User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 5.5510 seconds
42 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Coughing up four #1 draft picks for Joe Smith!!!! OMG!
2. Ray Allen for Stephon Marbury, AND Roy for Foye... jury's out on Mayo for Love.
3. Ndudi Ebi.
4. This one's a little unfair, but they've failed to improve their draft position in the lottery something like 13 times in 13 tries.
But if you're a Minnesotan and a basketball fan, you gotta believe or at least you gotta hope even in the absence of belief. I guess where hope takes over is with the notion that Kahn knows what the hell he's doing. My fear is that he is merely dazzling us (or at least Glen Taylor) with ######## and when all is said and done, even if he gets Rubio he will never get any more than next-gen versions of Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell to play with him.
Oh and rounding out the top 5 (and maybe this is #2):
5. Having one of the top 3-5 players in the world for 10 years and never putting anything around him, and as soon as you move him he's a world champion. Even the much maligned Danny Ainge could put guys around him the first year, and McHale couldn't do it in 10. Arrgh.
Ainge didn't do it in one year. That Celtics team had been building for years, starting with Pierce all those years ago, then continuing with the selections of Jefferson and Perkins and Rondo and so on. He didn't build a team around Garnett but insert him into one that was already fully formed with the exception of undervalued free agents like Posey and House who came later.
So what are the Wolves good moves over franchise history?
1. Obviously, drafting KG.
2. Pushed for the title by grabbing Cassel and Spreewell (they should have done more of these sorts of moves when they had KG; the Cassel, Spree, KG, 1/2 season of Wally team was very good).
3. Wally Szczerbiak was a pretty good draft pick. He has been a crappy contract traded from team to team for a few years, but he was a productive and efficient offensive player for the Wolves.
4. Hiring Flip Saunders as a head coach. He is not an elite coach by any means, but he has been pretty solid over the years. The Wolves were the first team in the NBA to give him a head coaching job. This is more luck than anything else. Flip and Kevin McHale were college buddies and that was one of the main reasons he was hired.
.....
#1 and #2 are pretty good, but #3 and #4 are kind of a reach. What else is there? Drafting Pooh Richardson?
I was listening to Dan Patrick, and he brought up the point that ESPN never had any issue with airing the cellphone video of Jerry Jones drunk. Did those frat boys who were hanging out with Jerry identify themselves? Did ESPN worry about it then?
Not that I really trust ESPN for news, but I think any story that comes out about Lebron originating from ESPN needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Is Boozer a #4? 'Cause Love is a bit ahead of Carlos at the same stage of the game...
I think the distinction would be that those guys don't work for ESPN and this guy does.
You're right, it may be silly but not as silly as thinking just because Love was better than Boozer at the same age that he's automatically going to maintain that gap throughout his career. Boozer was a lot more athletic and had more room to grow. I like Love a lot and he does some things extremely well but he has two major deficiencies in his inability to create his own shot and defense that aren't likely to get better due to his lack of size and athleticism. Besides refining his shot, he's about at his ceiling, which is very good but not good enough to be the featured big man. I should revise my statement a bit though and say in a bunch of scenarios, he could be the third best player on a championship team.
I think at his peak he could be a 17/12/4 guy who isn't quite as valuable as his gaudy numbers because of his defensive weaknesses, compounded as they are coming from a big guy.
One of Love's biggest strengths is his passing, but he doesn't have a great back to the basket game. It is an interesting combination. You can't just dump the ball to him inside and let him make plays, because is low post game isn't a big enough threat to collapse the defense. So maybe in a system where he is in the high post, playing a Divac-type of role. Or on a team that likes to run, where his outlet passing can start the break.
He could really benefit from working on the low post game. Love certainly has the tools. His shot is a real asset, as one thing that really helps set up a series of low post moves is a turn around jumper that the defense has to take seriously.
I don't - but Love is already better than a #4 option.
Boozer was a lot more athletic and had more room to grow.
Boozer's perceived lack of athleticism/height is a big part of why he fell to round 2 in the draft. He didn't have Kevin's vertical (this says more about Boozer than Love) and did marginally worse in the combine agility tests. (His advantage, really, was wingspan - everything else is a draw or pro-Love. That and Boozer managed to find a way to get his post moves off that Kevin hasn't, but that's more skill than athleticism for my money).
