Jack’s Blog

Finally out of that intense Las Vegas heat and back to Fresno - where, just to remind us of the fun we had in Sin City, the thermometer is well over 100.

Younger son, Alex, and the undermanned AAU team of kids from Central Cali (Organized Chaos), represented the Valley well, going undefeated (3-0) in their pool and winning two games in the “Championship” bracket (including a 77-51 trouncing of D-1 Sports of NC, led by Quincy Miller, rated by most as the #2 rising senior prospect in the nation) before dropping a two-point decision to Urban DFW in a contest in which OC led most of the way.

Other than getting a chance for my wife and I to watch our son and agonize over every missed shot and turnover, cheer every basket and assist and “help” the officials (some parents more than others - they know who they are), the trip gave me a chance to catch up with some old coaching friends I haven’t seen in a decade or longer.  NCAA rules preclude coaches from talking to parents of prospects at such an event but, because I have what’s referred to as a “pre-existing relationship” with so many of these guys, I enjoyed speaking, without fear of them getting in trouble, with many of the coaches whose profession I used to call my own.  Heck, I’ve known these guys a whole lot longer than I’ve known my son!

To paint a picture of what last Wed-Mon was like, there were three or four tournaments in Las Vegas involving high school prospects.  The one our kids played in (the adidas Super 64) had 40 pools of 4 teams in each pool.  160 teams!  Following pool play, teams were placed in “championship,” “gold,” “silver” or “bronze” divisions, depending on their record against the other three teams in their respective pool.  Then, single elimination tournaments began.  The other events were similar, although their numbers weren’t quite so high, more like 30-60 teams. 

One day, I received a call from a friend and former colleague who I had actually helped get into the business.  He’s currently an assistant coach at a school in a league that would be referred to as mid-major.  He called while travelling from one of the 20 or so sites.  The pace is hectic, as coaching staffs try to see (and be seen by) as many of their “top-line” prospects as they can, evaluate those players they’ve heard about or received interest from (but have yet to see play) and, especially in the case of low-to-mid-majors, maybe find an as yet unknown player whom they’d have a shot at successfully recruiting.

This coach remarked to me that he was fully aware his job was to get players, players who, in coaching parlance, “could play,” i.e. make their team better, win more games and get his team into the NCAA tournament - or get fired.  For the most part, that’s the prevailing attitude that exists in Division I now.  Why?

I posted a blog on 11/28/07 entitled The Biggest Problem in College Basketball Today.  My number one answer?  Colleges are paying coaches too much money.  Whether you agree or not, the blog is well worth reading and I suggest you check it out, keeping in mind I wrote it nearly three years ago.  The game - and profession - have progressed but, often, with progress comes problems.  Or in the case of today’s college basketball scene, increased pressure.  While what Gonzaga has done, i.e. seeing them in a Top 10 poll is no longer shocking, is remarkable, the presidents and athletics directors of the other seven teams in the WCC (Gonzaga’s conference) adopt a feeling of “If they can do it, why can’t we?” 

The WCC is a league of eight church-schools, six in California and the University of Portland, in addition to the Zags, so resources would seem to have been relatively equal throughout the league when Gonzaga began its ascent.  Don’t think the prez’s and AD’s don’t have egos.  When their counterparts from Gonzaga walk into WCC meetings, the “have-nots” begin to wonder, “Why not us?”  Changing the coach often becomes the answer.  So, while my friend’s statement about “get players or else” might have seemed a little dramatic, it’s become reality.

Yet, coaches love their profession.  Some for different reasons than others, but working long hours - and many days on the road - is just part of the job.  Consumed is the word that’s used when the coaching profession is discussed.  As a sort of personal experiment, I asked my friend if he knew who Shirley Sherrod was.  Although hers was the lead story in nearly every paper in the nation, he told me he didn’t.  In fact, when he called, he was in the car with an assistant coach from a high-major program (BCS) and he asked him if he knew about Shirley Sherrod.  Same response. 

