ESPN is no longer simply consumed with sports, or even entertainment for that matter. Nooo believe it or not, the sports mecca has waded into the arena of social commentary. Mind you, none of these individuals who express their expert opinion or display their years of experience in the class of sociology are paid by ESPN, but rather the opposite is true. ESPN.com message boards that follow nearly every article on the website have become battlegrounds for some of the topics that even our most powerful politicians refuse comment on. Whether it be homosexuality, poverty, or seemingly the most prevalent topic: race, subscribers to ESPN Insider provide a first hand glimpse into the collective psyche of the American fan. Writers love to argue that sports reflects society and offers insights into humanity that few other outlets create. This view may be partially correct as sports force issues to the surface and, at times, allow individuals to transcend traditional labels (race, gender). Sports also has the advantage of being the closest entity to a meritocracy that exists in America. For the most part, whoever makes the most shots or throws the hardest will get the playing time. This moves the discussion from "is the sport itself racist" to the view that fans hold of athletes and possible biases that accompany them. The most visible race debate, affirmative action, deals heavily with institutional racism, something sports mostly avoid. Two of the most heated stories in recent memory have to be the Gary Sheffield incident and the Mike Vick scandal.
Sheffield, with his categorization of Latinos as "controllable", created a situation that forcibly raised several questions central to any debate surrounding race. Sheffield went against conventional wisdom, purporting that institutional racism is visible at the major league level. His conduct also highlighted the debate regarding racism and its seeming ownership by whites. If a white manager talked about preferring Dominican players because he felt he could control them, he would be crucified by the media. It's hard to know what the hell Shef actually meant by his statements. Maybe by controllable he inferred that other players wouldn't purposely make errors just to get traded, or give up at-bats to make his team look bad, both of which are things he admitted to doing while a disgruntled employee of the Brewers. More than anything I think this was just Shef talking about something he knew very little about. Baseball is a business. Do you really think owners would purposely not sign black ball players? Everyone is looking for the tiniest competitive advantage but these same teams are simply going to ignore a huge percentage of the population?! The notion is absurd.
The Vick scandal is also interesting simply for the reaction it might illicit from a fan. Some view Vick as simply a fall guy who's getting treated unfairly. Of course the pendulum swings the other way and some are scared that Vick will get off easy due to his celebrity status. Looking at those contradicting viewpoints in a general fashion is very interesting and it's really difficult to say definitively which sides holds more merit. Both arguments have a wealth of evidence to draw from. The Vick case to me is a little different due to the grotesque nature of the alleged crimes: dog fighting. Dog fighting is completely indefensible to me. The national crackdown on the "sport" I keep reading about is great news because dog fighting is an activity that is rarely done independently of other nefarious activities. If Vick is getting hit especially hard by the Feds so he becomes an example, so be it. He's getting convicted of something. Just from the evidence available on the world wide web it's clear that dog fighting or dog breeding for the purpose of dog fighting was occurring on his property. I guess it's too early for this case to be submitted to the plight vs. benefit of privilege debate just yet.
