, the Diamondbacks' closer, has a stat line that's so bad, you have to see it to believe it. 22.1 innings pitched, 2.1 WHIP, 8.46 ERA. In other words, he's allowing a helluva lot of baserunners (over 2 per inning!) and a helluva lot of runs. The Arizona bullpen is a disaster area as a whole, but Qualls has to be the worst pitcher in baseball this season. I can't imagine anyone else with that high of a WHIP and that high of an ERA. You shouldn't be able to keep your job with numbers like that, but Qualls is gainfully employed, and still the closer as far as I know. Kyra Sedgwick would be a better option.
Fun fact: Arizona averages almost 5 runs a game, and is 12 games under .500. That's all you need to know about that particular pitching staff.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
I like Bill Simmons as much as anybody else...
But this is a column he wrote before the NBA playoffs that he might want to bury where no one can find it, before a smart-ass like me pokes fun at it.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part1/100416&sportCat=nba
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part2/100416&sportCat=nba
I'll preface this by saying that when you're in the prediction business, you're going to be wrong a lot. But it's still fun to look back and see just how wrong we were.
I think this spring could be the last stand for the Rejuvenated Atlanta Hawks.
And what a stand it was. Has a team ever gone out so meekly before? They got swept in 4 games by Orlando by approximately 30 points a game, but not before needing 7 games to beat the undertalented Milwaukee Bucks. With Joe Johnson leaving it was their last stand, but it wasn't exactly the stuff of "300."
I think Larry Brown could absolutely outcoach his first- and second-round opponents this spring.
Stan Van Gundy in Round 1, Mike Woodson in Round 2 ... and Mike Brown looming in Round 3. I'm just sayin'.
He could...if his team could win a game first. The Bobcats were swept in the first round by Orlando. I wouldn't argue that Larry Brown is a better coach than Van Gundy, Woodson or Mike Brown, but the NBA is all about the players, and the Bobcats don't have them.
I think Ernie Grunfeld should be the 2009-10 Anti-Executive of the Year.
He turned Dallas into a contender and made Cleveland the overwhelming favorite.
In retrospect, those deals didn't hardly do anything for Dallas or Cleveland. Jamison was MIA for the Cavs in round 2, and Caron Butler and Brendan Haywood didn't mean a thing as the Mavs lost to the Spurs in round 1.
I think Cleveland will win the 2010 title.
Best team, best player, best season. Of course, we could have said that last year. But Jamison and Shaq give the Cavs a flexibility last season's team just didn't have.
Jamison was useless, and Shaq clogged up the lane. That Cleveland team is shit, and I'm never buying into their hype again, even if LeBron does come back.
I know "Deron Williams or Chris Paul?" is a legitimate debate.
I only mention this one because Simmons now goes out of his way to say that Rondo is the best PG in the NBA, when a mere two months ago he wasn't even in the discussion. I personally like Chris Paul the best, but Williams and Rondo are damn good and so is Derrick Rose. It is a legitimate debate, but it's between four PGs, not two.
I know the Celtics are going to lose in Round 1.
Wait, it gets better.
I know Cavs-Mavericks is a smart Finals wager in Vegas.
In retrospect, I have no idea why we ever bought into these teams. Well okay, Cleveland has LeBron. But Dallas' second best player is Jason Kidd, and that just doesn't cut it. Dirk should go to Phoenix and play with Steve Nash again. He's not winning a championship in Dallas unless they somehow bring in another superstar.
I can prove that the 2010 Orlando-Cleveland series will be different than the 2009 Orlando-Cleveland series.
It will be different, in that it won't happen. Orlando was a lot worse than last season (who knew Hedo was such a valuable player for them?), and Cleveland was, at best, no better.
I can prove that the Disease of More exists.
Our latest example: the 2009-10 Los Angeles Lakers.
This is the stuff that kills you. When you go out of your way to say that the favorite has a fatal flaw...and then that flaw never appears.
I can prove that chemistry matters
Group 1 (has it): Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Atlanta, Portland, Milwaukee, San Antonio and Phoenix.
Group 2 (doesn't have it): Boston, Los Angeles.