I am not including this story to disparage nor criticize my friend and his associate.  It’s mentioned because, when I was an assistant (between 1972-2002), I wouldn’t have known about a front-page story like Shirley Sherrod either.  I don’t mean to infer that every coach on the Division I level is ignorant of the Shirley Sherrod story.  It’s just that, because of the consuming aspect of the job, there’s a feeling that nothing else matters other than what you ought to be doing to make your team better and advance your career (or keep from derailing it).  In addition, you get the (absurd) feeling that while you’re reading about that A-1 story, you could be calling a prospect or seeing another game.

My late, brilliant mentor, John Savage, used to say there were some people at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Most coaches were the latter in his statement:

“Some people are a mile wide and an inch deep, while others are an inch wide and a mile deep.”Â

As anyone who reads this blog knows by now that the winner of this year’s British Open is Louis Oosthuizen of South Africa.  He won it the way most every golfer wins their first (major) tourney.  He combined the most important quality of all, talent, with consistent play, determination, wise decision-making, an ability to keep his nerves under control and focus to lead nearly wire-to-wire. 

When I heard him asked the question in an interview following Friday’s round, “Who was your role model?” I turned to the person next to me and confidently said, “Gary Player,” just as Louis gave his answer.  “Ernie Els.”  Am I that old? 

A white guy and a black caddie from South Africa - on Nelson Mandela’s 92nd birthday (which, if we didn’t know prior to the day’s play, we found out immediately after it was over and Louis wished the leader a happy birthday) - not only take the Claret Jug, but do so by steamrolling the competition, winning by 7 - yeah, seven - strokes.  Were the stars aligned just right or will we hear more from this gracious champion?

Because of the manner in which he conducted himself over the past four days, I know I’m hoping for the latter, and there is no doubt that hundreds of other fans share that feeling.  So what’s the key for a guy who missed the cut in 7 of his previous 8 majors?  Take the advice of Anthony Robbins:

“In essence, if we want to direct our lives, we must take control of our consistent actions.  It’s not what we do once in a while that shapes our lives, but what we do consistently.” 

 Â

After the Los Angeles Lakers beat the Boston Celtics last Thursday night, the comment most often heard was that, if it hadn’t been the seventh game of the NBA Finals, people would have turned off their sets.  The play was, except for the last few minutes, hideous.

Yesterday’s final round of the U.S. Open surpassed the hoops contest - by a long shot.  As in a 350+ yard drive, duck-hooked into the fescue.  Basketball can always explain away poor offensive execution by claiming how great the defense is - and in Game 7, that was, in large measure, the truth.  Losing basketball players (and coaches) have another luxury golfers don’t - they can always blame the referees.  Technically, other than the weather (and in Pebble Beach’s case, the ridiculous manner in which the course was laid out), there is no outside defense (or other excuses) in golf.  Even jiggling of change by the playing partner is considered a breach of etiquette.

Since golf is an individual sport, and when it gets down to crunch time, e.g. Sunday of a major, the most vital tool for a golfer is mental toughness.  Seeing golfers, even  professionals, crack under such pressure is not an uncommon sight, but seeing everyone in contention fold up is unfathomable.  Yesterday’s display was, let’s all hope, one for the ages.

Granted, the course was made absurdly difficult and whoever performed that dastardly deed should be strung up by his Titleist Pro V1s.  I can guarantee it wasn’t anyone connected with NBC.  However, even with horrendous weather conditions and a brutally arranged course, there’s always someone who manages to block out all the negatives and rise to the top (of the leader board).

Naturally, the most likely comparison of pro golfers to professional hoopsters would be Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant (at least that used to be the most apt comparison).  During Kobe’s Game 7 (admittedly) miserable performance, one of his worst, fans kept waiting for him to break out and become the “difference.”  Same with El Tigre yesterday.  Neither ever took place.  What Kobe can do, though, that Tiger can’t is rely on his teammates to pull him through so he still can be all smiles at the post-game press conference.

