Jack’s Blog

If anyone ever wanted to see a weird playoff basketball game, the Chicago Bulls and Brooklyn Nets were more than happy to oblige.  During the regular season, there are games in which one team jumps out on another and the team that’s behind comes back to make a game of it, sometimes even win it.  But usually, there’s an underlying reason.  The team that’s ahead might be playing the third game of a back-to-back-to-back and exhaustion finally sets in.  Maybe there’s some other scenario.  Whatever.  Sometimes it happens.

But in the playoffs?  And with a 5′8″ guy who takes over as if the game was invented for short people.  Nate Robinson got into one of those zones where no one could stop him - and, which is not always the case - his teammates recognized it.  Robinson scored 24 points - from the fourth quarter on!  Of course there were three OTs to give him a few more scoring opportunities but he was clearly the X factor.

In terms of physical attributes, while his best one surely isn’t his height, believe it or not, it’s not his quickness either.  Sure, the little fella is definitely quick enough but his true strength is . . . his strength.  Plus he’s low enough to the floor that he’s impossible knock off balance.  Yet none of Nate would have been necessary had C.J. Watson not missed a wide open transition layup/dunk with 3:16 left in the game and his team up 14 points.  Here’s a coaching point for C.J.  Either jump higher or just lay the damn ball in the basket.  You can never be ahead by too much.

Another coaching point for the Nets is, especially in one possession games, it’s mandatory to block out on missed free throws because Nazr Mohammed’s rebound of Carlos Boozer’s free throw pretty much iced the game that should have been yours.

To say that Bulls’ coach Tom Thibodeau is a basketball purist is like saying Euclid understood geometry.  So, Nate Robinson (whose line happened to be 34 points, 4 assists, 2 steals and a huge forced five-second call on a Nets’ side OB play), if Dr. Tibbs gets pissed when you take bad shots - which you are prone to do (and, for the record, did last night on several occasions) - how do you handle him in the huddle?  Nate’s answer last night was classic:

“Just keep shootin’ and hope to make ‘em.”

P.S. The OKC-Houston game could have easily been the subject of this blog.  39-19 OKC at the end of the first quarter.  Thunder up 26 with 8:00 minutes to go in the half, Rockets go ahead with 3:45 to go in the game and are up two under a minute.  Kevin Durant took a three-pointer that hit the back rim, then hit the side of the rim, then hit the back rim again, then fell through.

Fan is short for fanatic.  It’s just that a fanatic gets fanatical about his or her team when the team is down as well as when it’s winning.  And that fanaticism can take on the form of sarcasm, negativity and disgust if losing persists - even if injuries turn a slim chance into a nonexistent one.  In the case of the Los Angeles Lakers, their fans should have their “fan licenses” revoked after the way they acted toward their team - or what was left of it - the past few games.

If any Lakers fan is asked to name the greatest player in the NBA, every last one of them will (still) yell, “Kobe!“  So, when your team loses its best player - who happens to be the best player in the NBA (according to you) - wouldn’t you think it would be normal (even for fanatics) - to tone down their expectations?  At least a little?  One of them was heard (on the air in Fresno) answering that question by exclaiming, “Maybe, but this is the Lakers.“  Meaning what?  That there’s a proclamation issued that your team is bequeathed wins?

First of all, before they lost Bryant, the Lakers were a seven seed matched up against the two seed.  The two seed that just happened to be the San Antonio Spurs, a team that’s used to post season pressure, having won its share of championships in the past, and a team that has a coach in Gregg Popovich who many think is the best in the business.  In addition to having the great Kobe MIA for the remainder of the year, Los Angeles had Steve Nash as its point guard.  He would have been the perfect lead guard had he not gotten hurt.  Some fans felt that it was a mistake to obtain Nash because it was inevitable he was going to get hurt - with his age and history of injuries.  Nevertheless, these fans still expected Nash to lead the team to a World Championship.  But, alas, Nash got hurt and wasn’t available last night.

