I don't much care for kevin's views wrt Barry Bonds, steroids, the Yankees, but I do love reading him type about baseball so I would very much love if this thread became an NBA thread.

Steve Nash...I just plain don't like. Kidd is/was better and he never got anywhere near the level of adulation.

Wow, that's not even remotely true. Seriously? Set aside the "better" part, Kidd was universally regarded as the best PG in the league for a long time (some people still say so), even during the stretch when Gary Payton was pretty clearly a better player (more PPG, better A:Turnover, etc.). And Kidd has never been able to shoot at all, though he's never been shy about jacking it up.

EDIT: For the record, I think Kidd is one of the best PGs of all time, but he has never even for a minute been unappreciated, and at times he's been a little overrated.

What's a more intriguing question is how you pick who to root for in the post season, provided your team doesn't make it.

I'm an A's fan and when they're eliminated, I root for the team(s) from the A.L. West. In the World Series, I generally root for the American League. The A's primary rivals during my lifetime, the Twins and White Sox, were moved out of the division and they haven't really been replaced. The Rangers, Mariners, and Angels were expansion teams who were so bad for so long, it's hard to build up any kind of hatred towards them. Once they became competitive on a regular basis, I was glad for them. I think it helped that the Mariners had a knack for employing a lot of interesting, likeable players and the Angels and Rangers always seemed to have former A's on the team that I liked a lot. Also, the Angels earned a special place in my heart with the emotionally crushing blow they dealt to the Giants in the World Series. There are Angels fans who didn't enjoy that one as much as I did.

Wow, that's not even remotely true. Seriously? Set aside the "better" part, Kidd was universally regarded as the best PG in the league for a long time (some people still say so), even during the stretch when Gary Payton was pretty clearly a better player (more PPG, better A:Turnover, etc.). And Kidd has never been able to shoot at all, though he's never been shy about jacking it up.

EDIT: For the record, I think Kidd is one of the best PGs of all time, but he has never even for a minute been unappreciated, and at times he's been a little overrated.

Steve Nash has two MVPs and I feel he should have one and the one he should have, he doesn't have. Jason Kidd has none. This really bothers me. If you're going to bring up Kidd's spotty shooting then you also have to consider that Steve Nash can't guard anyone and isn't much of a rebounder.

For the record, I don't know much about advanced basketball metrics so when I talk about it I'm doing so from the "my days of playing CYO and HS basketball" and my years of watching games perspective.

81 -- Keith Tkachuk is from Massachusetts, so he has a bit more of an excuse to wear a Red Sox hat.

LeBron has no such excuse, especially not at a game in Cleveland.

Steve Nash has two MVPs and I feel he should have one and the one he should have, he doesn't have. Jason Kidd has none. This really bothers me. If you're going to bring up Kidd's spotty shooting then you also have to consider that Steve Nash can't guard anyone and isn't much of a rebounder.

Fair enough- Nash is a terrible defender and probably shouldn't have any MVPs. But keep in mind Kidd was doing his best work when Jordan was still around, Shaq was in shape and tearing up the league, Duncan was in his prime, Malone was still good, KG was in his prime, etc. So he obviously was never the MVP. While Nash probably wasn't either, the only obvious candidate would be Kobe, who was on a less than sucessful team, and maybe Duncan, who had already won at that point. It happens.

When my teams are eliminated I usually cheer for the underdog or whoever doesn't have a championship to their credit. Unless I despise them(Cardinals, Braves, Broncos).

Fair enough- Nash is a terrible defender and probably shouldn't have any MVPs. But keep in mind Kidd was doing his best work when Jordan was still around, Shaq was in shape and tearing up the league, Duncan was in his prime, Malone was still good, KG was in his prime, etc. So he obviously was never the MVP. While Nash probably wasn't either, the only obvious candidate would be Kobe, who was on a less than sucessful team, and maybe Duncan, who had already won at that point. It happens.

I think Kidd should have won over Duncan for his first year in NJ.

I think Kidd should have won over Duncan for his first year in NJ.

Nah, but I can understand you feeling that way, since that was the way Nash won his first (first year on team, turned them into a competitor). Nash didn't deserve it last year either, last year was clearly Dirk's year (playoffs can't enter into that discussion).

The last 5 years or so, almost every year the best player has either been Duncan or Garnett.