In golf, you alone are the winner and while you can deflect praise toward your caddy, coach or momma, the trophy has your name engraved on it.  That’s why, should anyone ever ask a golfer that most dreaded question: “What happened?“ the player can use a line from a manager of a team sport, the loquacious Tommy Lasorda, who, following a loss, gave the sporting world one of its more memorable quotes:

“This bleepin’ job is not that bleepin’ easy!”  Â

Those who interview Kobe Bryant find him as tough a cover as those who guard him.  Many come away feeling humiliated, much as the guys trying to defend him feel after the game.  While it’s his job to destroy those checking him, why should he display the same attitude toward those who are simply writing about him?  Because they ask irrelevant and asinine (to him) questions, that’s why!

When one scribe posed to Bryant a question about how the Lakers could possibly come back from such a devastating Game 5 loss to the Celtics, the result of which put them in a 3-2 hole, Kobe said, “What’s the big deal?  We go home, put on our boots and go to work.”  It was reported that Kobe’s response upset the media member who asked it because he obviously thought it was a highly insightful question.  While it may seem like a perfectly normal question to ask, the guy should have considered to whom he was directing it.  Plus, he probably felt as though Kobe was “showing him up,” the same phrase that referees use when they T guys up (see 5/27/10 blog).

Plain and simple, Kobe Bryant is different than the rest of us.  Not just his skill, but his approach to competition, his ability to focus, his getting his body in peak physical condition (do you call your workouts, “blackouts” like Kobe calls his and is someone begging you to leave the gym because you’re pushing yourself too hard)?  Basically, his will to win. 

“Kobe, does it mean anymore to beat the Celtics than it does another team?”  He claims, at the time, no.  But after beating the Celtics in Game 7, he admits he was lying to “you guys.”  His guard is down now - because he’s accomplished what he set out to do.  Competition.  Focus.  Will to win.  Yet, his answer to that identical question the same time next year (probably asked by that same media member - those guys have loooooong memories) will be just what it was this year.  It’s how he’s wired.  Does he want to be that way?  It doesn’t matter - he just is.  Just like you and I are wired however we are. 

Think about how you’ll occasionally play a great tennis match on a Sunday at the club, but still lose.  You shake your opponent’s hand, like any good sport would do.  Deep down, you actually feel pretty good about the way you played.  You gave it your all (wrong, you can always give more), but you just came up a little short.  Nothing to be ashamed of.

Kobe Bryant never feels this way.  Neither did Michael Jordan.  Or Larry Bird.  Or Jack Tatum.  Or Pete Rose.  Or John McEnroe.  Or George Allen.  This list goes on and, as it shows, that attitude might not always be healthy.  These guys are not like the rest of us.  Something inside drives them - oftentimes to the point of personal destruction.  Maybe to the point of ignoring their family.  They can’t change - just like you and me.  All of us can try but, as our current society’s most favorite cliche goes, “we are what we are.” 

1. God  

2. Family

3. Winning

That is the credo many in the sports world preach, mainly because it’s blasphemous, unhealthy or just plain wrong to think of living life in any other order.  Yet, to these people, who, once again, didn’t ask to be put together this way, their life follows only one path:

1. Winning

2. Winning

3. Winning

In many ways, their singlemindedness of purpose is admirable.  For those of us who will compete like hell - until we reach that point where, when we taste defeat, can justify it saying that being too competitive puts us in danger of losing the balance in our lives.  In may ways, that’s the best point of view; in other ways, it’s a cop out. 

Sure, these supreme competitors still manage to carry on with life if they don’t win (although most have a real tough time ever getting over it) , as another member of that list, Vince Lombardi, said (the quote having no meaning without the last word):

“I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious.”

Throughout the years, the Lakers and the Celtics have played in some of the most memorable NBA finals.  Whether the 2010 version goes down in history as memorable, it certainly will be at the top of the list of “hardest to figure out.”

The series started out looking like a possible Lakers’ sweep, not surprising since it matched the #1 seed from the West against the #4 seed from the (weaker) East - even if Boston did eliminate the Cleveland Cavaliers, owners of the best record in the NBA.  In truth, Cleveland had a great deal to do with its own elimination. 