Steve Blake is, ideally, the back up to Nash, so with Nash out, Lakers fans felt he was certainly capable to lead the team.  Then, he pulled his hamstring - and now he’s out indefinitely.  Jodie Meeks, a nice complementary player was next, but he sprained his ankle and is headed for an MRI.  Is there someone out there with a Los Angeles Lakers voodoo doll?  I guarantee if there was such a thing, they’d sell out in a hurry.

Still and all, Laker fans went into Game 3 with hope that, maybe the home crowd could pull them through.  Of course, if that were to happen, it would have to wait until at least midway through the second quarter because that’s when it’s fashionable to show up in LA.  You know, like, with the traffic and all.

When the game began, the Lakers got a few points from their big guys - Pau Gasol and Dwight Howard.  The fans, which include their announcers, actually thought, even though the game is 48 minutes, that they’d have a shot.  “Get it inside!” they yelled, because it is somewhat unrealistic to depend on a second year player and a guy just called up from the D-League to knock down enough shots to win.  And, because that’s what Kobe tweeted.  As if the Spurs didn’t consider it would be a good idea for the Lakers to try to score that way and had not game planned for it.

That’s when the cynicism begins.  All because the fan’s team is losing.  And they don’t want to be a loser.  A number of them are losers in what they do.  The Lakers give them meaning - and they think - respect.  Hey, they don’t need any more help being a loser.  While fanatic has the word “fan” in it, so does infantile.  Winston Churchill said a long time ago:

“A fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

As television programs go, there are many that aren’t as captivating as Inside the NBA.  The show is so entertaining that I know people who don’t watch the NBA game that’s televised that night yet will tune into Ernie & the ex-NBA stars.  The word that’s used when people try to explain why it wins awards is chemistry.

Ernie Johnson is the moderator and, maybe because he understands which guys the viewers want to hear, or maybe because he wants to keep getting paid large dollars, or maybe because it’s what his bosses tell him to do, he relinquishes the stage to Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith and Shaquille O’Neal.  Since everyone has an opinion (and they all stink - the punchline of an old adage) and this is my blog, I’ll let you know mine.  I feel the best the show was was either when it started and it was only a three-man operation, or when they added Greg Anthony.  Maybe I like guards better, but I didn’t think Chris Webber added anything to the show and I think Shaq takes away from it.

For my (cable subscription) money, I don’t see where a fourth person is necessary.  In the beginning (not to compare the show to The Bible, it’s not that good), Ernie provided the knowledge that a television pro needs to know - plus he’d throw in a witticism every so often.  Kenny’s opinion was gleaned from a guard’s point of view, as well as that of a player who not only was a member of, but was a major contributor to the championship team.  Charles gave commentary from a big man’s perspective, and also that of a Hall of Famer.  Plus, he’d say blurt out statements like, “There’s a fight I wouldn’t break up,” when player-enforcers David West and Kenyon Martin started to scuffle.  That combination was enough.  And perfect.  Why the producers or directors or Ted Turner or whoever thought the show needed anyone else is as shocking as why they continue to allow Shaq overdo whatever schtick comes to his mind.

What the fans get to see is how varied opinions, based on their experiences, can be - whether you hear analysis from a guard (Kenny or Greg), “The guards need to establish tempo” or from the big guys (Charles, C Webb or Shaq), “They need to get the ball inside.”  The fans also get - or have to put up with - depending on the reason a viewer is tuning in, the tomfoolery among the combatants.  Often it is hilarious, sometimes with the on-air banter, sometimes with the vignettes the producers put together to tease the guys in the studio.  Charles has been an amazingly good sport as the other guys, including those not on camera, continually poke fun at him for various mistakes he’s made, things he’s said or . . . pretty much anything from his life.  However, his attitude might just be a case of a healthy salary because the Chuckster once said on-air “I can be bought.  If they paid me enough, I’d work for the Klan.”  Make no mistake about that, however.  On that, he was joking.