I like Love a lot
It doesn't appear so, to tell you the truth.
and he does some things extremely well but he has two major deficiencies in his inability to create his own shot and defense that aren't likely to get better due to his lack of size and athleticism. Besides refining his shot, he's about at his ceiling, which is very good but not good enough to be the featured big man. I should revise my statement a bit though and say in a bunch of scenarios, he could be the third best player on a championship team.
For a championship team, that may be true. His skill-set is more valuable for a bad/average team, I think. Still, I think he can improve his defense a bit (he's only 21, he's time to learn a few tricks) and there is, as you mentioned, his shot (both from the outside and adding, say, a post move or two). I suspect he'll eventually be a pretty good outside shooter - that can do a lot to open up an offense (and make him more valuable than his box score stats suggest - just as his defense mitigates that).
2a. Hiring Bill Musselman.
2b. Firing Bill Musselman.
I'm probably going to dive into the Love stuff when I have more time at work tomorrow. But just know that I hate Wally Szczerbiak more than any other athlete who has ever lived. Wally could play Troy Aikman, Brett Favre, Derek Jeter, Kobe Bryant, Lance Armstrong, Juan Pablo Montoya and Oscar De La Hoya together, and I'd still cheer for the gang of ######## over him. I insulted his brother in our college cafeteria and played extremely dirty when I guarded him in pickup games. My passionate hatred for that man burns with the fire of a thousand hells.
Any rational reason for that? (Not that you need a reason, just curious). I got to watch him carry Miami (OH) on his back a couple of times and enjoyed that, so I always had a bit of a soft spot for him while he was a useful player.
Love tested out really well, better than Boozer and about the same as Blake Griffin even, which says something positive about Love but also puts into question the meaningfulness of those combine tests. Whatever his combine measurements, Love doesn't play to them on the court because he doesn't have the body control and quickness that Boozer has. He can't take a pocket pass off a pick and drive the ball to the hoop from 15 feet out like Boozer can. And I have seen his turnaround jumpers from college to the pros and been consistently surprised how unathletic he makes them look. His big ol' trunk gets in the way of making a smooth turn and separating from his defender.
I hate to feel like I'm trashing Love when I really like him as a player. To make a stupid baseball analogy, he's like a pitcher with a plus-plus pitch who, because of some big flaws, is best suited to be the closer rather than the ace of the staff. Still incredibly valuable but not quite as the elite.
I too wonder why. He was an ok wolf (good) but had the "Great White Hope" thing going on (which was annoying). My son (11 now) loved him and wrote him a letter when he was traded, so I admit to a bit of a soft spot where wally is concerned.
My least favorite - Quentin Richardson for peak and Anthony Peeler for Career.
Obviously Allen was better, but this trade wasn't a true disaster was it? Marbury and KG were a very promising core until Marbury forced a trade.
Wow, you maybe oughta stick to hoops analogies.
I guess that's the point. The Wolves chose as the #2 guy to KG a guy who congenitally couldn't bear to be a #2. Ability is the least of it. This trade is the #1 reason why the Wolves could never put a core around KG.
____
---
ShamSport's updated Bulls salary numbers. A lot to like there, btw. Korver is only guaranteed $500k in year 3, and neither Brewer or Watson are guaranteed that 3rd year and have declining deals. Boozer's deal is worth $75mil total. Asik's deal is for just over $3.5mil for 2 years, with an option for the 3rd (that deal came in a little higher than I expected). The Bulls still have $3mil of cap space for that last guard (I'm still holding out hope for Rudy), and could have up to 4 if they renounce Andriuskevicius (and I have to type that name just because).
He never put in any effort on defense at any point in his career. He spent more time shooting commercials than practicing basketball. He was in love with himself. He never saw a shot he didn't like, even if it was entirely out of the offensive flow. He was a symbol of McHale's stupidity. He was loved by a huge percentage of fair weather fans who thought he was a key cog on the team when the finally won a few games. Let me re-emphasize how bad he was on defense- there are few high school players who play worse defense.
While we're on the subject of loathesome athletes- I'm shaking my head in amusement that Brett Favre would lead the Vikings on through the offseason then retire again in training camp. What a tremendous douche. At least I can go back to being indifferent to them instead of actively rooting against them. It's as if Favre saw the negative pub Lebron got for being a diva and got jealous. They could have had McNabb if he did this months ago, but he liked the attention too much.