Group 3 (unclear): Orlando, Utah, Miami, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver.
Okay, now this is where we get into trouble. Simmons too often falls into that fairy tale bullshit about chemistry mattering more than talent, and he thinks that somehow he can quantify chemistry. I don't doubt that chemistry exists and matters, but you can't actually prove it. Look at the teams he put in group 1; only Phoenix acquitted themselves nicely this postseason. Oklahoma City did fine but they still lost in the first round, as did Portland and Milwaukee (no fault really; they just aren't talented enough); Dallas and Cleveland were big busts, while San Antonio got swept in the second round. And then there's Atlanta; pardon my french, but what in the fuck are the Hawks doing in a "good chemistry" group? The Hawks have horrible chemistry; a whole bunch of selfish players who had other ideas besides winning in the 2nd round (what those ideas were is still a mystery). I mean, what the fuck Simmons. The Hawks???
I appreciate that a whopping 6 playoff teams have unclear chemistry, as if proving my point that chemistry is unquantifiable. But does Simmons come to this conclusion, despite his own evidence? Nope, he'll still tell you can see good chemistry and bad chemistry, even though 6 playoff teams that he no doubt saw play at least 20 times this season he had no clue about.
And then there's the group 2, the two playoff teams that Simmons thought absolutely, positively had bad chemistry this season; they are, of course, the two teams facing off in the NBA Finals. Maybe now we can drop the magic beans bullshit and analyze teams for their talent rather than their pixie dust?
--------
My point here isn't to pick on Simmons, since I like his NBA writing a lot and I actually agreed with a lot of this back when it was written. I liked Cleveland and Dallas as well, and thought Boston would go out early. When you make predictions you're going to be wrong, and Lord knows I've been wrong many times. I just wish he would stick to basketball, and drop the fairy tale stuff. Chemistry doesn't put the ball in the basket; pixie dust doesn't put a hand in Kobe's face as he rises for a jump shot. The game is about the players, except in those rare circumstances where players are openly gunning for themselves or something, in which case yes that's problematic.
Kinda like, I don't know...the Atlanta Hawks. I still can't believe he thought they had good chemistry.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part1/100416&sportCat=nba
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part2/100416&sportCat=nba
I'll preface this by saying that when you're in the prediction business, you're going to be wrong a lot. But it's still fun to look back and see just how wrong we were.
I think this spring could be the last stand for the Rejuvenated Atlanta Hawks.
And what a stand it was. Has a team ever gone out so meekly before? They got swept in 4 games by Orlando by approximately 30 points a game, but not before needing 7 games to beat the undertalented Milwaukee Bucks. With Joe Johnson leaving it was their last stand, but it wasn't exactly the stuff of "300."
I think Larry Brown could absolutely outcoach his first- and second-round opponents this spring.
Stan Van Gundy in Round 1, Mike Woodson in Round 2 ... and Mike Brown looming in Round 3. I'm just sayin'.
He could...if his team could win a game first. The Bobcats were swept in the first round by Orlando. I wouldn't argue that Larry Brown is a better coach than Van Gundy, Woodson or Mike Brown, but the NBA is all about the players, and the Bobcats don't have them.
I think Ernie Grunfeld should be the 2009-10 Anti-Executive of the Year.
He turned Dallas into a contender and made Cleveland the overwhelming favorite.
In retrospect, those deals didn't hardly do anything for Dallas or Cleveland. Jamison was MIA for the Cavs in round 2, and Caron Butler and Brendan Haywood didn't mean a thing as the Mavs lost to the Spurs in round 1.
I think Cleveland will win the 2010 title.
Best team, best player, best season. Of course, we could have said that last year. But Jamison and Shaq give the Cavs a flexibility last season's team just didn't have.
Jamison was useless, and Shaq clogged up the lane. That Cleveland team is shit, and I'm never buying into their hype again, even if LeBron does come back.
I know "Deron Williams or Chris Paul?" is a legitimate debate.
I only mention this one because Simmons now goes out of his way to say that Rondo is the best PG in the NBA, when a mere two months ago he wasn't even in the discussion. I personally like Chris Paul the best, but Williams and Rondo are damn good and so is Derrick Rose. It is a legitimate debate, but it's between four PGs, not two.