Nah, but I can understand you feeling that way, since that was the way Nash won his first (first year on team, turned them into a competitor). Nash didn't deserve it last year either, last year was clearly Dirk's year (playoffs can't enter into that discussion).

I don't think last year was clearly Dirk. I think both Kobe and Nash were, at worst, just as good candidates.

The last 5 years or so, almost every year the best player has either been Duncan or Garnett.

I agree with this for the most part, but I think LeBron's '05-'06 was a thing of beauty.

When my teams are eliminated I usually cheer for the underdog or whoever doesn't have a championship to their credit. Unless I despise them(Cardinals, Braves, Broncos).

I agree with this, but substitute Dodgers, Yankees, Cowboys, Lakers, Jazz, Man U, Chelsea, Duke b-ball, Notre Dame football.

Keith Tkachuk got the same #### from some St. Louisans when he wore a Red Sox cap to World Series games in 2004. Me, I thought it was silly. He's a Red Sox fan. He's gonna root for them. Shut the #### up.

Tkachuk is also from the Boston area. If LeBron came from, say, Newark, New Jersey instead of Akron, Ohio, this would be the same situation as Tkachuk's.

If LeBron came from, say, Newark, New Jersey instead of Akron, Ohio, this would be the same situation as Tkachuk's.

So everyone from Akron, Ohio is obligated to be an Indians fan?

So everyone from Akron, Ohio is obligated to be an Indians fan?

Absent a good reason, yes.

Absent a good reason, yes.

What would constitute a "good reason"?

So everyone from Akron, Ohio is obligated to be an Indians fan?

Not necessarily.

If your family comes from Boston and you inherited Red Sox fandom, that's OK.

If you moved away from there to Atlanta as a child or even as a youth, adopting the Braves would be acceptable.

If you remained mostly uncommitted and went to Johns Hopkins, started going to Camden Yards several times a year and you end up adopting the Orioles, that's fine. (But I feel bad for you right now.)

If you were there before the team existed, you don't necessarily need to adopt it. (Obviously doesn't apply to Ohio, but it might if you're a Florida native.)

If you're in marginal territory, or no team's territory you don't need to pick literally the closest team. But if you don't want to be mocked as a bandwagon jumper, have a decent explanation handy.

If you pick a favorite player as a child, you can stick with that team or wherever he goes, but unless it's someone you know personally, you can't really use this excuse if he didn't start playing until you were in college. (Women usually get more leeway here as a matter of practicality.)

NOTE: The above are illustrative. You could sub "Northwestern, Wrigley, and Cubs" for "Johns Hopkins, Camden Yards, and Orioles" above, for instance.

I think Answer Guy's list in 66 is a good start:

If you or a friend/relative is or was employed by the Yankees in some capacity, you get a pass.
If you're a native New Yorker, you get a pass.
If you're descended from a native New Yorker who was a Yankees fan, you get a grudging pass.
If you live or have lived in New York and prior to that had had no team, you get a more grudging pass.

Since Lebron is a native of Akron, and as far as we know has no family/friend ties to New York, he's worthy of our ridicule. If said family/friend ties surface, I'll consider revising my ridicule.

Honestly, I don't care if you initially start rooting for a team because they're good. The only thing that bothers me is windsocking to whatever team happens to be good at the moment.

James has every right to root for the Yankees, but given his status in Cleveland, wearing a Yankees hat at the game isn't very classy. It's a bit of an f you to the city and the fans.

What's a more intriguing question is how you pick who to root for in the post season, provided your team doesn't make it.

I have an ever-shifting list of loyalties that rules who I root for in any given game or series. Numbers 1 and 2 are always Red Sox and Mariners, in that order, and number 30 is always Yankees. Other than that, it's dependent on a lot of things, which I will attempt to enumerate here:

1. How many Jews they have on the team. Most teams have none, so this is frequently no help.

2. How well-run I feel they are.

3. How much and how often they are praised by media-types, and what they are praised for. I get tired of teams that "know how to play the right way" (ie, the Angels, the White Sox of a couple of years ago), and teams whose methods of success and failure are misdiagnosed by the squawk box.

4. Whether or not they have any players I particularly like or dislike. For instance, the Padres get bonus points for Mike Cameron and Jake Peavy, the Tigers get demerits for Todd Jones.

