Hoop Dreams (NBA edition)

I think that in many ways, the internet has ruined the concept of being a fan. Go to any sports' message board and you're bound to see the following message somewhere: "[So and so team ] sucks!" That's it. That's the entirety of the message. That isht infuriates me. I mean it's one thing to make legitimate criticisms. When people say that the Dallas Mavericks choked in the Finals last year, I don't ever get defensive because it's true. My Mavs were in an unfamiliar locale and they allowed the situation to overwhelm them. (And by the way, saying that the Dallas gave away the series is not a diss to the Heat. I'm not sure how Dwyane got that interpretation. Does he really think that the Mavericks team that he played against is the same Mavs team that played the Spurs in the Western Conference semifinals? Take nothing away from the Heat, they won it fair and square. But the Mavs did choke.) What really irritates me are the nonsensical ramblings. It hurts my head to read some of the things people are emboldened to say due to their internet anonymity.

On the other hand, the internet also gives me an opportunity to send out my wisdom. I've been reading all the expert recaps on the season and their predictions for the playoffs and I have decided that it's my turn to chime in. And while no one has actually asked for my input, they should have. So I'm here to correct that.

First up, I'll handle the regular season awards. Not all of them, just the ones that have interested me this year. For example, I couldn't care less who wins Rookie of the Year this year. I have found myself caring less and less about that award since more and more high school and freshmen players have been coming into the League. Every once in a while there is an anomaly, like 2003-04 where there is actually an interesting group of rookies playing significantly. But more often than not it's more like the 2000-01 season. Do you realize that Mike Miller won Rookie of the Year by averaging 11.9 points per game? That alone should have caused fans to force their teams to not draft anyone who had not played college basketball for at least three years. I also don't care about the Most Improved Player award because it almost always goes to someone who has a career year and then proceeds to come back down to earth. That's nothing to get excited about. On to the awards...

(By the way, with one exception, not a single candidate comes from the Eastern Conference.)


SIXTH MAN OF THE YEAR
There are only three possible candidates for this award and they just happen to come from the teams with the three best records in the NBA. That's not a coincidence, I think. Leandro Barbosa for Phoenix, Manu Ginobili for San Antonio and Jerry Stackhouse for Dallas. All three of them could be starting for their teams and all three can take over games when necessary. However, my vote in this category goes to Barbosa. He's a truer sixth man than the other two (if that makes any sense) and he's more integral to Phoenix' gameplan than either Stackhouse or Ginobili is to their respective teams. And if you glance at his season stats, you would assume that he's a starter. Although he supposedly averages four assists per game. I question that because I really don't think I've ever seen him pass the ball.


DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR
This award tends to go to pivotmen much more often than those who play on the wings and in the backcourt. I used to think that this was really unfair. After all, the further away from the basket you are, the more energy you have to expend on defense by chasing your man around the court. Plus it's harder for stats to quantify your defensive impact; a high number blocked shots obviously indicate a defensive presence, but a lot of steals might just mean you're a bad defender who gambles a lot. But then I realized that post men don't just have to play defense on the person they're guarding but they also have to clean up mistakes by their teammates. I figure that's probably a harder task.

There are a lot of worthy candidates for this award this year: Bruce Bowen, Marcus Camby, Tyson Chandler, Tim Duncan, Shawn Marion. Camby and Marion arguably have the most difficult tasks because they have to play defense for teams that aren't very good at it. However, if I had to pick between the two I would go with Camby because at least Marion has another great defender on his team in Raja Bell. Camby is pretty much the ONLY defender for the Nuggets. I also thought that Bowen and Duncan cancel out each other. Chandler is having his best season ever and maybe one day will become a healthy Marcus Camby. But I kept coming back to one thing: Tim Duncan sets the tone and anchors the best defensive unit in all of pro basketball. Yeah, Bowen is a pit bull but he can get away with being so tenacious because he knows that he still has someone who can clean up any miscues he has. Add to that the fact that even though Gregg Popovich has limited Duncan's minutes, he's actually given him more responsibility on defense than he ever has before. That was enough to convince me.