In Game One, the story line was simple: Kobe Bryant was unstoppable and the Lakers were unbeatable.  Much was made of Kobe’s amazing focus (this blogspace included), ignoring Chris Rock’s antics even after the game had pretty much been decided.

Then came Game Two and Kobe struggled to get anything to go down while Ray Allen set an NBA playoffs record by making eight (out of nine) three-pointers.  The Celtics, displaying remarkable resiliency and an incredible talent for dealing with adversity,  bounced back to win the game and take home court advantage.  With the 2-3-2 format, the question became “Would the Celts be celebrating on their home court?” 

Game Three in Boston saw the home team jump out early to a commanding lead (if there can be such an animal in the first quarter of an NBA game), only to go totally flat for the rest of the game.  Hero Ray Allen looked as though he was kidnapped in Southern California and replaced by some fraud bearing a remarkable resemblance.   Going scoreless, the only consolation Allen could take was shooting a combined 8-17 from three over the course of two games.  He went 0-13 overall and the Lakers were back in control.

With pundits and fans wondering how in the world Boston could even make the series interesting, the Celtics did nothing to contradict them, displaying an inability to run any kind of an effective offense.  Actually, they got good shots, but continually missed them.  Down by three at halftime, it was the feeling of anyone who’s ever been involved in a back-to-the-wall situation that the Celtics would turn to their veterans.  These were the guys who got them here and these were the guys who were going to pull them through.

They were pulled through, but it was their bench who did nearly all the heavy lifting - namely Glen “Big Baby” Davis and Nate (act like a big baby) Robinson.  Kobe knocked down 33, but other than Pau Gasol, the Lakers’ point production was non-existent.  Even the referees contributed to this confusion.  Granted, the guys in the striped shirts have an impossible job, especially with the “game within the game,” i.e. complaining on every call - and non-call (see my 5/26/10 blog).  However, technological progress, in the name of instant replay, has made the referees look even worse (although most of the replays show the zebras got it right, but nobody remembers those - right, Jim Joyce)?

Early in the third quarter, one of the officials whistled Kevin Garnett for a three second violation.  The Celtics had rebounded a Laker miss, advanced the ball upcourt and threw a lob pass to the posting KG.  The replay showed the shot clock at 20 seconds when the call was made, meaning it took the Celts only one second to cross midcourt.  Later on (1:17 to go in the game, to be exact) with the Celtics up six, Kobe Bryant rotated perfectly and was planted outside the restricted area when he took a charge on Paul Pierce.  That was the way the instant replay saw it but not the way the referee called it.  So, instead of the Lakers with the ball, down six, the Celts got an “and one,” effectively ending the game.

The way the series has been going, it was inevitable for Boston to win.  After seeing the heroics of Derek Fisher in Game Three and Robinson and Davis last night, no less an authority on NBA playoff basketball than Magic Johnson exclaimed:

“This has been a great and exciting series, but normally, it’s the SUPERSTARS who win the game in the fourth quarter.  In my 30 years in the NBA, I’ve never seen anything like it.  It’s crazy.”

Much has been made of the fact that in the last 20 years, only six coaches have claimed the NBA championship.  So what ingredients go into making a championship basketball coach on the professional level?

Great player?  Doubtful.  There have been many more great players who’ve tried their hand at coaching and haven’t won than those who have.  Of the six latest NBA championship coaches, Rudy Tomjanovich would probably rank as the best player, with Gregg Popovich being at the bottom of the list skill-wise (Doc Rivers, Pat Riley, Phil Jackson and Larry Brown are the others who’ve won titles in the NBA since 1990).

As far as coaching in the college ranks prior to taking on an NBA job, only Pop and Brown had done so, Larry having a great deal more success (winning an NCAA title with Kansas) than Pop (who struggled mightily at Pomona-Pitzer).  If I’m not mistaken, of all the coaches who’ve ever won an NBA championship, only Chuck Daly, Jack Ramsey, Dick Motta, Paul Westhead and Bill Fitch were collegiate head coaches before going on to win an NBA title. 