These are just a few small examples of the stimulating, and very real, discussions that appear on the ESPN website. I can't think of a better place to see the way many Americans actually feel on various issues. People cut through the bullshit and call it how they see it, regardless of the popularity of their opinions. Writers often preface their comments with their background and race, providing the ultimate sociological survey on current events with the levels of participation unparalleled elsewhere. So go ahead, mock that NASCAR fan or dismiss that football writer, but remember: in America, their vote counts just as much as yours.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
Putting the Fun Back in Fundamentals
The media needs to make up its mind. Either people admire sound basketball, relish the extra pass, and enjoy watching the game played "the right way" or it's all about the individual, one vs. all, and showmanship. It is unbelievable to listen to everyone complain about the Spurs being a boring team but then criticize Kobe for hogging the ball. Who doesn't love Steve Nash and the team game? Well everyone of course, unless the team game is being played by the ultimate team- the San Antonio Spurs. Damn those Spurs for dragging down the Cavs and creating a boring series, or should I say clinic. Do these same critics watch the Eastern Conference?! "King James" hasn't exactly created an offensive juggernaut in Cleveland. A few nights the Nets-Cavs series was on the same night as the Spurs-Suns series and the difference was startling. The Eastern conference plays disjointed, turnover filled basketball filled with missed open jumpers. Everyone excuses the miserable offense saying "Oh well what great defense each team played." Well the Spurs have the best defense in the NBA and the Suns still managed to hang 100 on the Spurs 5 out of 6 games. Of course the Sun still lost but that's only because the Spurs have an efficient, talented offense to compliment its dominant defense. Everyone always laments that NBA players don't care about defense and are selfish, only caring about stats. Look at the Spurs! One of their best players comes off the bench. An All-Star doesn't start just because his replacement plays better when he starts. Finley isn't nearly as good but Manu takes it in stride. Imagine Jason Terry, who's younger and better than Stackhouse, not making an issue with sitting for his older counterpart. Of course this is all tangental to the play on the court, which the Spurs excel at. What's not to like about a big man with excellent footwork, the quickest PG in the league, and an acrobatic, 4th quarter villain? OK the Suns run more, as do the Warriors. But other than that who is that much more exciting than the Spurs?! Any Eastern conference team will not be accepted as an answer. Dirk isn't as quick as Manu and isn't as good down low as Duncan. Everyone talks about Shaq's Lakers but Shaq is the most frustrating player to watch if you don't like LA. It's the same thing every time: bang the defender repeatedly and then either jump hook or spin dunk. How was that not the most boring thing ever? The Jazz-Spurs series was an awesome series to watch, with both teams playing hard and playing big but you can't tell me Carlos Boozer is more fun to watch than TD. Williams is really good but so is Parker. Parker abused everyone who tried to guard him this playoffs. I really don't get it. Is it because they don't have anyone who will throw down a sick dunk once a game? Is that it because I really don't see what they are missing. You want 3 point assassins they have sharp-shooters. You want great passing, they always make the extra pass. You want blocks, Duncan embarrassed the Suns with a 9 block performance. Bank shots, runners, tear drops, and 1's. Just ask any city.. they would kill to have the opportunity to watch the Spurs 41 games a year (not including 4 playoff series). I'm looking forward to TD and Co. dominating again next year.
Reagan Reincarnate?
The parallels drawn to Ronald Reagan are almost too obvious. Both very successful actors. Both hate taxes. Both favor spending huge amounts of military spending. Both admire strict constructionist judges. Of course I'm referring to former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.
Thompson was fairly unknown to me but reading up on him and listening to a number of interviews has me very impressed with his demeanor and his measured, substantive ideas. His reasons for running seem more sincere than most and he'll definitely contribute in a positive manner to the Republican primary race. A few good ideas benefit everyone and he, in Millian fashion, wants to contribute to the sharpening of conservative ideas. Ultimately, Thompson doesn't come off as a divider, instead viewing himself as extremely electable though totally willing to take a back seat if the voters feel otherwise. I loved his interview with the Hoover Institution (http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/15-minutes-with-fred/), as he touched on a broad range of topics. A few highlights for me were his discussion on the role of government in today's society. He mentioned that all these liberal social welfare systems, which of course entail higher taxes, are about "redistributing the wealth" when a less restricted economy will create a bigger pie for everyone. I think that's a great point that people often ignore. Extremely generous welfare systems, and universal health care, entail sacrificing the future for the here and now. The Wall Street Journal ran an excellent article about the positive effects Bush's tax cuts have had on the economy (http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/case-closed-tax-cuts-mean-growth/#comments). The winner in '08 will likely decide the fate of those tax cuts; an extremely underrated factor in this election. A candidate's opinion on whether or not to extend them should almost be a litmus test for anyone who cares about free enterprise and small government. Thompson is keeping it simple. Low taxes- good, high taxes- bad.
A later question was posed that really had only one right answer. What is the worst Supreme Court decision of the past 40 years? With no hesitation Thompson responded, "Roe v. Wade." A necessary response for any conservative, and anyone who cares about the direction of Constitutional law. We can argue for days whether or not abortion should be legal; but that's precisely the point...WE the people should be arguing, NOT 9 men in black robes. The country may or may not protect abortion with legislation but we won't know until the Supreme Court rectifies one of its landmark screw ups. Thompson has a strong legal background, serving as an assistant US attorney from '69-'72, which could prove invaluable in this time of collapsing federalism.