That's a nice third point (JW).
Per the Memphis stuff upthread...
Reportedly, James Anderson didn't get 120% of rookie scale from SA - joining other Spurs' draftees Ian Mahinmi and George Hill. Does our opinion of this practice change when we hear that the Spurs are doing it?
---
I'm really curious as to what Rudy will cost - and as to what kind of role he'd need to stay in the states once he's a free agent.
I know fan blogs aren't a really good source, but the couple Blazers sites I've looked at seem to be ok with a future first round pick, but they'd like a backup big. They were interested in both Taj Gibson and Glen Davis. If the C's sign someone like Shaq, I could see them offering Baby. I don't think the Bulls want to move Gibson, and may even be holding onto the picks (I've seen a James Johnson rumor, but the Blazers rightfully aren't interested and the salaries don't work anyway). If the Bulls really wanted to move Johnson, perhaps they can pair him with a pick for Rudy and someone like Cunningham. I'd be ok with that, I think.
That's what I thought. He saw all the attention and said, "I'll show Lebron who runs ESPN."
Warkentien and Chapman out in Denver.
Oh, and the Celtics are wicked old, obviously. I do hope the C's get Shaq, though, partly for entertainment purposes and partly because I think he might be able to help.
When all the sh1t was going on, a couple of Cavs bloggers/fans pointed out that Cleveland is not James' "hometown"--Akron is. Not that it necessarily mattered, but it is worth remembering.
Well, they did get him. Good for them, with Perkins out they need a big guy to foul people, whine, and then look mean. Shaq better start taking more acting classes, though. Even with movies on his resume, he's not near the drama queen that the Celtics are.
It appears now that he probably won't retire, alleged texts to teammates notwithstanding.
He's just building in excuses in case he stinks, and making up reasons to skip training camp
Don't forget the 300th time that a certain Bulls fan here referred to the Celtics as "drama queens". How does the saying go...people who root for Joakim Noah shouldn't throw glass stones? Something like that.
Count me as wildly on board for the Shaq era in Boston. It's sort of surreal to imagine him in a Celtics uniform.
Far be it from to defend one of Jimmy's ticks, but I still fail to see the connection. Yes, Noah is annoying. But it's a different annoying. And how does 1 douche outweigh a team full of "drama queens"?
---
Man, Shaq's signing just isn't big enough news to get this thread going again. We pulled through last summer thanks to the Book of Basketball. What's going to do that for us this year?
---
I don't think a future 1st does it, personally. Not yet, anyway.
Well, the Bulls haven't even offered one yet, and he hasn't been traded elsewhere. So I don't think anyone (including other NBA teams) really knows what the Blazers want.
Still a douche move. Big Z said his thank you's, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't born in Cleveland or for that matter any land mass that isn't seperated by a big ocean from this continent. Mo Vaughn was considered a local guy and he wasn't born in the same state as the Red Sox. This Akron-Cleveland thing is a pretty silly distinction if you ever been to both places. Lebron just seems to be taking a great pleasure in dumping on Cleveland.
The Summer of KAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHNN!
We (those in this thread) don't know the specifics of what other teams have or haven't offered. My understanding is that a number of teams (presumably pretty good ones) have talked w/ them and floated the idea of sending a future 1st.
We pulled through last summer thanks to the Book of Basketball. What's going to do that for us this year?
At last - time to post the transcript of my one-man show on the life and times of Marty Conlon! No? Kenny Gattison?
Hmmm.
KAAAAHHHHNN?
I wish the next Free Darko book came out before late October.
Acie Law IV reportedly will join Memphis.
Perhaps. The point was that all the people in the media who have said Cleveland is his hometown are wrong.
The NBA has poked its head into the Bonds/Clemens/steroids/HOF thread, so we can speculate about which NBA players are on PEDs. Kobe, of course. LeBron? Obviously. Probably Artest. Dwight Howard, for sure. Boozer--gotta be. Garnett, to speed up his recovery--and I am sure he is also on amphetamines.
I am also ready to talk at length about how severely Simmons got his ass handed to him by the results of the finals, with numeorus quotes from TBoB and his columns.