In fact, there doesn’t seem to be any blueprint for NBA coaching success other than the obvious: having a whole lotta talent.  And even with that, a championship isn’t guaranteed.  Within the past two decades, communication has become of vital importance in leading any type of organization.  The authoritative mentality, e.g. “He treats us all the same - like dogs” used so successfully by Vince Lombardi would meet with resistance (probably to a man) now, unlike in the heyday of the Packers.

The one common denominator each of those championship coaches had was a very focused leader on the floor, one who commanded the respect of his teammates.  Of course they all possessed overwhelming talent, but beyond that, each superstar had his own style of leading, some more vocal than others, but each displaying one common theme - leading by example.  From MJ to Hakeem to David Robinson and Tim Duncan to Kobe and Shaq (granted, it was difficult to follow Shaq’s example - he, among all of these guys, could truly be categorized as unique) to Chauncey Billups and Rip Hamilton to D Wade to KG, they were comfortable in their roles as the go-to guy and were, for the most part, players who set good examples.

So, to make one of the greatest understatements of all-time, it seems like the coach isn’t nearly as valuable as the best player.  As long as that player doesn’t flaunt the obvious.  In all, acceptance of leadership is what’s necessary for a championship club and in the words of Nathaniel Branden:

“Accepting does not necessarily mean ‘liking,’ ‘enjoying,’ or ‘condoning.’  I can accept what is - and be determined to evolve from there.” Â

Naturally, Kobe’s main strength is what every great player needs and has.  Talent.  What separates him from other mortal superstars is focus.

All the so-called big-time players will claim they “live in the moment” and nothing can distract them; that they have the ability to block out everything but the task at hand.  Then what is it that makes Kobe Bryant so different? 

The answer to that question was seen live and in color during last night’s telecast of Game One between Kobe’s Lakers and their bitter rivals, the Boston Celtics.  Late in the game, with Los Angeles well ahead and about to claim victory (barring a monumental collapse by them and a miracle run of three pointers by Boston), the cameras caught Bryant on the sideline well within earshot of a chirping Chris Rock.  The comedian was directing comments to Kobe who showed absolutely no reaction.  Whether Kobe’s non-acknowledgement was due to the fact that he was so into the game (and completely zeroed in on the job at hand) or because he simply chose to ignore Rock, sending the message that, “While you might be the funniest man in the building, this ain’t the time nor the place,” the shot was chilling.  Even Mark Jackson, ESPN’s color commentator who wants a head coaching job so badly, he turns every broadcast into an audition for whatever job’s open, stated that if he were a player in that situation, he would have bantered with Rock.

Imagine what other ultra-talented NBA players (and, yeah, start with LeBron) would have done in a similar situation.  Chris Rock is to comedy what these guys are to the world basketball.  To ignore such an icon would be blasphemy.  Plus, why not enjoy the all-but-certain victory with another rich and famous member - well aware that the cameras are going to capture the moment, since it’s more entertaining than what’s taking place on the floor?

Yet, Kobe seemed oblivious.  So while others “in the discussion” for the NBA’s best player might have let their guard down just a little - or more than just a little - Kobe Bryant seems to subscribe to Martina Navratilova’s theory:

“I just try to concentrate on concentrating.”Â

When the question of who is the better player: Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant, the results are usually easy to predict.  The older generation picks MJ, while today’s younger fans say Kobe.  When each makes their case, the obvious bias always shines through.  “The players now are better than those from Jordan’s era (as if he played in the ’50s).  That’s why I think Kobe is better.”  “Michael has six rings.  Until Kobe has that many, there’s no argument.  It’s MJ.”  Can you guess which speaker is older?

In an attempt to keep everything as equal as possible (which is never going to happen when comparing teams or players from different times - even times as close as these are), let’s look at a number of intangible categories since comparing stats is too mundane.

#1 Each player has a focus all his own.  Game’s on the line, who takes the last shot?  MJ then, Kobe now.

