By that I mean that while golf has one powerhouse player who wins more big tournaments than anyone else, tennis can't pull that off. Federer is amazing, no doubt about that, but Nadal isn't a challenger yet. There's no real rivalry when everyone expect Federer to win the head to heads on every surface but clay. And they haven't really had an epic match. Tiger hasn't had a lot of epic matches, but he's fun to watch either way. Federer is fun to watch every once in a while because he can do amazing things. But the challenge is always the same because the shape of the court doesn't change (though that isn't to imply that it should, that'd be very odd). Tiger does new amazing things all the time and struggles too. When Sampras was great, other people won tourneys, but Sampras would battle them. Federer just shows up and is better than everyone. In most cases, so is Nadal. No one goes on an amazing run. The last great story in a major tournament - and I mean really great, story for the ages quality, was 2001 Wimbledon when Ivanisecic won.
Tennis needs a foil. Sampras had Agassi and others. Federer has clay. That is not stirring.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Needy Cavs
Apathy. That describes my attitude toward the recently completed NBA Finals. That’s particularly sad because my hometown Cavaliers were in the Finals. I should have been overwhelmed with excitement. Instead, my interest was tepid at best. I was not alone, though; this year’s Finals were the lowest rated on TV ever.
Perhaps, though, my lack of interest was more the result of my cynicism and frustration toward the Cavaliers’ offense. It pains me to watch them run their offense (if you can call it that). The question is: how to fix it? A lot of people will clamor for a legitimate starting point guard. That would help, and Mike Bibby or Earl Boykins would represent a substantial improvement. But what this team really needs is someone who can consistently make open jumpers and knock down threes, and also someone who can create off the dribble and finish. Two years ago, the Cavs acquired Donyell Marshall and Damon Jones to fill that first need. They have proven largely ineffective, though, especially in this year’s playoffs, when both players barely shot over 30 percent from behind the arc.
The other need, though, is even more pressing. The only player on the team, other than LeBron James, trustworthy of handling the ball in the backcourt and then driving to the basket is Larry Hughes, and for whatever reason (injuries, lack of talent, fear, who knows), he rarely finishes what he starts. Hughes is a fine athlete, fine defender, and fine ballhandler, but he is too poor a shooter and a finisher to be LBJ’s second banana. As for everyone else on the team, they are limited to two options when having the ball: pass or shoot. There is no triple threat on the team. Sasha Pavlovic has made great strides in improving his ballhandling, and Daniel Gibson showed enough quickness to break down defenses in the playoffs, but they need to show more if they want to keep defenses honest.
Watching the Spurs, one can see how successful a balanced offense can be. Duncan is a force down low, Parker can break down any defense, Ginobili can do a little bit of everything, and then they have a bunch of reliable, veteran shooters (Horry, Barry, Bowen) to punish defenses that leave them open. Add a Parker and a Bowen to the Cavs, and they would be a force. Perhaps Bibby or Boykins could fill the role of Parker, and perhaps there is another diamond in the rough like Bowen out there. Regardless, until the Cavs address these two needs, they’ll have to settle for the title of Eastern Conference contender, because there is no way they can play with the Phoenixes and San Antonios of the world.
Monday, June 18, 2007
The Best Story of 2008
I have found a way to restore the faith of baseball fans everywhere to Major League Baseball. That's right, like 1998 and the home run rally, this could make a difference in how baseball is perceived for years to come.
Bring Ken Griffey Jr. home. Bring Randy Johnson home. Now, that would be a heck of a lineup. Ichiro and Griffey together at long last!
Think about it. Seattle of the mid-90s was the team that was perfect for everyone to root for because they were exciting but unintimidating. No one actually thought they would win the World Series, but everyone wanted to watch their games. As a result, a lot of fans have a soft spot for the Mariners, a little place where when they see them with a chance to beat those boring but consistent Athletics and those exceptionally good, but not fun to watch Angels, they can't help but root for them.
1995 - 2000 were good years for the AL West as far as competitiveness. Only the Athletics had sub-70 win seasons ever (twice). And there was a lot of innocence in that league. Griffey was just this guy who was fun to watch. Johnson threw fire and looked like he still lived in a trailer. Jay Buhner was silly. Tim Salmon, Jim Edmonds, J.T. Snow, Chuck Finley and Jim Abbott. Oakland started with McGwire and ended with normal Giambi, Tejada, Chavez, and goofy Matt Stairs. Only Texas didn't have a likeable team. They had nice guys like the underrated Dean Palmer and Will Clark, but their leader was Juan Gonzalez and he gets a big thumbs down.