I know the Celtics are going to lose in Round 1.
Wait, it gets better.
I know Cavs-Mavericks is a smart Finals wager in Vegas.
In retrospect, I have no idea why we ever bought into these teams. Well okay, Cleveland has LeBron. But Dallas' second best player is Jason Kidd, and that just doesn't cut it. Dirk should go to Phoenix and play with Steve Nash again. He's not winning a championship in Dallas unless they somehow bring in another superstar.
I can prove that the 2010 Orlando-Cleveland series will be different than the 2009 Orlando-Cleveland series.
It will be different, in that it won't happen. Orlando was a lot worse than last season (who knew Hedo was such a valuable player for them?), and Cleveland was, at best, no better.
I can prove that the Disease of More exists.
Our latest example: the 2009-10 Los Angeles Lakers.
This is the stuff that kills you. When you go out of your way to say that the favorite has a fatal flaw...and then that flaw never appears.
I can prove that chemistry matters
Group 1 (has it): Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Atlanta, Portland, Milwaukee, San Antonio and Phoenix.
Group 2 (doesn't have it): Boston, Los Angeles.
Group 3 (unclear): Orlando, Utah, Miami, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver.
Okay, now this is where we get into trouble. Simmons too often falls into that fairy tale bullshit about chemistry mattering more than talent, and he thinks that somehow he can quantify chemistry. I don't doubt that chemistry exists and matters, but you can't actually prove it. Look at the teams he put in group 1; only Phoenix acquitted themselves nicely this postseason. Oklahoma City did fine but they still lost in the first round, as did Portland and Milwaukee (no fault really; they just aren't talented enough); Dallas and Cleveland were big busts, while San Antonio got swept in the second round. And then there's Atlanta; pardon my french, but what in the fuck are the Hawks doing in a "good chemistry" group? The Hawks have horrible chemistry; a whole bunch of selfish players who had other ideas besides winning in the 2nd round (what those ideas were is still a mystery). I mean, what the fuck Simmons. The Hawks???
I appreciate that a whopping 6 playoff teams have unclear chemistry, as if proving my point that chemistry is unquantifiable. But does Simmons come to this conclusion, despite his own evidence? Nope, he'll still tell you can see good chemistry and bad chemistry, even though 6 playoff teams that he no doubt saw play at least 20 times this season he had no clue about.
And then there's the group 2, the two playoff teams that Simmons thought absolutely, positively had bad chemistry this season; they are, of course, the two teams facing off in the NBA Finals. Maybe now we can drop the magic beans bullshit and analyze teams for their talent rather than their pixie dust?
--------
My point here isn't to pick on Simmons, since I like his NBA writing a lot and I actually agreed with a lot of this back when it was written. I liked Cleveland and Dallas as well, and thought Boston would go out early. When you make predictions you're going to be wrong, and Lord knows I've been wrong many times. I just wish he would stick to basketball, and drop the fairy tale stuff. Chemistry doesn't put the ball in the basket; pixie dust doesn't put a hand in Kobe's face as he rises for a jump shot. The game is about the players, except in those rare circumstances where players are openly gunning for themselves or something, in which case yes that's problematic.
Kinda like, I don't know...the Atlanta Hawks. I still can't believe he thought they had good chemistry.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Funny story (at least to me)
News item on the bottom line scroll on ESPNEWS:
"Hornets want Celtics assistant Tom Thibodeau to accept head coaching job by Thursday."
What in the hell makes the Hornets think they have leverage here? Do they think Thibodeau is sitting around thinking, "Geez, I can't wait to take over the team that is carrying Emeka Okafor's crippling contract?" There's no reason for Thibodeau to coach the Hornets. Chris Paul is great, but you're not winning a championship with Paul and David West as your two best players. I'd rather keep coaching for championships in Boston than flounder in New Orleans, even if it is only as an assistant. If Doc Rivers ever heads back to the broadcast booth, isn't Thibodeau the first in line for that job?
In other words, yes New Orleans, you seemingly have a ton of leverage here. Force the issue and lose out on one of the best assistants in the NBA.