#2 Each has a versatility to his game - power dunker in the earlier years, maintained/s ability to go to the hole; neither can be ignored behind the three-point line and both them have fantastic mid-range games (a trait in its own right that separates them from most of basketball’s other “superstars”).  Both are primarily 2 guards,  each can take over the point if necessary.  Yet each has an unstoppable post up game.

#3 Each demanded/demands to guard the opponent’s best offensive player and was/is a shut-down defender.

#4 Each has shown no hesitation to get in teammates’ faces in order to elevate their games and each made/makes his teammates better.

#5 Each has personal flaws (this just in - as spectacular as they are on the court, they are human).  MJ has a reputation as somewhat of a womanizer and a heavy gambler.  While Kobe doesn’t have the gambling rap of MJ, Michael was never subjected to the public humiliation of Kobe’s “post-Colorado” press conference.

#6 As marketing icons go, MJ might own a higher business acumen (has his own brand), but Kobe’s younger and has the identical global appeal Michael did at that stage of his career.

#7 Each has won multiple championships, Jordan 6 (MJ is 6-0 in title series) to Bryant’s 4 (Kobe’s 4-2), BUT Kobe’s career is not yet complete and, if championships is the end-all barometer, what if Kobe ends up with 7?  Is he automatically the better player?  It’s not that simple.

#8 Each had incredible discipline when it came to personal work ethic.

#9 Interestingly enough, the fact I don’t hear when this debate is raged is that both were coached by Phil Jackson, a remarkable coincidence when comparing two players.  Nowhere else is this the case.  Russell-Chamberlain?  Mays-Mantle?  OJ-Sweetness-Sanders-Smith?  Howe-Orr?

As far as differences, Michael went to college (and was mentored by Dean Smith), whereas Kobe’s education was growing up in a foreign country and is the son of a former NBA player.  MJ was an immediate starter; Kobe began his career coming off the bench.

As a math teacher, I understand that answers and solutions mean the same, so when someone wants to know if there’s an answer (solution) to the “Who’s better” question between Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, I refer them to Marcel Duchamp’s quote:

“There is no solution because there is no problem.”

After 82 games (many of those last week being played by guys who won’t see much action from here on out, so the key guys would be well-rested), the NBA playoffs are finally here.  It sure seems like a long season just to eliminate less than half the teams.

The final week of the NBA schedule was like training camp - it gave most teams a chance to see some of its “prospects” in game action, even though the games meant nothing.   Except for the Bulls and Raptors (and with Chris Bosh’s season-ending injury, it was much better for all concerned the Bulls got the 8th spot) and, maybe, a few others jockeying for a chance to move up a spot, most of the teams were resting for the playoffs (or the lottery). 

Now, the level of play will certainly ratchet up several notches (except for Joakim Noah, Chris “The Birdman” Anderson and Edjuardo Najera who are always ratcheted up) and interest in the NBA will increase in direct proportion.  I know many basketball coaches who won’t watch a pro game until the playoffs.  Ask them why and they’ll say they’re bothered by the less-than-all-out effort during the regular season.  Ask them why they like the playoffs and the answer’s usually, because then, we get to watch the greatest athletes in the world.

When the season began, and even as it progressed, many thought a Lakers-Cavs showdown was inevitable.  Now, there are diverse opinions as to whether either or both may not even be there when the finals roll around (in June, as amazing as that sounds).  Will Shaq’s return raise the level of Cleveland’s game (after all, he is one of the greatest players to ever put on a uni and has four championships on his resume) or will his presence slow them down, clog the lane and mess with what’s been pretty good chemistry to date?  He’s allegedly been working out during Cavs’ games - even on the road, where he burns a game’s worth of calories by riding the bike and working out in the weight room, on the road as well as home.  Supposedly, he’s in the best shape of his career and totally focused on fulfilling his promise of bringing a championship to Cleveland.  Shaq has been known to blow smoke every once in a while, however.