COACH OF THE YEAR
In the face of rumors about his job termination, Sam Mitchell guided his Toronto Raptors team to the Atlantic Division title, third place in the Eastern Conference and a playoff spot. Avery Johnson took a 60-win team that made it to the Finals and made them even better, with one of the best regular seasons in NBA history. Jerry Sloan molded a young group into a unit that looks like it might contend with the best years that Stockton and Malone ever had. But my vote for Coach of the Year goes to Jeff Van Gundy. In the toughest division in the NBA and without the services of the best center in basketball for 32 games, he coached the Rockets to 52 wins and homecourt advantage in the first round.


MOST VALUABLE PLAYER
Ah, now here's the big one. This category requires a little bit more discussion. First of all, the NBA is purposely ambiguous about what the award is exactly supposed to mean. They leave that decision up to the voters. That's intentional, of course. By leaving the criteria so indefinite, it causes more controversy, which begets more discussion, which in turn begets more attention for the League. That clever Stern. Anyway, I'm going to attempt to explain how I see the award.

First of all, it's a regular season award. There's a reason that the NBA names a Finals MVP. The NBA MVP award should only consist of what happens during the 82 game regular schedule. However, what that also means is that all 82 games are equal. If someone has a slow start to the year but then comes on stronger in the second half, that doesn't automatically bump them past someone who has had a strong season from the beginning. Secondly, it should not be judged in historical context. It's the MVP of this season and the season should be looked at in a vacuum. If winning a third straight MVP means that a certain player will join the ranks of a handful of Hall of Famers, so be it. If he earned it, he earned it. Third, the stupidest argument I can imagine is, "Well, if you took Player A off of his team they'd still make it to the playoffs but if you took Player B off of his team they wouldn't win 20 games." Look, if you took the best player off of any team that team would probably get worse (Ewing Theory notwithstanding). That's the reason he's the best player on the team, genius! And why should a player be docked for his owner/GM/coach being able to surround him with better talent than another team? That doesn't make any sense. Finally, what does "valuable" mean? In any kind of sport, the object is to beat your opponent. Thus, the most valuable commodity in sports are wins. I don't agree that the best player on the best team should necessarily be the front runner but I do think that candidates from the top five or six teams should get much stronger consideration.

In my mind, Kobe Bryant is solidly in fifth place. Halfway through the season, when the Lakers were one of the top four teams in the conference, he was neck and neck with the other front runners. However, since then his team went on to lose much more often than they won. At one point Kobe went on a scoring flurry that brought him back to the forefront of the MVP discussion but it wasn't enough to lift his team high enough. If the Lakers had somehow managed to finish in the top four it would have been difficult to argue against Kobe. But as late as the last day of the regular season they were in danger of falling to the eight seed.Yes, there were injuries to contend with, but you don't make excuses for that in MVP talk. By the way, post Shaq, what has Kobe Bryant done in the postseason that Tracy McGrady hasn't?

That brings us to the second tier of MVP talk. Both of these guys led their teams to 50+ wins. Both of these guys play in Texas. One of these guys had a solid, veteran team around him. The other had to deal with the loss of an All-NBA teammate and become the do-everything player for his team. When his career is over, no one will look be able to look at this season and say that it's one of Tim Duncan's best. But when you consider his more limited playing time, combined with his greater responsibilities on defense (and he was already a great defender), combined with San Antonio's strong finish (yet again) combined with the best seasons by his team's chief rivals (Dallas and Houston) since he entered the NBA, you have to give Duncan some credit. McGrady had his best ever all-around season. With Yao Ming being out for so many games, he was able to put the Rockets on his shoulders and lead them to homecourt advantage in the first round (the first time in his career). His scoring is down from three or four years ago but he had his best ever season in assists and bought into Coach Van Gundy's demand for defense.

The MVP award belongs to either Steve Nash or Dirk Nowitzki. Quite frankly, it's about as dead even as it can get. Nash had his best season ever: just off his career high in scoring, career bests in assists, field goal shooting, and three point shooting (but like I said, I'm not comparing his season to any of his pasts ones for purposes of MVP talk). He also led the most entertaining offense in the NBA and for the second time in three years his Suns won over 60 games. Like McGrady, Dirk sacrificed some of his scoring to become a better all around player. All of his shooting percentages are career highs (he joined Nash, Larry Bird and Reggie Miller as the only players to ever shoot 50% from the field, 40% from three point range and 90% from the free throw line); he also had his career best in assists (and one NBA analyst estimates that Dirk leads the league in passes that lead to assists).