Thompson is steadfast in his commitment to a mighty US military, which is music to my ears. More importantly than that he seems willing to see terrorism, or human rights violations, or any external threat for what it is and take appropriate action. Also, he wants to revamp the intelligence agencies and return them to their Cold War prowess. That is one thing I will never understand. Who thought it was a good idea to drastically cut intelligence spending? Military tactics may change, technology will evolve, but information will never go out of style. We can't predict what will happen and who will be threatening us in 20 years but we can set ourselves up for success with the best trained and funded military in the world.
So it appears Thompson passes my Common Sense test. Lower taxes help the economy which helps everyone. Check. Judges shouldn't decide controversial social issues, citizens should. Makes sense. People hate America and the world is in constant flux so we should be ready to defend ourselves. Logical. Maybe I'm overly swayed by his gravely, grandfatherly voice and poised demeanor but I hope you at least give Thompson a chance to impress you.
Thompson was fairly unknown to me but reading up on him and listening to a number of interviews has me very impressed with his demeanor and his measured, substantive ideas. His reasons for running seem more sincere than most and he'll definitely contribute in a positive manner to the Republican primary race. A few good ideas benefit everyone and he, in Millian fashion, wants to contribute to the sharpening of conservative ideas. Ultimately, Thompson doesn't come off as a divider, instead viewing himself as extremely electable though totally willing to take a back seat if the voters feel otherwise. I loved his interview with the Hoover Institution (http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/15-minutes-with-fred/), as he touched on a broad range of topics. A few highlights for me were his discussion on the role of government in today's society. He mentioned that all these liberal social welfare systems, which of course entail higher taxes, are about "redistributing the wealth" when a less restricted economy will create a bigger pie for everyone. I think that's a great point that people often ignore. Extremely generous welfare systems, and universal health care, entail sacrificing the future for the here and now. The Wall Street Journal ran an excellent article about the positive effects Bush's tax cuts have had on the economy (http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/case-closed-tax-cuts-mean-growth/#comments). The winner in '08 will likely decide the fate of those tax cuts; an extremely underrated factor in this election. A candidate's opinion on whether or not to extend them should almost be a litmus test for anyone who cares about free enterprise and small government. Thompson is keeping it simple. Low taxes- good, high taxes- bad.
A later question was posed that really had only one right answer. What is the worst Supreme Court decision of the past 40 years? With no hesitation Thompson responded, "Roe v. Wade." A necessary response for any conservative, and anyone who cares about the direction of Constitutional law. We can argue for days whether or not abortion should be legal; but that's precisely the point...WE the people should be arguing, NOT 9 men in black robes. The country may or may not protect abortion with legislation but we won't know until the Supreme Court rectifies one of its landmark screw ups. Thompson has a strong legal background, serving as an assistant US attorney from '69-'72, which could prove invaluable in this time of collapsing federalism.
Thompson is steadfast in his commitment to a mighty US military, which is music to my ears. More importantly than that he seems willing to see terrorism, or human rights violations, or any external threat for what it is and take appropriate action. Also, he wants to revamp the intelligence agencies and return them to their Cold War prowess. That is one thing I will never understand. Who thought it was a good idea to drastically cut intelligence spending? Military tactics may change, technology will evolve, but information will never go out of style. We can't predict what will happen and who will be threatening us in 20 years but we can set ourselves up for success with the best trained and funded military in the world.