Kenny is the perfect foil to Charles (or maybe it’s the other way around).  Charles knows the bond the two of them have is such that anytime Kenny’s embarrassing him, it’s only for the sake of good TV.  Kenny does a great job when he’s explaining video, illustrating his point so that someone who’s not that into the hoops can understand the point he’s trying to make.

Shaq seems to have been added more to capture the interest of a different demographic of basketball fan with his references to today’s music, dance and lingo.  The issue with him is he overdoes it.  His stuff becomes old and tired - and he refuses to let up.  He either doesn’t know he’s annoying or doesn’t care.  Or enjoys it!  I mean wasn’t there anybody in the studio telling him “Birdman, Birdman” was getting old?  I’m not sure how many times he said it last night but, then again, I can’t count to infinity.

The show has obvious off-camera, inside jokes among the four of them, but those are almost funny in a teasing sort of way.  The show can have it’s serious moments as well (apart from the obvious basketball talk).  Although Charles can learn from Shaq about overdoing something (enough already with the “Only God’s an expert,”), Chuck has made several poignant statements.  It’s apparent when he’s passionate about a topic, e.g. remarking on not taking being an NBA player as seriously as those of the five other professions he mentioned (teacher, policeman, fireman, doctor, military) - although plumbers, electricians, maintenance workers, auto mechanics and others working in fields outside the five he mentioned might be offended.  His sincerity does show through.  As it did when he remarked:

“The great thing about sports is that it takes you away from reality.”

There are two constants that viewers of NBA playoff games - or is it any game? - can count on.  One of them is players complaining to referees following fouls called on them.  Or fouls not called on guys guarding them.  Dwight Howard, Pau, Russell Westbrook, KD, Melo, Boozer, KG, Blake Griffin, Tim Duncan, Zach Randolph, LeBron, Bosh, and for all intents and purposes, every other player in the league.  Possibly, it’s because they’re embarrassed they missed a shot.  Or maybe they really got fouled and the ref missed the call.  Or it should have been a charge instead of a block - or a block instead of a charge.

Whatever the case, the following scenario is guaranteed.  The offended player gives the referee the stank eye, then mumbles (or louder and clearer) his displeasure.  Something like “It was a clean block”/”Didn’t you see him hit me?”  Occasionally, additional adjectives an adverbs find their way into the conversation.  In some cases, he will soon be donating money to the league.

The second constant is the refs don’t change their minds.  Larry Sanders of the Milwaukee Bucks put it best in the 4/15/13 edition of Sports Illustrated when he discussed his new found philosophy toward officials:

“What’s going on here?  I’m arguing with the ref, but he’s not the enemy.  Sometimes he makes good calls, sometimes he makes bad calls, but he never overturns his calls.  So what am I doing?”

After watching the Bulls totally throttle the Nets, Bill Simmons must have been proclaiming, “Can anybody say, ‘sweep BULLS IN FIVE!’ ”

The Heat is (doesn’t it sound like it oughtta be “are”) clearly the favorite but a team that might give them trouble would be one made up of Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, Kobe Bryant, Amar’e Stoudamire, David Lee, Jordan Hill, Jared Sullinger, Danilo Gallinari, Danny Granger and Boris Diaw.  82 games is a lot of wear and tear on a body, especially one that has to endure the increasingly allowable physical play. That group of injured guys, if healthy, would be a tough one to beat.

At first it simply sounded like another case of superlative playoff commentary when Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith anointed the Warriors’ Steph Curry and Klay Thompson “the best two shooters in the world” - until you start thinking about it.  Even Reggie Miller - who might not have been the greatest shooter in the world, but was certainly in the finals - agreed with the assessment.  After seeing them up close, George Karl wasn’t about to disagree.