"Hornets want Celtics assistant Tom Thibodeau to accept head coaching job by Thursday."
What in the hell makes the Hornets think they have leverage here? Do they think Thibodeau is sitting around thinking, "Geez, I can't wait to take over the team that is carrying Emeka Okafor's crippling contract?" There's no reason for Thibodeau to coach the Hornets. Chris Paul is great, but you're not winning a championship with Paul and David West as your two best players. I'd rather keep coaching for championships in Boston than flounder in New Orleans, even if it is only as an assistant. If Doc Rivers ever heads back to the broadcast booth, isn't Thibodeau the first in line for that job?
In other words, yes New Orleans, you seemingly have a ton of leverage here. Force the issue and lose out on one of the best assistants in the NBA.
To all of those...
Who use such cliches as, "you can't just turn it on and off," "momentum is important heading into the playoffs," and other such things...
Reality says hello. The Boston Celtics sleptwalked through the second half of the season; they're in the NBA Finals. The Philadelphia Flyers were the final team in the NHL to make the playoffs; they're in the Stanley Cup Finals. The New Orleans Saints and Indianapolis Colts basically took off the month of December; they faced off in the Super Bowl.
Sometimes I wonder why we even have a regular season, when it seems so meaningless at times. Seeing the Flyers in the Finals is especially jarring, because they had to beat the Rangers in a shootout on the final day of the season to make the playoffs. The Celtics lost to the Nets and Knicks during the second half of the season. The Saints lost a home game to Tampa Bay in December, and it was not a game in which they rested starters.
If college football ever needs proof that they don't need a playoff, this should be it. In college football, the Celtics can't lose to the Nets and Knicks and live to tell about it. If Alabama loses a game equivalent to New Orleans' loss to Tampa Bay late in the season, they tumble down the standings and probably do not recover to play for a championship. You can't sneak into the BCS, like the Flyers snuck into the playoffs. In college football, you have to win basically ever week in order to play for a championship, and even then that may not be enough (Boise State, TCU and Cincinatti went undefeated last season and did not play for a championship). You will never see Alabama or Texas rest starters while they prepare for their bowl games. Every, and I mean every, game counts.
Reality says hello. The Boston Celtics sleptwalked through the second half of the season; they're in the NBA Finals. The Philadelphia Flyers were the final team in the NHL to make the playoffs; they're in the Stanley Cup Finals. The New Orleans Saints and Indianapolis Colts basically took off the month of December; they faced off in the Super Bowl.
Sometimes I wonder why we even have a regular season, when it seems so meaningless at times. Seeing the Flyers in the Finals is especially jarring, because they had to beat the Rangers in a shootout on the final day of the season to make the playoffs. The Celtics lost to the Nets and Knicks during the second half of the season. The Saints lost a home game to Tampa Bay in December, and it was not a game in which they rested starters.
If college football ever needs proof that they don't need a playoff, this should be it. In college football, the Celtics can't lose to the Nets and Knicks and live to tell about it. If Alabama loses a game equivalent to New Orleans' loss to Tampa Bay late in the season, they tumble down the standings and probably do not recover to play for a championship. You can't sneak into the BCS, like the Flyers snuck into the playoffs. In college football, you have to win basically ever week in order to play for a championship, and even then that may not be enough (Boise State, TCU and Cincinatti went undefeated last season and did not play for a championship). You will never see Alabama or Texas rest starters while they prepare for their bowl games. Every, and I mean every, game counts.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
A little NBA on the eve of the Finals
When you think about the Boston Celtics and their run to the Finals, you probably think that Rajon Rondo, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett were the main reasons for that. But you'd be wrong, says SI's Ian Thomsen; it was all Doc Rivers. Let's find out why.
Rivers' winning methods with Boston can be traced back to Orlando. Four seasons after he retired as a player, Rivers was hired to run the Magic in 1999 and was voted Coach of the Year as a rookie.