So it appears Thompson passes my Common Sense test. Lower taxes help the economy which helps everyone. Check. Judges shouldn't decide controversial social issues, citizens should. Makes sense. People hate America and the world is in constant flux so we should be ready to defend ourselves. Logical. Maybe I'm overly swayed by his gravely, grandfatherly voice and poised demeanor but I hope you at least give Thompson a chance to impress you.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Those Damn Yankees
I was scared this day would come though I was sure it would. I picked the yankees to win the East before the season began and after months of feeling like an idiot I now remember why I made that prediction in the first place. The pitching I took to be decent but the offense was, and is, downright scary. Damon, Jeter, Abreu, Arod, Matsui, Giambi, Cano, Posada, and then whoever the hell they feel like letting play first base. Look at that lineup....that's ridiculous. Giambi hit 37 homers last year, Cano and Jeter nearly won the batting title, Matsui is good for 100 RBIs, Abreu brought his .450 OBP from Philly, and then of course Arod. It's ironic that the player that probably spent the most time on his image over the last decade has one of the most tarnished at the moment. I don't understand how the New York media has found so much to complain about. It's as if they were worried that when Arod came to NY he would supplant Jeter as the face of the Yankees and Jeters biggest fan club (the NY media) couldn't have this. Even though Arod is a greater run producer and, at the time a better fielder, each writer had to reassure Jeter this was still his team. It doesn't matter a whole lot now as the season is turning around, albeit over garbage teams like the ChiSox and the Pirates. Yeah the 3rd game in Fenway was a classic but the Yankees just as easily could've been down 3 or 4 going into the 9th. A number of balls were smoked but just happened to be hit at fielders. The Sox hitters nearly always took quality at bats but just couldn't get the bounces. I don't know about this Sox team. I had them winning the World Series out of the Wild Card slot again just because I didn't think there was any way for their hitting to match up against the Yankees. So far that's been inaccurate but I don't see Mike Lowell and Kevin Youkilus continuing to hit like this. No doubt they are good hitters but Lowell has more power than we've seen in years and Youk is a career .288 hitter. Pretty soon Manny will have to turn it around or we might start talking about more than the Wild Card for the Yankees. The reason I still like the Sox in the playoffs is because of the stacked pitching that accompanies the above average offense. Noone is going to want to face Schilling, DiceK, and Beckett in a playoff series. On top of that Wakefield is a solid number 4 who can eat up innings. Okajima has been a pleasant surprise and Papelbon is back to him dominant self. I just don't see anyone beating them in a 7 game series when they are playing good baseball. Still though, it's impossible to count out the Yankees. The offense is resurgent and Clemens is back. I despise Clemens but he is an asset. His numbers will be inflated for the first month or so I think because his legs are two months fresher than the rest of the league. The last couple of seasons he had minor problems later in the season so I see him helping the Yankees make the playoffs but he won't have anything left in the tank for October. In the end it might not matter if Detroit and Cleveland continue to play good baseball. Both teams are 10-9 vs the AL East while the Yankees are an embarrassing 8-15. Regardless, here's to a great baseball season.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Common Sense Conservatism
I was never really a big fan of the phrase "Compassionate Conservatism", thinking that if we (from here on out I'll group myself with conservatives and often times with Republicans) still feel the need going into a presidential election to convince voters that we care about them, it's probably not a good sign. On top of that, it doesn't really imply anything about policy or beliefs. It's pretty hard to twist that slogan into a negative (see: War on Terror) but it certainly doesn't make anyone excited. For better or for worse, I imagine we won't see the term "Compassionate Conservatism" used much anymore.