Personally, I give the slightest edge to Dirk. Nash led the Suns to 61 wins but Dirk led the Mavericks to the sixth best record of all time. And while I've heard some people say that he doesn't make his teammates better, I disagree. In addition to his aforementioned increased passing, the Mavericks have become better because he allows Avery Johnson to treat him the same way that Gregg Popovich treats Duncan. That is, despite being the best player on the team and despite being the hardest working, he allows the coach to treat him the harshest. When the rest of the team sees this happening to their best player, that in turn causes them to work harder. That approach led the Spurs to three championships and the Mavericks hope it will lead them to their first.


There's no way I can objectively talk about the post-season. Once the games start I'll be bleeding Maverick blue, white and throwback green. But I can discuss a few things.

First of all, the East is weak. That has been discussed ad nauseum. If Chicago had won their last game and captured the two-seed, I would have picked them to win the conference. But since they lost and fell to the fifth-seed, I just don't see it. They would have to beat Shaq, Wade and Miami in the first round, then beat Detroit in the second before even making it to the conference Finals. I can see them beating one of those teams in a seven-game series but not both back to back. So I guess that Detroit will represent the East. Here's the problem: Flip Saunders seems like a nice enough guy, but does anyone trust him to be able to out-coach any of the guys leading the Western Conference playoff teams? And any team that is using Chris Webber in the clutch...well, his track record speaks for itself.

Hey, you know how everyone says the talent in the West is so superior to the talent in the East? That same principle applies to NBA broadcasts. The talent on TNT is ridiculously superior to ABC/ESPN. It's not even close. True enough, TNT has Ernie, Kenny and Charles. Those three alone would beat out any competition. But it's also play by play guys, color commentators and sideline reporters. The only time I can actually enjoy an ESPN broadcast is if it's being called by Mike Tirico and Greg Anthony and/or Tim Legler. Anyone else...not so much. Let's put it this way: if Cheryl Miller were to switch over to ESPN, she'd automatically become their best sideline reporter. Not a good look, dog. Especially for the "world wide leader in sports."

The three best teams in the NBA all reside in the West. People say that Phoenix' style cannot win in the playoffs. Considering that they've made it to the Conference Finals for two straight years while not being at full strength, I would have to disagree with that ideology. I think that they can win it all but I don't think that they will this year. And that's because I don't know if they have the depth to beat out the Lakers (who will give them everything that they have), the Spurs (most likely), the Mavericks (most likely, but even if the Rockets made it here, I'd worry some) and then the Pistons or whoever represented the East. That's asking a LOT from essentially seven players.

I'm predicting a Western Conference showdown between the I-35 rivals. They've played the best basketball over the second half of the season and they have the best combination of depth and playoff experience.

Guess who I'm rooting for.

Just some of my favorite Def Poems...

INQ- "When Hip Hop Was Fun"




Flowmentalz- "They Call Me Drama"




Steve Coleman- "I Wanna Hear a Poem"




Shihan- "This Type Love"




Yellow Rage- "Listen, Asshole"




and, of course...


Taylor Mali- "What Teachers Make"

Politics & Bullsh-t

Political arguments always amuse me. They quite often infuriate me as well, but they're usually good for a chuckle. I consider myself politically liberal. Not "very liberal" and not "moderate" just "liberal." (Facebook, what!) I don't get this response all that often when the subject is broached but it's the one that amuses/infuriates me the most: "How can you be a Christian and be a liberal?"

Ok, so let's examine this together: Christians worship a poor, homeless carpenter who kicked it with outcasts and told the political leaders of his time that they had the law but they was usin' it wrong; they had made it a hot line, he wanted to make it a hot song. What exactly about that screams out "conservative?"

Or here's another way to look at it. Today, in the year 2007, let's imagine that there was a man in...oh, let's say the Middle East. And let's say that this man developed a reputation as a great leader. Furthermore, though he never actually claimed or taught this himself, let's say that this man's followers began to believe that he would lead them in an uprising to overthrow their oppressors. Knowing what we know about the political world today, is it out of the question to say that this man just might be executed by certain, more powerful nations?