The point is that during that era, the Yankees were dominating, the Indians were fun and the Braves were choke artists, but the division that was the most fun to watch was the AL West.
Griffey needs to leave the Reds. That much is obvious. Where else is he going to go? He needs to go back to Seattle. He's second in home runs in the NL with 18 despite missing a number of games. They guy is still amazing to watch. His swing is so clean and beautiful. He's never looked right in a Reds uniform. Imagine if this year he hits the 45 or so home runs that he's on pace for. He would then be easily on pace for 700 again. Cincinnati has never really loved him as anything other than a hometown kid, never the hero. He has always been hurt and never led them to the promised land. In Seattle, he could lead them there because they already have a good, young team that's fun to watch. And the nostalgia would be there. And Ichiro. Those two are like a match made in heaven. Add in Johjima, Ibanez, and Betancourt and you can't find a more likeable nucleus in the league. And Beltre can just go back to being a great fielding third basemen.
Johnson doesn't have a lot of time left in his career, but he would fit right into the Mariners staff. He could take the pressure off King Felix, which could spawn a Cy Young for the kid. And pitching back there, I wouldn't be surprised to see Johnson reel off a clutch season or two, where his ERA drops back to the low 3's.
I can't think of anyone who could rationally be opposed to this. A great run by these new Mariners would make people smile. Selig needs to make this happen. Maybe he can bully the right people. Then next year can be a great year to watch baseball again.
Bring Ken Griffey Jr. home. Bring Randy Johnson home. Now, that would be a heck of a lineup. Ichiro and Griffey together at long last!
Think about it. Seattle of the mid-90s was the team that was perfect for everyone to root for because they were exciting but unintimidating. No one actually thought they would win the World Series, but everyone wanted to watch their games. As a result, a lot of fans have a soft spot for the Mariners, a little place where when they see them with a chance to beat those boring but consistent Athletics and those exceptionally good, but not fun to watch Angels, they can't help but root for them.
1995 - 2000 were good years for the AL West as far as competitiveness. Only the Athletics had sub-70 win seasons ever (twice). And there was a lot of innocence in that league. Griffey was just this guy who was fun to watch. Johnson threw fire and looked like he still lived in a trailer. Jay Buhner was silly. Tim Salmon, Jim Edmonds, J.T. Snow, Chuck Finley and Jim Abbott. Oakland started with McGwire and ended with normal Giambi, Tejada, Chavez, and goofy Matt Stairs. Only Texas didn't have a likeable team. They had nice guys like the underrated Dean Palmer and Will Clark, but their leader was Juan Gonzalez and he gets a big thumbs down.
The point is that during that era, the Yankees were dominating, the Indians were fun and the Braves were choke artists, but the division that was the most fun to watch was the AL West.
Griffey needs to leave the Reds. That much is obvious. Where else is he going to go? He needs to go back to Seattle. He's second in home runs in the NL with 18 despite missing a number of games. They guy is still amazing to watch. His swing is so clean and beautiful. He's never looked right in a Reds uniform. Imagine if this year he hits the 45 or so home runs that he's on pace for. He would then be easily on pace for 700 again. Cincinnati has never really loved him as anything other than a hometown kid, never the hero. He has always been hurt and never led them to the promised land. In Seattle, he could lead them there because they already have a good, young team that's fun to watch. And the nostalgia would be there. And Ichiro. Those two are like a match made in heaven. Add in Johjima, Ibanez, and Betancourt and you can't find a more likeable nucleus in the league. And Beltre can just go back to being a great fielding third basemen.
Johnson doesn't have a lot of time left in his career, but he would fit right into the Mariners staff. He could take the pressure off King Felix, which could spawn a Cy Young for the kid. And pitching back there, I wouldn't be surprised to see Johnson reel off a clutch season or two, where his ERA drops back to the low 3's.
I can't think of anyone who could rationally be opposed to this. A great run by these new Mariners would make people smile. Selig needs to make this happen. Maybe he can bully the right people. Then next year can be a great year to watch baseball again.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Cavs: Not Looking Forward to a Brighter Day
The Cleveland Cavaliers won't be better next year. Sure, their regular season record will probably pick up some, but overall - nope. So for those of you hoping that this would be the beginning of something big - no dice, not one, not even at Walmart.
The Cavs are convinced that Larry Hughes, healthy, is the answer. But Larry Hughes doesn't really play point guard now does he? Then again, neither does Daniel Gibson. And Hughes isn't much of a jump shooter.