Probably the best way to keep the thread going would be to link some articles from sites like BasketballValue.com and BaskRef, and to talk about college hoops. How much will UCLA suck this year?
That out of the way... Kermit Washington.
Why don't more sites list player handededness?
Bask-ref is listing the top 31 college programs of the last 31 years (26-31 are up).
___
Came out in October, didn't it?
I am also ready to talk at length about how severely Simmons got his ass handed to him by the results of the finals, with numeorus quotes from TBoB and his columns.
It's been awhile, rr. Hope all is well. I see you obsession with a certain sportwrite hasn't waned a bit. Can't you just enjoy your back-to-back titles (and fifth in eleven years) and let it be? Why don't you post that Wilt vs Russell treatise you've been dangling for the past several months instead?
I'm all for ranking the top 20 or something players in history - we could even vote HoM style - 20 points for #1, down to 1 point for #20, tally up the results. It would be a significant undertaking, but might be fun if enough others are up for it.
Anyone here play fantasy basketball? I never have, but would consider a league with some of you if there is interest.
Well, the initial story - the one that said he was available - said it was down to Chicago, NY, and Boston. From the Bulls side, all I've seen is that they've offered J. Johnson (that story specifically said a first wasn't offered). Considering a deal was supposed to happen this weekend, it only means 2 things - no one met the asking price or the initial story was wrong. If the story was right, we can deduce the C's didn't offer a pick or just their pick wasn't good enough (at this point, the Knicks can't offer a pick for 3 more seasons, so I have no idea if they offered it or not). So perhaps you've seen something since then that I haven't, but I have yet to see a story that mentioned what the Blazers were looking for or any specific deals that were turned down (and in a lot of cases, we never see either of those).
I'm all for ranking the top 20 or something players in history - we could even vote HoM style - 20 points for #1, down to 1 point for #20, tally up the results. It would be a significant undertaking, but might be fun if enough others are up for it.
I'd be up for this.
Also a good idea.
Edit: I was more or less kidding, but...
Simmons' getting it like he did adds to my enjoyment--like great salsa with a fish taco. What makes it even better is that he has not, AFAIK, really been able to bring himself to write about it. But the real question, like I said, is whether he learns anything from it. If he is going to sell himself as a guy who could be a GM, understands basketball on a more sophisticated level than the statheads do, etc. this is, IMO, a legit criticism.
As to "obsessions", take it up with Bill "I have been trying to figure Kobe out for fourteen years" Simmons.
But it is not just a partisan thing. I am generally turned off by people (particularly media big shots) mixing up their judgments of jocks' foibles/flaws/character with evaluations of actual performance, and the petty part of me likes it when such judgments are shoved back up their asses by the results. This is probably going to happen again to some people (including a hell of a lot of Lakers fans) with LeSatan of South Beach over the next 12 months.
Off the top of my head--this probably skews toward recent success.
1. UNC-3 titles, only one missed NCAA tourney, many excellent and memorable players
2. Duke-4 titles, lots of Final Fours
3. Kansas-2 titles, and a contender almost every year.
4. Kentucky
5. Georgetown-ruled the '80s
6. Arizona-generally excellent teams. Some underachieving in the NCAA's.
7. Syracuse
8. Michigan State-'79 and'00 champs
9. UConn--mostly irrelevant in the '80s, but strong team since then. Only 3 Final Fours, but 2 titles.
10. Indiana-fallen apart lately, but 2 titles, also made Final Four appearances in '93 and '02
Others?
-UCLA
-Maryland? typically good for 20 wins/season
-Florida? 2 titles, not much else
-UNLV-high peak, relevance lasted ~5 seasons
-Villanova-one title
-
EDIT: Counting 2010, UNC's missed at least 2 NCAA's
-UCLA
-Maryland? typically good for 20 wins/season 1 title
-Florida? 2 titles, not much else
-UNLV-high peak, relevance lasted ~5 seasons
-Villanova-one title
-
Shouldn't Michigan be in there? A title, two more second places. They pretty much defined 90's college basketball
Then you start getting into teams that haven't won titles, but were consistently good. There's tons of teams that fit this criteria
Bill Walton 1973 NCAA title game via BaskRef)--video
Walton at UCLA was before my time, but he may well have been the greatest college player ever.