Is it really fair to report that the Clippers need to get to the Western Conference finals for Vinny Del Negro to keep his job?  And then continually ask him how he feels about it?  If, in fact, getting to the finals is what’s necessary, why not leave the guy alone so he can put everything he has into achieving that goal?  Naturally, it’s typical NBA tomfoolery that a coach who produced a franchise high 56 victories, won the division and finally gained the respect of the league isn’t the man to take them to the next step.  First of all, the Clippers have never sniffed the next step, so how would they even know what type of coach should lead them there?  Seems like their motto is, “If it ain’t broke, break it.”

Speaking of interfering with a coach’s concentration, is it really necessary for Kobe to tweet during games?  It’s almost like Mike D’Antoni is supposed to be looking at his iPhone while the game is going on.  It’s one thing to want to stay involved but what Kobe does from a hospital bed (or his own) ought to be kept between him and his teammates - just like players say when their privacy is invaded.

Coaches in the NBA make an incredible amount of money, have a cushy life - in terms of having things done for them that the rest of us have to do for ourselves, enjoying perks the average person could only dream about (exorbitant per diem, private jets, luxury hotels), but the way these intelligent, decent people - with families - are treated is truly criminal.  It’s a sexy job, but to have other people who might not know, but think they do determine whether you continue your passion defies all logic.

Many of the owners and front office people have been called cynics and as Oscar Wilde once said:

“A cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

Heading to Monterey for the Cal State Monterey Bay men’s basketball awards banquet.  Will most likely spend a couple days on the coast.  This blog will return on Wednesday.

The Knicks beat the Celtics.  The Celts are going to have a tough go of it.  Don’t even try to say, as some have, Boston is better without Rajon Rondo.  In every game he plays, he’s extremely likely to have a triple-double and unless that productivity can be replaced by a player or players in some other area(s), it’s just too much offense to give up.  And he disrupts the opponent’s offense because of his quickness, anticipation and long arms.

In the Denver-Golden State game, Andre Miller showed old guys can still play - that an incredibly high basketball IQ can make up for what Father Time has taken away.  As the father of a son whose game is highly dependent on basketball intelligence, it’s refreshing to see winning is not all about the “wow factor.”

Bill Simmons showed why he is on the studio show.  He represents “Joe Fan” which he proved during the halftime segment of the Nets-Bulls game.  With the score 60-35 in favor of Brooklyn, Simmons incredibly said “Well, it looks like a sweep?”  Sweep?  He sounds just like a guy sitting at the end of a bar who is pissed off because he has $20 on the Bulls plus the points.  Knowledgeable sports people understand that a 25-point halftime lead in Game One only guarantees you one game in the series.  Maybe.  Sure the Nets might sweep, but it’s a tad premature to give up on Chicago at least winning a game just yet.

Simmons again displayed his less-than-brilliant insight when he claimed at halftime that, while Chauncey Billups was having a great game (10 points), it wasn’t wise for LA to play him because in the next round they’ll need the quickness of Eric Bledsoe.  It was subsequently mentioned by one of his colleagues - and probably 90% of the viewing audience - that playing Billups this series would be fine because Bledsoe could replace him in the next series.  Duh.

As extra added bonus analysis, Simmons oh-so-cleverly brought to the viewers’ attention that, “Kobe Bryant’s twitter feed is going to be a very interesting subplot,” inferring Mike D’Antoni ought to be worried about what his injured star tweets.  As if trying to beat the Spurs, without Kobe and possibly, Steve Nash, isn’t enough to keep him up at night.  Simmons has a huge following because there are so many fans out there like him, i.e. guys who never played and who love to criticize guys who do.  Or idolize them.  His sport has always dealt with a pen and paper.  He’s taken his game to the next level by mastering the computer and social media.

For ESPN’s halftime studio show, he serves as comic relief.  He has had run-ins with the station (according to his Wikipedia page) over censorship matters, among other issues.  Maybe the best advice he could receive is:

“Don’t take yourself so seriously; no one else does.”

On 4/30/08, I posted the following blog.  Five years later, my feelings remain unchanged.  Coaches get fired every year and as salaries soar (due to a minority of coaches who excel at their craft), pressure is ratcheted up even greater.  One fact remains.  Whatever number of teams a league has in it, somebody is going to finish last.  Writers and sportscasters aren’t held to such a standard.  See what you think.     