Somehow Republicans still have a good chance this election after a more than difficult Bush presidency. I'm not that down on Bush but the country certainly is. Republicans need to get back to simple, common sense platforms. No they're not sexy, or glitzy and it would probably give the Dems the White House in '08. I'm almost OK with that just so I can watch universal healthcare implode. Almost. Common sense, less is more, small government stances are needed now more than ever. Who thinks universal healthcare will work? Really? Honestly? "But the Canadians..." yeah well Canada has barely 1/10th the population of the US. Beyond that, how do we decide on regulations, because the government can't fund every operation or treatment. Numerous procedures cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, making difficult decisions inevitable. Civil rights lawyers would be salivating, just waiting to go crazy, suing every government agency in sight for any possible discrimination. Do people who abuse their body (drugs, alcohol, STDS) still have the opportunity for organ transplants? I don't see how the system could float if they do. Of course Jackson and Sharpton would be rallying left and right, waiting to pounce on the rampant institutional racism. It would be a catastrophe and create an even larger mess of our tax system. All the money wasted on universal healthcare would be better used to create research grants for pharmaceutical companies, or subsidizing University reserach, or just about anything. I think if Hillary or whoever tries to make this a plank of her campaign she could be hammered with a simple, repeated question: who is going to pay for this? The median income in the US is around $46,000 meaning a majority of Americans do more than OK for themselves and won't take kindly to providing health insurance for the approximately 15% of people without insurance (nothing through employer or gov. agency). For those young Leftists who immediately made a crack about the end of the Iraq War paying for healthcare remember that once this system is implemented it will be nearly impossible to kill it. So planning on putting the reamainder of the Iraq budget into healtcare won't mean anything 50 years from now. Taxes go up, production goes down. There are plenty of people way smarter than me who can vouch for that fact. Some will point to Sweden or Finland, certainly examples of successful comprehensive government health care systems, but fail to recognize key differences. For me the biggest is that the US is a world leader and has to, absolutely has to, remain a world leader for its own safety. We need power, whether it be militarily or economically, to deal with countries that disdain us or would rather not dealwith us. Placing serious constraints on our economy is an easy way to ruin a good thing.
Another place Republicans could make up ground is in the arena of race. No I'm not talking about grabbing the black vote but solidifying the white vote. There comes a point when candidates have to stick to their guns and if their views don't jive with a certain demographic, so be it. I'm all for courting the black vote and giving them a reason to vote Republican but the party is so stigmatized or in such a rut that too many candidates would have to compromise bedrock conservative values to gain a few votes. Many whites are simply getting fed up with the institution of affirmative action and the rest of the show. The famous "Proposition 209" in California effectively ended affirmative action in the UC system, with Washington and Michigan following over the last decade. Too many businesses, school systems, and universities have been forced to slant policies to favor minorities just to prevent "disparate impact" of policy, basically eliminating even the possibility that it could be accused of institutional racism. Government agencies even go as far as to pay off contractors to hire minority businesses. Affirmative actions' effects on the universities of this nation are well documented. Blacks routinely get into public law and medical schools with lower grades or test scores and often time produce higher dropout rates. These are public schools funded by tax payer dollars wasting resources. Why pay for the student with lower scores? Oh because he's hispanic. That makes sense. My generation didn't grow up experiencing the tubrulance on the '60's or witness blacks being treated as second rate citizens. It comes as a shock then to learn that certain races or ethnicities have privileges before the law. We were raised to believe that everyone is equal and that hard work and diligence will yield success. Somewhere along the way this logic is perverted and instead whites are hammered on the "intolerance and bigotry" that persists in society, that just by being born white we did something wrong. There is a sense of frustration that I think will boil over win some Republicans elections. I don't see this, nor should it, be used as a major tool in a presidential campaign, but state elections will be won or lost over candidates ability to preach color-blindness before the law. It should be noted that I usually use blacks as the counter to whites simply because that's the way it's portrayed in the media and in the textbooks today. Also, more blacks are applying to college than hispanics or Native Americans.
Just keep in simple. People get simple. Lay off the ridiculous economic reform plans that never make it off the drawing board. Let citizens keep as much of their money as possible. Be the ones to frame issues. Promote reasonable debate within the party. Some new ideas on immigration and foreign policy should be welcomed, then dissected. On the flip side there is a danger is applying equal weight to every opinion. The Senator who walks around declaring that Iran isn't a danger to the US can be quickly dismissed. So here's to a Common Sense Conservative movement (hopefully).