Never have. There is a BTF DMB league that Shooty, Gaelan, snapper, Ryan Jones and some other guys are in.
Quick recap, for those too lazy to click. Anthony Davis, Chicago kid, total unknown as a recruit until the past summer. Absolutely dominates everything all summer, is now a top 5 recruit, at worst. Going into his senior year, every school hot on his trail. Rumors are he's going to pick Kentucky. He's played for a guy who has a reputation around Chicago as being less than on the up and up. Relevant section:
Now, it's just a blog, but a blog on the Chicago Sun Times website (not sure if that actually helps or hurts its credibility). Calapari's magic working again.
I like to, but finding a league is difficult. There was a BTF league last year that a few of us were in. I'll definitely play in more if they're available
If Calapari leaves to take another job, you know that these allegations are true. But, it'll take a few years for the NCAA to catch on (not that I think they're too keen on penalizing Cal or UK).
No-in fact, this is the first season I've played fantasy baseball. I'd be willing to give b-ball a try.
Ok, why? I'm the opposite, I think vacating wins by the NCAA is dumb. What, I'm supposed to forget that Michigan made the Final Four?
I'm with smileyy on this one. We will never forget that Michigan was in the Final Four, so they get the benefit of the residual reputation bump, but they cheated to get there; that cannot be ignored. While we will perpetually overrate those teams (because our intial response was to value them as, for example, the 2nd best team in the country when their non-cheating reality would be inferior), the compensation is to force them to be undervalued for all eternity. I think I read the Sports Illustrated 1991 Almanac about 9 times as a kid, and I will always remember Ben Johnson as a cheater who got his name deleted from the book rather than an Olympic champion with some controversy to follow. Basketball teams that pay players deserve the same fate.
Kevin Willis
Sean Elliott
Jeff Hornacek
Larry Johnson
Reggie Miller
Shawn Kemp
Guys who were better than I thought when I was younger:
Stacy Augmon
Mark Jackson
Mitch Richmond
A.C. Green
Tony Kukoc
Jason Kidd
For some reason I have a mental block where I constantly forget that Sidney Moncrief ever existed.
Also, whenever I think of the Clippers' history, the first person that comes to mind is not Randy Smith, not Danny Manning, not even Donald Sterling. It's Loy Vaught. I suppose that's because he was on the Clippers' NBA Jam team, but so were 2 other guys who I don't recall. Loy Vaught- face of the franchise.
Now you're toeing a fine line, though. Getting money didn't help them win games. It did not improve their performance at all. Zero.
You can make the argument that the team wouldn't exist without Martin there, but there's not anything that supports that. Sure, Martin paid them, that's undeniable, but did they go to Michigan to get paid, or did that just come afterwards? There's really no way to prove that one.
Ineligibility discovered after the fact doesn't in any way change the illegitimacy of wins made with ineligible players.
Re: [17193] I'm more concerned about players like Derrick Rose who were academically ineligible, rather than, say, players who accepted money. But I think the point is broad enough to cover both of them.
Really? Start here.
But that theory only works if only Michigan is paying players. Not only is that extremely unlikely, it also means that we're reliant on the NCAA to determine who is actually pure and who is not. I'd be more inclined to trust a drunk nine year-old to drive me to Vegas than to put my faith in that.
You might be onto something here. I've always wondered who desigend buildings like Paris Paris and the Excalibur. Drunk nine year-old might be the answer.
17197-that last sentence, amazingly, is literarily true.
Janning to Phoenix actually.
So much of Vegas seems to be the result of a drunk nine year-old that I think maybe I should reconsider that ride. The kid's likely to have some pretty serious connections.
Well, I am too when it comes to that stuff. I even put it in my handle so people wouldn't get confused.
If he is going to sell himself as a guy who could be a GM, understands basketball on a more sophisticated level than the statheads do, etc. this is, IMO, a legit criticism.
I disagree on this point - sometimes I think you take him too literally, and in other cases he will simultaneously admit he was wrong (eventually) while also still tossing out barbs and playing up the 6-24 thing because he's a fan and he hates the Lakers. Who doesn't know someone like that? Simmons, IMO, can have it both ways up to a point - he doesn't pretend not to be a fan at any point in time, part of what makes him interesting as a writer - so long as I don't think he takes himself too seriously. Maybe he crosses that line from time to time; it's not surprising it would be the Kobe and the Lakers to bring it out in him, as they are his favorite team in all of sports biggest rival - but overall I think he straddles it well.