At the beginning of each season, there are preseason polls, usually the work of sportswriters, sportscasters and other various and sundry pundits.  At the conclusion of the year, many of these prognosticators who put together these polls in the first place are talking about how many of the teams picked to win or finish at the top of their conference/division had disappointing seasons.

Fans, boosters and owners often buy into this concept - and they lose confidence in the coaching staff, increasing pressure (which, believe me, there is plenty already) or patience (and make a change - possibly just at the time the team was poised to have that breakthrough year - see Mike Krzyzewski at Duke after their 11-17 record in the ‘82-’83 season).  Coaches have been chastised on numerous occasions for “bad-mouthing” their team’s chances during the preseason, the critics claiming the coaches don’t want the pressure.  While this is possibly true, the coach also may know something (being much closer to his team than those doing the ranking) that will prevent them from living up to such a lofty selection.  Also, the reason could be that no one wants to have to live “up” to expectations; that they’d rather “surprise” people, have great seasons and, receive (sometimes planned, often not, but always welcome) the praise for an “over-achieving” campaign.  Many times these types of seasons lead to raises, contract extensions and, on occasion, a new gig (see Keno Davis from Drake going to Providence for somewhere in the neighborhood of seven figures and long-term security - whatever that is in the coaching profession - after the Bulldogs went from being picked at the bottom of their conference to becoming media darlings and NCAA Tournament Cinderellas). Note: since then, Davis has lost his job at Providence.  Replace his name and Drake and Providence with Andy Enfield and Florida Gulf Coast and USC.  Obviously, the current system is purely speculative (although fans love them, hence resulting in selling more papers and magazines) and on some occasions, they might be right on target.  Of course, the possibility exists that these pollsters have limited knowledge of “what they speak” (or rate) and put untrue, excessive or unfair expectations on the teams.  And the coach.  Keep in mind that for every Keno Davis, there’s a guy who was picked high and finished low (possibly costing him the loss of his job) - all because a group who may not have done any (or, at most, limited) research into the project or, as is known to happen, may have given it to a gofer to select.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to make everyone’s poll public information and, when a guy makes drastically wrong selections (maybe two or three years in a row), he loses his job (maybe as just a prognosticator - or maybe as a “whatever he actually does for a living”)?  It would make watching the final polls so much more interesting.  Can you imagine a player or coach asking a pollster at the post game press conference, “Well, you picked us last in our league and we’re on top while the team you predicted to ‘win it all’ is struggling in seventh place.  Are you at all worried about your position at the paper/station?”  Wonder how that guy’s wife would react if she heard that on the local or national news and how their kids would feel at school the next day when their classmates would approach them and innocently ask, “My dad said he heard your dad is going to get fired.”  Just another item to check in the “interesting things to think about but will never happen” category.

These prognosticators should take into account the words of Benjamin Disraeli who said:

“How much easier it is to be critical than be correct.”

After an 82 games (not including those always exciting preseason tilts), the NBA moves into the “games that really count” portion of the schedule.  The first round used to be best-of-five but they were changed to best-of-seven for two (really one) reason(s).  The first was that best-of-seven add more games (even though it may only be one game per match up) and more games mean more money.  The other (as in redundant) reason is that, on occasion, the lower seed would win - which usually translated into fewer games - meaning less money.  And, as we’ve all come to know, if there’s one thing owners desperately care about it’s the health and well-being of the players money.

Way back when I was a youngster (as in 50 or so years ago), we knew what season it was by what professional sport was playing its games.  Baseball’s guys were called “the men of summer.”  Football was played when the leaves were turning colors, i.e. fall.  Basketball was indoors because it was in the winter.  Spring was for baseball’s spring training unless you lived in the south (or Texas or Oklahoma), in which case it was reserved for college’s spring football.