In fact, no one on the Cavs appears to be much of a jump shooter, though we knew that all along. Tonight, LeBron James could have had 15-20 assists easy. He got the ball to his best shooters with loads of room. The result - clang. The dynamite did not go down. Even if there was dynamite, and I doubt it, they would have forgotten to light it. Sickening.
In the offseason, some fo the pundits will say "the Cavs will be able to keep this nucleus that got them to the finals together." I say that's a pity, cause that nucleus lacks talent. There isn't one player other than LeBron who I would be especially sad to see go. Actually, Scot Pollard.
Now THERE'S a nucleus - Pollard and LeBron. They should definitely trade Gibson because he doesn't play point and his trade value will never be higher than it is now. Of course, they're drinkin' the koolaid too, so there's no chance of that. It's true that they have a bunch of good players. But not one has the potential as a second banana. Hughes maybe a third banana. Gooden is a fourth banana. Pavlovic, Gibson, and Varejao are all bench bananas. Big Z? He's a retired banana if I had my way. (That's not to say I don't love Z, it's just that he's not built for LeBron's skills)
Next years starting 5 will probably look just like this years starting 5. And there's no first round pick so there goes that idea - of course with Danny Ferry drafting, what good is a first round pick? That's for next time.
To conclude, the Cavs are doomed. They aren't doomed like the 90's Jazz with two great players but a tough conference, but more like the Ewing Knicks - one star and no supporting cast. This is the first moment where I've truly thought LeBron will leave in two more years. He's going to get frustrated because he won't see how the team can get better. And they won't. And he'll leave.
The Cavs are convinced that Larry Hughes, healthy, is the answer. But Larry Hughes doesn't really play point guard now does he? Then again, neither does Daniel Gibson. And Hughes isn't much of a jump shooter.
In fact, no one on the Cavs appears to be much of a jump shooter, though we knew that all along. Tonight, LeBron James could have had 15-20 assists easy. He got the ball to his best shooters with loads of room. The result - clang. The dynamite did not go down. Even if there was dynamite, and I doubt it, they would have forgotten to light it. Sickening.
In the offseason, some fo the pundits will say "the Cavs will be able to keep this nucleus that got them to the finals together." I say that's a pity, cause that nucleus lacks talent. There isn't one player other than LeBron who I would be especially sad to see go. Actually, Scot Pollard.
Now THERE'S a nucleus - Pollard and LeBron. They should definitely trade Gibson because he doesn't play point and his trade value will never be higher than it is now. Of course, they're drinkin' the koolaid too, so there's no chance of that. It's true that they have a bunch of good players. But not one has the potential as a second banana. Hughes maybe a third banana. Gooden is a fourth banana. Pavlovic, Gibson, and Varejao are all bench bananas. Big Z? He's a retired banana if I had my way. (That's not to say I don't love Z, it's just that he's not built for LeBron's skills)
Next years starting 5 will probably look just like this years starting 5. And there's no first round pick so there goes that idea - of course with Danny Ferry drafting, what good is a first round pick? That's for next time.
To conclude, the Cavs are doomed. They aren't doomed like the 90's Jazz with two great players but a tough conference, but more like the Ewing Knicks - one star and no supporting cast. This is the first moment where I've truly thought LeBron will leave in two more years. He's going to get frustrated because he won't see how the team can get better. And they won't. And he'll leave.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
He's A Good Man
I've been thinking it all through the NBA Playoffs and now he comes out and shoves it down my throat as he plays my beloved Cavs. Tony Parker is really quite talented. Watch him run the Spurs offense and you may not notice. Like The Big Fundamental, he's not flashy and you don't notice him blowing up the stat sheet. Yet every game, there he is, scoring, dishing, grabbing some rebounds, playing solid D, and generally just being smarter than most of the people on the court.
Parker will never really be noticed unless he tosses up a 40-point game in the finals or pulls his scoring and assist average up to 22 and 8 for a season. Those things seem unlikely because he plays for the Spurs. He won't be scoring 40 unless he shoot 17 for 18 with a few free throws tossed in. He just doesn't take enough shots. Ever. The most shots he took in a game this season was 22 (which he did thrice). The most points he scored was 35, which was on his last 22 shot night where he happened to get to the line a lot.
What about assists. Jason Kidd and Steve Nash could get 8 assists a game with D-league guys. They could probably get 8 assists playing 2 on 5. Parker did drop 15 in a game this season. Once. Other than that he's hit double digits just three times, plus two more in the playoffs. Nash averages double digits.