How about LA?  Is Kobe’s finger healed?  Don’t ask him.  We know what that answer will be - even if he comes out to shoot with only four of them on his hand.  What about the addition of Ron Artest?  He’s a lightning rod for controversy, but has also been a lockdown defender - and if his head is right, he’d be an major asset.  Incredible as it sounds for someone of his talent, all he’s expected to be is a role player, albeit a significant role.

Consider the potential road blocks for these two along the way.  Although Boston occasionally looks old, the every other day off format of the playoffs aids veteran teams.  Think all the way back to the Celtics when Bill Russell was at the end of his career and the Knicks a few years later.  Because of KG’s injury last season, the Celts still consider themselves the defending champs, i.e. no one’s beaten them when they’ve been at full strength.  As for their X factor, Rasheed Wallace has a bad rep with officials (and deservedly so), but, throughout the league, he’s known as a great locker room guys and is as crafty as he is talented.   Plus, now is the time Doc Rivers is at his button-pushing best.  The flu bug has hit Boston (mainly Rajon Rondo and Glen “Big, But Don’t Call Me Baby” Davis), but what could cause Boston to be really sick is if Dwayne Wade takes over the games, as he is able - and prone - to do.

There are those who feel Orlando will repeat in the East (and they have the best chance to take down the Cavs) but they have to get through Charlotte first.  Larry Brown is as good as any coach at game-planning and now that he has quelled the rumor that he’s headed to the Clips or the Nets (for at least a week), the Bobcats and Magic series is an intriguing one.

Forget even attempting to handicap the West.  The Mavs had a terrific season, got the number two seed and their reward is they get to play the Spurs.  All the other match-ups in this division are just as compelling.  In a best-of-seven series, it’s usually the better team that wins.  Yet, with all the injuries this year, no one’s sure which is the better team!

The games start today, so as far as analyzing the NBA playoffs any further, it’s time to follow the advice from the Al Pacino-Robert DeNiro movie, Heat, in which the famous exchange ends with the line: 

“Yeah, stop talking, OK, Slick?” Â

Putting Tiger Woods’ other trials and tribulations on the back burner (and I find that’s been easy to do since the non-golf stories now tend to be just a rehashing of the old ones), his golf game is the major focus at the Masters. 

After Friday’s cut, a couple of Englishmen shared the top spot of the leader board.  One, a supremely confident chap, Ian Poulter, who will win it if his game matches his confidence.  The other, Lee Westwood, is an interesting psychological study, in that, although he’s never won a major, is quoted as saying, “I know I’ve got the game and I know I’ve got the temperament.”  Since he’s the man to catch, his being fitted for the green jacket comes down to his mental toughness, i.e. as the weekend shakes out, does his realization of what can positively happen for him outweigh the pressure of what can derail his chances (assuming the golf gods don’t jinx him, because there’s always some luck involved)?

Laying in wait seems to be everybody’s favorite, Phil Mickelson, who used to garner sympathy from the crowd, but since he shed the moniker of  “greatest player never to win a major,” appears to be carefree enough to understand that pressure is off.  His press conferences sound more like a guy expecting to win, rather than hoping he can, should he play well enough, i.e. be able to make those stinkin’ two foot putts.

Still, like golf tournaments of old, the general feeling that pervades the sport is the title goes through Tiger.  If he were to experience any jitters, they would have surfaced during Thursday’s round.  After hearing him after yesterday’s play - “I felt more comfortable hitting the ball” (Friday as opposed to Thursday), “putted the ball better” (28 putts on his second day compared to 31 the first) and, although he didn’t shoot as low a score, had “more control of the ball.”

Tiger mentioned the powers that be at Augusta made the course more difficult for the second day (as verified by not nearly as many golfers breaking par) and he said, with that smile of his, he didn’t anticipate them doing the golfers any favors over the weekend.  And that is where he’s always excelled.  Either be in the lead or close enough to it and, he feels his mental toughness will win out.  If Paul J. Fleyer is correct, then Tiger might have to make room in his closet:

“Good work habits help develop an internal toughness and a self-confident attitude that will sustain you through every adversity and temporary discouragement.”   Â