I am generally turned off by people (particularly media big shots) mixing up their judgments of jocks' foibles/flaws/character with evaluations of actual performance, and the petty part of me likes it when such judgments are shoved back up their asses by the results. This is probably going to happen again to some people (including a hell of a lot of Lakers fans) with LeSatan of South Beach over the next 12 months.
That said, I totally agree with this. It is pretty silly sometimes when this sort of thing is ascribed, often either post hoc or without really any direct knowledge of the situation at hand. One of my very least favorite tactics of sports columnists.
See, for me it's Eric Piatkowski.
And for the Warriors, Adonal Foyle, of course. Also Danny Fortson.
Putting everyone else on the roster aside, Perkins -- who Shaq is more or less (for now, anyway) replacing -- does as little acting as anyone in the NBA. He complains like a ############, but that's not acting. He does not flop. Period. Not that many guys in the NBA you can say that about.
oops, that's what i thought i typed, yes. sorry - distracted by a drunk 9 yr old.
Go back and read pp 53-54 of TBoB, where he describes G7 of the 1998 ECF, and explains how this game is the key to understanding the Bulls' legacy and demonstrates the essence of "The Secret." Compare that game to G7 of the 2010 Finals. Then, go check out pp 248-249, where he explains why Kobe's 2008 MVP Award was an "outright travesty." And, no, Kobe was not the MVP that year--which is beside the point. It is the why that matters. These are not things Simmons is joking around about. These are issues that, to him, get at the essence of what basketball is all about at the championship level.
Add in the 2009 stuff about LeBron's greatness as a teammate, how the 2010 Lakers, according to Simmons in his playoff preview, "prove" "The Disease of More exists", the ball-washing of "Ubuntu", the sermonizing about no one gets The Secret--not GMs, not fans--only Simmons, Walton and a few others. Top it off with the proclamations in 2009 about how the Lakers "false cameraderie" would doom them, and then get back to me.
As I said before, some of this is just business: keep Laker fans irritated, throw scraps to the Haters and the Boston fans. Simmons knows how to get readers/listeners. And I liked much of TBoB. BS is smart and writes well.
But Simmons is also selling himself to NBA fans as a guy with a very deep understanding of the game. He may do that in a light way tonally, but I don't think he wrote TBoB just for money or for sh1ts and giggles. He could have made money off a shorter book that required less time and effort. People who run interference for him tend to write off criticism of him as others "taking him too seriously" (or, "too literally"). With some of his stuff, I would go with that. But after TBoB, I think his comments on NBA greats need to be looked at carefully and criticized accordingly, particularly in view of his influence. He has 1.3 million Twitter Followers and IMO the "alpha dog" conversation WRT LeBron James' going to Miami is in part a result of Simmons' ubiquitousness.
And, of course, this is not just about Kobe Bryant. Bryant is the most egregious example. As I said to LASoA in an email, Bryant has a combination of traits that appear to overload Simmons' brain circuitry. But I disagree, for example, with a lot of what he has said about Kevin Garnett. And I actually have done a little research of my own on Russell/Chamberlain. My conclusion, as I said already, is "not enough evidence." Not enough surviving film, not enough stats. I think contemporary observers have the same faults we all do. But I do know that there are some issues with the case as Simmons made it, and I don't think he was kidding around about Russell/Chamberlain, either.
1. Donald Sterling
2. Benoit Benjamin
3. Eric Piatkowski
I think the case as he made it may have been the most overrated/overhyped* case anybody has ever made for anything. Maybe Russell was better than Chamberlain, but Simmons' case that he was only made me think it less likely. That and a few of the MVP assessments** were so bad I'm really struggling to force myself to read the rest of the book -- and that's coming from someone who was sufficiently interested in the author/subject to buy the book. It's a shame, because Simmons clearly knows basketball better than he knows any other sport, and because my knowledge of pre-1986(ish) NBA is less than I'd like.
* By Simmons himself, mostly, but also other people I've seen praise it as devastatingly convincing.