But Parker isn't being asked to get an assist every time down the floor, that's not the Spurs offense. They're boring and methodical. They pass it around and get the right angle and the right shot. His job is to take care of the ball, score when he's the man with the angle, and keep the defense on its toes. Also, he has Ginobli who gets some assists as the off guard. Duncan gets his assists too. That's just how their offense works.
There's one thing he does exceptionally well - slash to the basket. As has been repeated many a time, the man is quick, so fast he could dodge bullets. Maybe he wouldn't even have to. Like a French AI, the guy cuts into tiny spaces and gets to the basket. Unlike AI, he doesn't absorb enough contact to kill a gorilla. He glides between guys, tosses in a nice layup or smooth pass. Except for that initial burst, he really doesn't make it look that exciting. No jump-back 12 footers. No hanging in the air for three seconds, contorting around the big men (every once in a while he does do this). No behind-the-back, no-look passes. It's just not what he does.
Then of course there's the defense. He knows what to do, where to go, and how to get the job done. He can take another quick guard out of the game. Most importantly, it's the mental aspects though. The point of team defense is that every player fits in, and he can fit it wherever he is needed. I'd say he's an underrated defensive player, but he plays for the Spurs who everyone thinks are defensive gods (true) and the word underrated bores me.
I'd say he's like the Tom Brady of the NBA, strong leader, consistent, good-looking, dominant mental player, but Tom Brady has never played with a guy like Duncan. He's more like Brian Dawkins. He's got the star player there, but he's a great player in his own right. Switch him with Larry Hughes and I promise you, we'd have a series. The Cavs trotting out Parker, Gibson, Pavlovic, Gooden, Varejao, Big Z, and LeBron as their seven is scary. Gibson can back up both the one and the two all game, still getting his 30 minutes. And Hughes couldn't run the Spurs. Jacque Vaughn would be starting. Could they make the finals? Sure, the have Duncan Ginobli and great role players. Would they beat the Parker/LeBron Cavs? In that series, my money would be on the Cavs.
Parker will never really be noticed unless he tosses up a 40-point game in the finals or pulls his scoring and assist average up to 22 and 8 for a season. Those things seem unlikely because he plays for the Spurs. He won't be scoring 40 unless he shoot 17 for 18 with a few free throws tossed in. He just doesn't take enough shots. Ever. The most shots he took in a game this season was 22 (which he did thrice). The most points he scored was 35, which was on his last 22 shot night where he happened to get to the line a lot.
What about assists. Jason Kidd and Steve Nash could get 8 assists a game with D-league guys. They could probably get 8 assists playing 2 on 5. Parker did drop 15 in a game this season. Once. Other than that he's hit double digits just three times, plus two more in the playoffs. Nash averages double digits.
But Parker isn't being asked to get an assist every time down the floor, that's not the Spurs offense. They're boring and methodical. They pass it around and get the right angle and the right shot. His job is to take care of the ball, score when he's the man with the angle, and keep the defense on its toes. Also, he has Ginobli who gets some assists as the off guard. Duncan gets his assists too. That's just how their offense works.
There's one thing he does exceptionally well - slash to the basket. As has been repeated many a time, the man is quick, so fast he could dodge bullets. Maybe he wouldn't even have to. Like a French AI, the guy cuts into tiny spaces and gets to the basket. Unlike AI, he doesn't absorb enough contact to kill a gorilla. He glides between guys, tosses in a nice layup or smooth pass. Except for that initial burst, he really doesn't make it look that exciting. No jump-back 12 footers. No hanging in the air for three seconds, contorting around the big men (every once in a while he does do this). No behind-the-back, no-look passes. It's just not what he does.
Then of course there's the defense. He knows what to do, where to go, and how to get the job done. He can take another quick guard out of the game. Most importantly, it's the mental aspects though. The point of team defense is that every player fits in, and he can fit it wherever he is needed. I'd say he's an underrated defensive player, but he plays for the Spurs who everyone thinks are defensive gods (true) and the word underrated bores me.
I'd say he's like the Tom Brady of the NBA, strong leader, consistent, good-looking, dominant mental player, but Tom Brady has never played with a guy like Duncan. He's more like Brian Dawkins. He's got the star player there, but he's a great player in his own right. Switch him with Larry Hughes and I promise you, we'd have a series. The Cavs trotting out Parker, Gibson, Pavlovic, Gooden, Varejao, Big Z, and LeBron as their seven is scary. Gibson can back up both the one and the two all game, still getting his 30 minutes. And Hughes couldn't run the Spurs. Jacque Vaughn would be starting. Could they make the finals? Sure, the have Duncan Ginobli and great role players. Would they beat the Parker/LeBron Cavs? In that series, my money would be on the Cavs.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)