I have yet to hear someone actually respond to either of those inquiries.

See, here's the thing about my political beliefs that most people tend to forget about theirs: I know that they aren't right. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in them, it just means that I realize that they aren't infallible. Politics are a type of philosophy. And "philosophy" is just a fancy-schmancy word for, "Well, here's what I think." I don't deceive myself. I am fully aware that the reason I am liberal is because I grew up black and poor. Either one of those is a strike against me in society; with the two combined...well, I'm definitely fighting an uphill battle. But because I grew up that way, that led me to a political belief that would seek to institute change, hence my liberal leanings. I realize that had I grown up white instead of black, well off instead of poor, in Westover Hills instead of Forest Hill, I would very likely have a rather conservative political stance. Because in that scenario the status quo would have been pretty darned nice to me and I would want to keep it that way.

But I didn't so I don't. So now I listen to Rage Against the Machine, Ozomatli and Immortal Technique so that I can get all angry and righteous with all of my fellow leftists.


TITLE TAKEN
from the last mixtape album Frankie Cutlass made before he became a Christian

When Heaven Scrapes the Pavement

(Love's Not)

Brushed by angels' wings that I shed in a change in me
Saw Christ on the cross and I realized what pain should be
I ain't delusional but...man, how beautiful
I take it and relate it to y'all and make it musical
Heaven scrapes the pavement everywhere
From the Western hemisphere to third world you can get It there
I'll take better care of neighbors and strangers
And rappers and DJs and breakers and painters
Of my wife and my daughters, my friends and my fans
God standing next to you wherever you stand
In the eyes of a child or in the eyes of a vagrant
That's when Heaven scrapes the pavement.

--manchild

Hoop Dreams (college edition)

- This past weekend signaled the end of the college basketball season. This is how much I enjoyed it: for the first time that I can think of, I decided to watch a women's basketball game that did not feature the Baylor Lady Bears or Diana Taurasi. I wanted to watch the UNC-Tennessee Final Four semifinal because I could name exactly two players in women's basketball and they were both playing in this game. I knew about UNC's point guard Ivory Latta because she seriously seems like she would be one of the five coolest people on the planet to hang out with. And I knew about Tennessee's Candace Parker because she is probably the most hyped female basketball player since Cheryl Miller and because she's, you know...hot.

So Sunday evening I sat down to watch the game. For most of the first half I was telling myself that I would never do this again. The game seemed like it would be terrible. Both teams displayed a lot of energy but most of it was being exercised on the defensive end. At one point I think the two teams had combined to shoot something like 3 for 26. I was bored out of my mind. It was like watching the Spurs-Pistons Finals from a couple of years ago. But with less talent and athleticism. And no dunking. It didn't help that both Latta and Parker got into early foul trouble and had to sit for most of the first half.

There were some bright spots. When she had a chance to, Candace Parker showed that she is definitely the truth. Tennessee lists her as a guard/forward/center and she actually can do it all. At one point she grabbed a defensive rebound, led the fast break, did this behind the back crossover and scored with a lefty floater. I have never seen any basketball player, male or female, do that. She might cause me to actually watch WNBA games whenever she decided to go.

However, the best part of watching this game was discovering Tennessee point guard Shannon Bobbitt. She is absolutely adorable. Yeah, I mean adorable as in, "Yo, shorty is cute." But I also mean that watching her play is an absolute joy. She's listed at 5'2, which not only made her the shortest player on the court (she's at least four inches shorter than Ivory Latta, the next shortest player in the game) but apparently she's also the shortest player in the history of the Southeastern Conference to be offered a basketball scholarship. But what spoke the most volume was her attitude on the court. She is just a ball of energy. She actually made Latta seem stoic. On top of that, she refused to back down from her. Even though she is a JUCO transfer playing her first season of D1 basketball, she spent most of the game jawing back and forth with the All-American. And her game is sick too. Ol' girl has got some ridiculous handles. At one point I decided to Google her and I discovered that she's from Manhattan. Makes sense. I'm guessing that she's spent a few afternoons at the Rucker.