All the best bowl games were New Year’s Day and a week or so later the championship game in pro football, which became known as the Super Bowl, was played.  Now, the Super Bowl is in February (which only has 28 days so it could be in jeopardy of losing its showpiece television program).  The World Series has ended in November which means the new baseball fan will wonder if Reggie Jackson is known as Mr. October because he couldn’t deliver in the biggest games.  And while it used to be that basketball’s end meant baseball was about to begin, the NBA Finals may have to be scheduled around the major league all-star game.

Since it’s finally here, let the youngsters make believe they’re hitting the game-winner while we reflect on having done the same in our youth.  Beyond the memories, let’s just sit back and watch the world’s greatest athletes perform acts that would be difficult for viewers a foot shorter or a light year slower.  Basketball has become a combination of ballet and MMA in which there needs to be a strong emphasis of teamwork.  I’m not sure Dr. Naismith would be proud or utterly confused.

While NBA players are usually the most confident bunch in the world (next to boxers), this year (at least so far) there haven’t been too many outlandish quotes.  I saw one attributed to the Grizzlies’ Tony Allen which, undoubtedly, will be repeated thousands of times by countless others:

“We just want to take it one game at a time.”

“No.”

It’s no secret I felt Jerry Tarkanian should have been in the Hall of Fame.  Well, he finally got voted in and I didn’t blog a thing about it.  Since I, and several others, worked on righting what we saw as a wrong (for six years), allow me to share part of the four-page document I passed along to people I knew who had “juice,” people “who knew people” and media outlets (including USA Today).  The season-by-season records were naturally included; what follows is a list of items that separated Jerry from others.

Tangible reasons:

            1 – Overall record: 990-228 (81.3%); Division I: 784-202 (79.5%), 729-201 (78.4%) counting vacated games                                                                             

            2 – 4 Final Fours (’77, ’87, ’90, ’91); National Champions in 1990  

3 – 38-18 (67.9%) in NCAA Tournament games

            4 – Undefeated seasons 1963-64 (JC); 1990-91 (D-I regular season)

            5 – Won four straight Cal JC titles (1963-67)-at two JC’s (Riverside & Pasadena)

            6 – Won at least 20 games at three different D-I schools in his first year at each – (every school was way down when he got there)               

            7 – Won championships at high school, JC & D-I levels

            8 – 29 twenty-win seasons, 2^nd to only Dean Smith who had 30

            9 – Was the first to start five black players (’64 Olympic Trials, before Don Haskins’ Texas Western national champions) – and won it

            10 – 42 NBA draft picks, 12 first-rounders

Intangible reasons:

            1 – The most difficult job a coach has is to get his or her team to play hard.  Whether a coach is a supporter of Tark’s or his severest critic, no one will ever

                  say his teams didn’t play hard. 

            2 - Won playing 1-2-2 zone, full court m-m, half court pressure m-m, amoeba

            3 – His strength was his weakness: loyalty.  His biggest flaw was he didn’t hold  kids accountable because he let people be themselves.  He was the anti-

                  authoritative coach.  It was always about the players; never about him.  

            4 – What started all the controversy was when the Long Beach Press-Telegram requested he write an article and he was critical of what he felt was the

                  hypocrisy within the organization.  Many coaches feel he wrote what others thought but wouldn’t say.

            5 – How many coaches who won NCAA D-I Championships are not in the HOF?     

6 - If breaking NCAA rules disqualifies a coach from admission, there are a whole lot who ought to be asked to vacate.

            7 - He took a team that was on probation, couldn’t go to the post-season and had started 2-2 and threw out his defensive philosophy.  He changed to a 1-2-2 zone (which he 

      last used in 1972) and won 24 straight to finish 26-2; with a team that had no motivation, nothing meaningful to play for.  That’s coaching!

            8 - He always agreed to share his ideas with colleagues.  He was truly a coach’s coach.  

As much as he won, he was always incredibly nervous before games.  His famous quote was:

“A perfect season would be all practices, no games.”