5. Whether I have been to that area of the country, and my impressions of it. The Diamondbacks get serious demerits for being in the loathesome pit that is Phoenix, and the Giants get bonus points for being in San Francisco. The Braves, however, get nothing, cos I've never been to Georgia.

6. What I think of their manager, tactically and personally. Most teams, this as no effect, as I have no impressions of, say, the merits of Ned Yost, or Willy Randolph. The Cubs used to get seriously marked down because Dusty Baker pisses me off dating to his days managing the Giants while I was living the BA; now they get marked up because Lou Piniella, while perhaps not the greatest manager on Earth, is almost certainly the most fun.

7. Whether or not I like their uniforms. I have serious difficulty rooting for the Marlins.

8. How I feel about their fanbase in general, and whether I've had any recent encounters in particular that made an impression on me one way or another. Twins fans are, in my experience, friendly and enthusiastic, if not neccessarily the most knowledgeable, always. White Sox fans get on my nerves because of the perennial chip so many of them seem to have on their shoulder.


Anyway, the way this shakes out this postseason is that the Red Sox and Indians are 1-2 in my rooting interest, I'm rooting for the Diamondbacks over the Rockies but I was rooting for the Cubs over the Diamondbacks. If the WS had come down to New York-Philadelphia, I might not have even bothered to watch.

Hat, shmat. But the fact that LeBron wasn't wearing a little metal flag on his lapel is unconscionable.

What's a more intriguing question is how you pick who to root for in the post season, provided your team doesn't make it.

That is an interesting question. I'm rooting for the Indians, but I'm not quite sure why. I guess it's because they haven't won for so long, so seeing them win the WS would be a nice story (I rooted for the RS in 2004 for the same reason). And they're a fun team to watch.

I'm happy the RS beat the Angels (not sure why I don't like them), but I'm not a RS fan and the good story excuse is gone obviously. I don't particularly like either of the NL teams. The DBacks annoy me for some reason. I don't dislike the Rockies, but I don't care about them. I guess I'll root for them over the DBacks.

Keith Tkachuk got the same #### from some St. Louisans when he wore a Red Sox cap to World Series games in 2004. Me, I thought it was silly. He's a Red Sox fan. He's gonna root for them. Shut the #### up.

My team really attracts the d-bag fans. I mean ben Affleck, now Captain Stickwork?

Steve Nash...I just plain don't like. Kidd is/was better and he never got anywhere near the level of adulation.

Jason Kidd has never done a Julio Lugo impression.

"1. How many Jews they have on the team. Most teams have none, so this is frequently no help."

Why don't you like Jews?

53 sounds a lot like the story my dad tells...he came over in 1951.

It seems to me that any reason at all to pick a team is fine, as long as you stick with it. You can hardly begrude a 7 year old for picking a team that is good. The only person I consider a frontrunner is one who is constantly swapping teams.
I grew up in Virginia and started rooting for the A's in 1987, mostly because of Mark McGwire, I believe, but I stuck with 'em through the terrible mid 90's just as fiercely. Otherwise, I root for the Redskins, Capitols, and Virginia Tech...although I also support Northwestern, the Cubs, and the Mets because of places I've lived/went to school.
I only recently started rooting for the Wizards because my friend's brother is the backup center and he once came to a play I was in.

It seems to me that any reason at all to pick a team is fine, as long as you stick with it. You can hardly begrude a 7 year old for picking a team that is good. The only person I consider a frontrunner is one who is constantly swapping teams.

Even being a frontrunner is okay, if that's the type of person you want to be. And it's okay to have contempt for such a person too.

I think you're allowed to switch PRIMARY team loyalty in very limited circumstances:

1) Your team left the city or otherwise perpetrated horrible evils upon you. (That little girl is allowed to no longer root for the Mets following the Vince Coleman firecracker incident.)
2) You moved, permanently, to a new city, at a relatively young age.
3) You are switching, at a relatively young age, from the team you picked because you liked their uniform colors, to the team that you are legitimately interested in.

You can root for as many teams as you like with secondary interest without being a frontrunner, so long as you choose one and stick with it.

I don't really disagree with anything in here:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020227

I would add that I don't like the idea of "picking" college teams. College team choice should go as follows:

1. You attended the school
2. If you didn't attend college, or your college is too small to have a serious program....you're allowed to root for the closest (geographically) school.