Somehow Republicans still have a good chance this election after a more than difficult Bush presidency. I'm not that down on Bush but the country certainly is. Republicans need to get back to simple, common sense platforms. No they're not sexy, or glitzy and it would probably give the Dems the White House in '08. I'm almost OK with that just so I can watch universal healthcare implode. Almost. Common sense, less is more, small government stances are needed now more than ever. Who thinks universal healthcare will work? Really? Honestly? "But the Canadians..." yeah well Canada has barely 1/10th the population of the US. Beyond that, how do we decide on regulations, because the government can't fund every operation or treatment. Numerous procedures cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, making difficult decisions inevitable. Civil rights lawyers would be salivating, just waiting to go crazy, suing every government agency in sight for any possible discrimination. Do people who abuse their body (drugs, alcohol, STDS) still have the opportunity for organ transplants? I don't see how the system could float if they do. Of course Jackson and Sharpton would be rallying left and right, waiting to pounce on the rampant institutional racism. It would be a catastrophe and create an even larger mess of our tax system. All the money wasted on universal healthcare would be better used to create research grants for pharmaceutical companies, or subsidizing University reserach, or just about anything. I think if Hillary or whoever tries to make this a plank of her campaign she could be hammered with a simple, repeated question: who is going to pay for this? The median income in the US is around $46,000 meaning a majority of Americans do more than OK for themselves and won't take kindly to providing health insurance for the approximately 15% of people without insurance (nothing through employer or gov. agency). For those young Leftists who immediately made a crack about the end of the Iraq War paying for healthcare remember that once this system is implemented it will be nearly impossible to kill it. So planning on putting the reamainder of the Iraq budget into healtcare won't mean anything 50 years from now. Taxes go up, production goes down. There are plenty of people way smarter than me who can vouch for that fact. Some will point to Sweden or Finland, certainly examples of successful comprehensive government health care systems, but fail to recognize key differences. For me the biggest is that the US is a world leader and has to, absolutely has to, remain a world leader for its own safety. We need power, whether it be militarily or economically, to deal with countries that disdain us or would rather not dealwith us. Placing serious constraints on our economy is an easy way to ruin a good thing.
Another place Republicans could make up ground is in the arena of race. No I'm not talking about grabbing the black vote but solidifying the white vote. There comes a point when candidates have to stick to their guns and if their views don't jive with a certain demographic, so be it. I'm all for courting the black vote and giving them a reason to vote Republican but the party is so stigmatized or in such a rut that too many candidates would have to compromise bedrock conservative values to gain a few votes. Many whites are simply getting fed up with the institution of affirmative action and the rest of the show. The famous "Proposition 209" in California effectively ended affirmative action in the UC system, with Washington and Michigan following over the last decade. Too many businesses, school systems, and universities have been forced to slant policies to favor minorities just to prevent "disparate impact" of policy, basically eliminating even the possibility that it could be accused of institutional racism. Government agencies even go as far as to pay off contractors to hire minority businesses. Affirmative actions' effects on the universities of this nation are well documented. Blacks routinely get into public law and medical schools with lower grades or test scores and often time produce higher dropout rates. These are public schools funded by tax payer dollars wasting resources. Why pay for the student with lower scores? Oh because he's hispanic. That makes sense. My generation didn't grow up experiencing the tubrulance on the '60's or witness blacks being treated as second rate citizens. It comes as a shock then to learn that certain races or ethnicities have privileges before the law. We were raised to believe that everyone is equal and that hard work and diligence will yield success. Somewhere along the way this logic is perverted and instead whites are hammered on the "intolerance and bigotry" that persists in society, that just by being born white we did something wrong. There is a sense of frustration that I think will boil over win some Republicans elections. I don't see this, nor should it, be used as a major tool in a presidential campaign, but state elections will be won or lost over candidates ability to preach color-blindness before the law. It should be noted that I usually use blacks as the counter to whites simply because that's the way it's portrayed in the media and in the textbooks today. Also, more blacks are applying to college than hispanics or Native Americans.
Just keep in simple. People get simple. Lay off the ridiculous economic reform plans that never make it off the drawing board. Let citizens keep as much of their money as possible. Be the ones to frame issues. Promote reasonable debate within the party. Some new ideas on immigration and foreign policy should be welcomed, then dissected. On the flip side there is a danger is applying equal weight to every opinion. The Senator who walks around declaring that Iran isn't a danger to the US can be quickly dismissed. So here's to a Common Sense Conservative movement (hopefully).
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Better than MJ?