"Winning methods." Number of playoff series won by Orlando with Rivers as coach: zero. And that Coach of the Year award he won was one of the biggest travesties in the history of awards. Orlando missed the playoffs that season, but because everyone expected them to be terrible he won Coach of the Year. It was the bias of low expectations taken to an extreme; just because we assume a team is a 20-win team doesn't mean it is, and to act like Rivers pulled a miracle in getting Orlando to miss the playoffs was disgraceful. But the Coach of the Year never does go to the actual best coach, but rather the coach who exceeds expectations the most. The fact that our expecations may have been wrong is irrelevant. But I digress. So let's find out why Orlando didn't win any playoff series while Rivers was there.
He spent the next four years coaching Tracy McGrady, who for many reasons was never able to channel his enormous talent.
Of course, it was that dastardly Tracy McGrady. Notice how McGrady is blamed here for not channeling his enormous talent. Now contrast that with this line further in the article:
No one has benefited more than Rajon Rondo, whose learning curve has been escalated by a coach who knows first-hand every trick of the position.
So when Rajon Rondo develops, it's all Doc Rivers. But when Tracy McGrady doesn't fully develop, it's all Tracy McGrady. In other words, when good things happen Rivers gets the credit. When bad things happen, Rivers gets none of the blame. Got it? Got it.
And by the way, McGrady's development may have been stunted by the fact that his best teammate in Orlando was Darrell Armstrong. Which brings me back to my larger point; it's all about the players. When Rivers can toss out a starting lineup with four potential Hall of Famers (projecting Rondo on that one), magically he wins. When he can toss out a starting lineup of Tracy McGrady and a bunch of NBDL rejects, he doesn't win. Funny how that works. Speaking of funny, watch how this next line is casually tossed out there:
After Rivers was fired in 2003 after a 1-10 start
There's more to that sentence, but I'm going to stop it right there. The writer doesn't bother to mention how ghastly horrific a 1-10 start is, he just casually tosses it out there as the reason Rivers was fired. Hey, who hasn't had a 1-10 start? Happens to the best of us. Later on, more hilarity ensues:
And yet, the Celtics appeared adrift and unresponsive while going 27-27 over the final four months of the season. The truth has since emerged: Rivers was treating the second half of the season as an extended training camp aimed to rehabilitate Garnett and Pierce from knee injuries with limited game minutes and harder practices.
Ahh, of course. The 2nd half of the season was just an extended training camp. Losing to teams like the Nets and Knicks was all just part of the plan to get ready for the postseason. Sheer fucking genius. My only question is, why the fuck didn't Kurt Rambis think of this? That fool treated regular season games like regular season games; no wonder the Timberwolves sucked so bad. You treat the 2nd half of the season like an extended training camp, dipshit.
-------
Is it taught in journalism schools that when you write an article about someone, you cannot at all mention their faults? You read articles like this all the time; the writer praises the subject while either glossing over or ignoring entirely any faults the person might have. Do you know what is missing entirely from this article on Doc Rivers? The 19-game losing streak his Celtics went on the year before they acquired Garnett.
Why can't we just write a fair article? Why can't we just write that Doc Rivers wasn't much of a coach until Garnett and Allen came aboard. You know what? I'd even let you take credit for the development of Rondo, Perkins and Big Baby Davis if you would just admit that Rivers sucked in Orlando (as evidenced by the 1-10 start that was so casually mentioned), and he didn't start winning in Boston until he had great players.
Or how about this; write an article about the real reason the Celtics are here, which is the players. The NBA is all about the players, and anyone who tries to credit the coach is a fool. Phil Jackson is widely regarded as the best ever, but of course he's never won a title without having the best players in the league on his team. Did he win in Chicago without Jordan? He did not. Did he win in Los Angeles without Shaq until the Lakers were able to acquire Pau Gasol? He did not.
Sorry Ian Thomsen, but if you can't even give that much credit to Phil Jackson and his 10 championships, then Doc Rivers doesn't have a prayer in hell. And quite honestly, he doesn't. It was only by the good grace of Danny Ainge that Rivers wasn't fired after that horrific Celtics season before Garnett and Allen, when they were in position for the #1 or #2 pick.
Rivers' winning methods with Boston can be traced back to Orlando. Four seasons after he retired as a player, Rivers was hired to run the Magic in 1999 and was voted Coach of the Year as a rookie.