** Oh, and the constant repetition of the same jokes. No, that's not quite right: It's the fact that he's constantly congratulating himself for repeating the same jokes. The moral of the story: Apparently I can't stand Simmons in anything greater than 3,000 word chunks.
The chemistry concerns are overblown as Shaq's going to get enough shots to remain happy. Pierce especially has always been a very willing feeder of the post. Sometimes that was a negative when the big guys on the receiving end were Mark Blount, Antoine Walker, Perkins and Battie but in this case, it's a good thing.
1. UNC-3 titles, only one missed NCAA tourney, many excellent and memorable players
2. Duke-4 titles, lots of Final Fours
3. Kansas-2 titles, and a contender almost every year.
4. Kentucky
5. Georgetown-ruled the '80s
6. Arizona-generally excellent teams. Some underachieving in the NCAA's.
7. Syracuse
8. Michigan State-'79 and'00 champs
9. UConn--mostly irrelevant in the '80s, but strong team since then. Only 3 Final Fours, but 2 titles.
10. Indiana-fallen apart lately, but 2 titles, also made Final Four appearances in '93 and '02
I think Duke is the clear #1:
7 nat’l POY (6 UNC)
11 FF (11 UNC)*
13 ACC tourney championships (10 UNC)*
13 ACC regular season championships (14 UNC)*
200 straight weeks in the AP top 25 (1996-2007), second longest streak ever
Back to back championships
The most dominant run of any team since UCLA -- 1986-1994 (7 Final Fours, 5 championship games, 2 championships)
Carolina's only real edge is in elite NBA players, but 1) I'm not sold on that as a meaningful criteria and 2) UNC's post-Jordan advantage isn't nearly as great as people think.
Elsewhere: Georgetown is probably too high? Michigan State maybe too low? I put a premium on sustained excellence when assessing programs, and Georgetown has been up and down.
* I expected all of those to be slightly larger edges for Duke, and I’m pretty sure they would be if we were looking at the last 25 years instead of 31. Still; it’s closer than I thought. UNC has a non-crazy case for #1, though I still think it’s Duke, comfortably.
I think Louisville needs to be there somewhere as well--maybe in the 8-10 range.
Or, another way of looking at it is that it's really amazing Duke & Carolina have maintained their excellence. (Deep, I know.)
I don't remember if he was 6'11", but as a Clippers fan, I thought Keith Closs was going to be awesome. Also I liked Marcus Camby, but he actually was pretty good.
i've long overrated the willowy shot blockers myself...
face of the clips in my mind: piatkowski or vaught. in truth, definitely sterling.
1. Kentucky
2. UCLA
3. North Carolina
4. Indiana
5. Kansas
6. Duke
7. Syracuse
8. Notre Dame
9. Illinois
10. St. John's
11. Temple
12. Louisville
13. Penn
14. Cincinnati
15. Utah
16. Western Kentucky
17. Connecticut
___
I have heard Warkentien talk a couple of times. I liked him based on that. Denver has Dean Oliver working for them; I am not sure if that was Warkentien's doing.
Also, I think Brown is a coward for wanting to be on the Lakers again instead of embracing the competitive challenge of taking a one-year deal with the Knicks.
2. UCLA
3. North Carolina
4. Indiana
5. Kansas
6. Duke
7. Syracuse
You had me
8. Notre Dame
9. Illinois
10. St. John's
11. Temple
12. Louisville
13. Penn
14. Cincinnati
15. Utah
16. Western Kentucky
17. Connecticut
Then you lost me. Notre Dame is 8th all time? They've made one Final Four...ever. Illinois? Louisville in your own list has a better history (not to mention UConn), but then you leave off definite Top 10 programs like Michigan State and Arizona totally. ND isn't even in the top 20, probably not even top 50.
Danny Ferry: Taken ahead of Glenn Rice, Tim Hardaway, Nick Anderson, Shawn Kemp, Mookie Blaylock. Ferry was so disinterested in playing for the Clippers he fled the country in order to avoid doing so. So the Clips trade him for Ron Harper, who promptly blows out his knee. Danny Ferry: Quintessential Clipper.
I don't know, I think Blake Griffin's coming. Dude injured his knee for the whole season before he even played a game for them. That's pretty Clippers-esque.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main