One of the more ridiculous ideas being bantered around the past couple of weeks is the idea that Lebron might be better than MJ, or at least better at this point in his career. It would be worth hardly much more than an eye-roll except "experts" are taking Lebron's side on this issue. Look, I understand game 5 was amazing. It was, it was beyond amazing. But take a look at the rest of his series. Just as much as he won game 5 single-handedly, he basically lost game 1 for the Cavs. Yes, the pass at the end was iffy but I wouldn't kill him over that (though watching the replay it looked as if he could've elevated over the defenders pretty easily). More the 0 FTs and 5-15 shooting. Game 2, again another huge letdown with only 19 points and 6 turnovers. Only games 3 and 5 can anyone really get that excited about. Yeah he was good in 4 but the Pistons should've overcome that performance. He didn't even make a FG in the first half of game 6. And this was the first real series they had. I'm pretty sure the Florida Gators could've beaten the Wizards and then the Nets somehow took the Cavs to 6 with Lebron really not playing that well. Lebron is only shooting 43% in the playoffs from the field, and that's before factoring in the no show in game 1 against the Spurs. I know I know it's about W's not FG% but they've played 2 roll overs and then a Pistons team that quit. I didn't understand that series at all. The Pistons had advantageous matchups EVERYWHERE. It really made no sense to me that they lost.
On to Michael's stats. In his 4th season in the league, in 10 playoff games guess what his PPG was...36.3 on 53% from the field. Wow. Sure, the Bulls got dismantled by a Pistons team that had legends, Isiah Thomas and Joe Dumars but the Cavs will meet a similiar fate as the '88 Bulls in a week or so. His first 4 playoff runs MJ never averaged below 29 and even went as high as 44. The one season his FG% dipped to 42% he raised his FT% to 90%. I don't understand how he can even be compared to MJ in his present form at 3 or 4 great games (and yes, one for the ages). The efficiency and consistancy are still not even close.
I'll close with how abysmal he looked in game 1 against the Spurs. I guess it's a little different when he's not ushered to the rim by the Pistons gaping interior defense. Sure he created but he doesn't get knocked down at least once at the end of regulation or OT? Put those tired legs on the FT line. The Spurs didn't even look good. Jump shots didn't fall and the ball handling was rather sloppy but it still wasn't even close. Bowen did a great job but I'm surprised Lebron didn't at least try to bull in to the rim more in the 4th. Put the onus on the officials, as much as that sucks for the fans (NBA is the worst officiated sport). I'm sure he'll come out more aggressive in game 2 but really, what more can he do besides hoist up runners and leaners, unless he draws some fouls. Alright that's enough for now.
Tomorrow I might attempt to bash Shef more than he already has been.
On to Michael's stats. In his 4th season in the league, in 10 playoff games guess what his PPG was...36.3 on 53% from the field. Wow. Sure, the Bulls got dismantled by a Pistons team that had legends, Isiah Thomas and Joe Dumars but the Cavs will meet a similiar fate as the '88 Bulls in a week or so. His first 4 playoff runs MJ never averaged below 29 and even went as high as 44. The one season his FG% dipped to 42% he raised his FT% to 90%. I don't understand how he can even be compared to MJ in his present form at 3 or 4 great games (and yes, one for the ages). The efficiency and consistancy are still not even close.
I'll close with how abysmal he looked in game 1 against the Spurs. I guess it's a little different when he's not ushered to the rim by the Pistons gaping interior defense. Sure he created but he doesn't get knocked down at least once at the end of regulation or OT? Put those tired legs on the FT line. The Spurs didn't even look good. Jump shots didn't fall and the ball handling was rather sloppy but it still wasn't even close. Bowen did a great job but I'm surprised Lebron didn't at least try to bull in to the rim more in the 4th. Put the onus on the officials, as much as that sucks for the fans (NBA is the worst officiated sport). I'm sure he'll come out more aggressive in game 2 but really, what more can he do besides hoist up runners and leaners, unless he draws some fouls. Alright that's enough for now.
Tomorrow I might attempt to bash Shef more than he already has been.
Starting Off
Alright now that summer is here and I don't have my roommate or Brothers to argue with I figured I'd cave and join the masses. I now deem myself important enough to tell everyone how I feel on many issues. This blog will contain my thoughts on politics, sports, social issues, and anywhere they overlap. This being a seemingly busy time in the sports world most of my initial posts will be regarding sports issues. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