"Winning methods." Number of playoff series won by Orlando with Rivers as coach: zero. And that Coach of the Year award he won was one of the biggest travesties in the history of awards. Orlando missed the playoffs that season, but because everyone expected them to be terrible he won Coach of the Year. It was the bias of low expectations taken to an extreme; just because we assume a team is a 20-win team doesn't mean it is, and to act like Rivers pulled a miracle in getting Orlando to miss the playoffs was disgraceful. But the Coach of the Year never does go to the actual best coach, but rather the coach who exceeds expectations the most. The fact that our expecations may have been wrong is irrelevant. But I digress. So let's find out why Orlando didn't win any playoff series while Rivers was there.
He spent the next four years coaching Tracy McGrady, who for many reasons was never able to channel his enormous talent.
Of course, it was that dastardly Tracy McGrady. Notice how McGrady is blamed here for not channeling his enormous talent. Now contrast that with this line further in the article:
No one has benefited more than Rajon Rondo, whose learning curve has been escalated by a coach who knows first-hand every trick of the position.
So when Rajon Rondo develops, it's all Doc Rivers. But when Tracy McGrady doesn't fully develop, it's all Tracy McGrady. In other words, when good things happen Rivers gets the credit. When bad things happen, Rivers gets none of the blame. Got it? Got it.
And by the way, McGrady's development may have been stunted by the fact that his best teammate in Orlando was Darrell Armstrong. Which brings me back to my larger point; it's all about the players. When Rivers can toss out a starting lineup with four potential Hall of Famers (projecting Rondo on that one), magically he wins. When he can toss out a starting lineup of Tracy McGrady and a bunch of NBDL rejects, he doesn't win. Funny how that works. Speaking of funny, watch how this next line is casually tossed out there:
After Rivers was fired in 2003 after a 1-10 start
There's more to that sentence, but I'm going to stop it right there. The writer doesn't bother to mention how ghastly horrific a 1-10 start is, he just casually tosses it out there as the reason Rivers was fired. Hey, who hasn't had a 1-10 start? Happens to the best of us. Later on, more hilarity ensues:
And yet, the Celtics appeared adrift and unresponsive while going 27-27 over the final four months of the season. The truth has since emerged: Rivers was treating the second half of the season as an extended training camp aimed to rehabilitate Garnett and Pierce from knee injuries with limited game minutes and harder practices.
Ahh, of course. The 2nd half of the season was just an extended training camp. Losing to teams like the Nets and Knicks was all just part of the plan to get ready for the postseason. Sheer fucking genius. My only question is, why the fuck didn't Kurt Rambis think of this? That fool treated regular season games like regular season games; no wonder the Timberwolves sucked so bad. You treat the 2nd half of the season like an extended training camp, dipshit.
-------
Is it taught in journalism schools that when you write an article about someone, you cannot at all mention their faults? You read articles like this all the time; the writer praises the subject while either glossing over or ignoring entirely any faults the person might have. Do you know what is missing entirely from this article on Doc Rivers? The 19-game losing streak his Celtics went on the year before they acquired Garnett.
Why can't we just write a fair article? Why can't we just write that Doc Rivers wasn't much of a coach until Garnett and Allen came aboard. You know what? I'd even let you take credit for the development of Rondo, Perkins and Big Baby Davis if you would just admit that Rivers sucked in Orlando (as evidenced by the 1-10 start that was so casually mentioned), and he didn't start winning in Boston until he had great players.
Or how about this; write an article about the real reason the Celtics are here, which is the players. The NBA is all about the players, and anyone who tries to credit the coach is a fool. Phil Jackson is widely regarded as the best ever, but of course he's never won a title without having the best players in the league on his team. Did he win in Chicago without Jordan? He did not. Did he win in Los Angeles without Shaq until the Lakers were able to acquire Pau Gasol? He did not.
Sorry Ian Thomsen, but if you can't even give that much credit to Phil Jackson and his 10 championships, then Doc Rivers doesn't have a prayer in hell. And quite honestly, he doesn't. It was only by the good grace of Danny Ainge that Rivers wasn't fired after that horrific Celtics season before Garnett and Allen, when they were in position for the #1 or #2 pick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)