Anyway, Candace Parker and Shannon Bobbitt have become my favorite tandem in women's basketball. And it's not just because they're the only tandem I know of in women's basketball. They're just both fun to watch. They probably lead the nation in intimidation. Bobbitt is constantly talking trash and Parker's post-blocked shot staredown is the current equivalent of Dikembe's finger wave. Two days after they beat UNC, I watched them beat Rutgers for the 2007 National Championship. Assuming Parker returns to Tennessee next year, there is a 100% chance I will be following the Lady Vols.


- Greg Oden's Buckeyes fell short in their attempt to win the national championship. And honestly, I think that is probably the best thing that could have happened to Oden, just like I think that Texas losing in the second round was the best thing to happen to Kevin Durant. Why do I think that these are good things? Because it seems pretty apparent that both of these guys really, really, really want to stay in school but are being pressured to enter the draft. I've been lurking on various message boards and the overriding theme is: "These guys are morons if they don't leave for the NBA." Am I missing something here? When did it become a bad thing to want to stay in school?

I keep hearing the same arguments for why they should leave: they're guaranteed to become millionaires; they can always go back to school later; college is just there to help you find a good job; they've learned all they can playing college basketball. The last point is rendered moot because both Oden and Durant have said that they feel they aren't ready for the NBA and could use at least one more year in college. The other points, I find interesting. I find them so because I'm pretty sure that most of the people making those arguments never actually went to college. I'm not talking about taking classes online, or going to a commuter school or having to juggle classes, work and being a parent all at the same time. I'm talking about those of us who were blessed enough to attend a a traditional college or university right out of high school and earn a degree within four or five (or six or seven) years. I'm pretty sure that if you were to ask people who have been in that situation if they could go back and change it, the overwhelming response would be, "Absolutely not."

This is how I see it. I'm 28 years old and I earn a decent salary. I don't earn in the millions but I do ok for myself. Ten years ago I was in my freshman year in college. If someone were to go to my 18 year old self and say, "Hey, if you leave college right now, we'll give you a salary of [what I make right now]" would I do it? Yeah, most likely. Because to my 18 year old self it's a lot of money. But now, looking back, I realize that that would have been a terrible decision. If I hadn't stayed in school those last three schools I would have missed out on life learning opportunities. I would have missed making lifelong friendships. I wouldn't have the same opportunity to grow as a person. College isn't about getting a degree so that you can get a job that pays a lot of money. College isn't about sitting in a classroom and filling your head with information to regurgitate on an exam. Those are aspects of the college life. What college is actually about is providing you that perfect scenario to transition from a child to an adult. And once you give it up, you'll never get it back. To me...that's priceless.

Every time I hear this debate, it brings to mind the saying that "Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan." People always bring up KG, Kobe, T-Mac and LeBron. But how many times do you hear about Dontonio Wingfield, Korleone Young, Leon Smith, Ousmane Cisse and Kendrick Perkins? Who? Exactly. Heck, for that matter, doesn't it seem likely that guys like Darius Miles and Kwame Brown could have benefited from at least a couple of years of college? Back in 1996, Ray Allen was trying to decide if he should leave Connecticut for the NBA draft. He reached out to former fellow Husky Donyell Marshall to ask for his advice. Marshall asked him one question: "Do you want to be rich or do you want to be happy?"

The one point that people were making that gave me pause was the thought that maybe Oden or Durant might sustain a career-ending injury. Then I thought about it and wondered, "When has that ever happened?" I could not think of one single instance where a top NBA prospect ever got hurt so badly in college that he had to end his career. Football, yes. Basketball, no. I don't think it's ever happened. Back when it was the norm for players to stay in school for three or four years, did any of them ever get hurt? Tim Duncan twice turned down a chance to be the number one pick in the NBA draft before graduating and going to San Antonio. I don't think he regrets his decision.

I'm not saying that Oden and Durant should stay in school. I'm saying that there are benefits to doing so and I think that they both realize this. They shouldn't be criticized for that. Neither one of them is OJ Mayo. They're not just using college as a marketing opportunity for their name. They actually value what college can give them. That's admirable.


TITLE TAKEN
from the greatest sports' documentary of all time