Jack’s Blog

A few months ago I was having a discussion with a good friend of mine who, like most everybody our age, loves to play golf.  We were marveling about the guys on the PGA Tour.  In addition to shot making talent (with nearly every club in the bag), possessing nerves of steel (especially when there are millions of people watching), being able to get out of terrible trouble (with no worse than a bogey - and usually a par) and the ability to play well in any kind of weather, the overall mental - and physical - toughness golfers must have in their game labels them elite athletes.

Along came another buddy of mine (who’s never played golf and definitely has no plans to pick it up in the near future) asked what we were talking about and when he heard, I thought we might have to call 911 he became so apoplectic.  “What!!?!!  You’re calling golfers athletes?” he screamed.  After the other patrons were assured no physical harm was coming, I asked him who, exactly, he considered athletes.

His reply was similar to the one Justice Potter Stewart gave when he was asked to describe pornography: “I know it when I see it.”  We discussed the topic for hours that day/night and brought up a zillion examples - tennis players, wrestlers, bowlers, ping pong players, archers, swimmers, synchronized swimmers, dart throwers, long distance runners, shot putters (and the other throwers), high, long and triple jumpers, cheerleaders, chess and checker players, spelling bee championships, you name it.  If there was something in which score was kept or people competed, we added it to the argument.  After all was said and done (and, believe me, more was said than done), we called a truce.  I now realize that was four-five hours of my life I can never get back.

I recall reading a quote somewhere by Rhonda Rousey who became the first American to win an Olympic medal in women’s judo since its inception as an Olympic sport in 1992 as well as becoming the first UFC Women’s Bantamweight Champion.  I don’t necessarily agree with her definition but would never tell her that.  She has her definition and, until someone comes up with another, it’s illustrates what she does and her belief in it:

“If you don’t break a sweat doing it, it’s a skill.  If you do break a sweat doing it, it’s a sport.”

The question posed to Bradley Beal was, “If Derrick Rose was your teammate, would you lose respect for him?”

The following is what he said:

“A little bit.  Yeah, I would,” he told the Washington Post. “The type of player he is, and the mentality and competitiveness that he has, I think he would have gave (sic) it a go. I don’t know what was holding him back. I think he’s scared it’s probably going to happen again and he won’t be the same. But you’re never the same after an injury. But you just have to fight through it and do something else to be able to impact the game. I’m not sure what it is he has to do. I really can’t speak for him. …”

“That’s hard, because I’ve never experienced that injury,” Beal said. “And I know what type of injury that is, it’s possible it’s gonna happen again. Knock on wood. But at the same time, you might have to give it a go. If you’re practicing for two months and everybody in practice is saying you’re practicing well, I figure you gotta give it a shot in a game.

“But it’s his decision. I can’t really have a say so in it. If he doesn’t feel he’s mentally confident to be able to go out there and help the team, I guess I can’t really blame him for it.”

On one hand, he would lose respect for Rose but on the other hand, he can’t blame him.  He thinks Rose is probably scared the injury may occur again and, because he knows the kind of injury it is, Beal says he thinks it might.  Also, because Rose might not be the same if he did injure it, he would need to do something else to impact the game - but Beal admits he know what that would be.  In addition, Beal wants Rose to “give it a shot” - but he can’t really blame him for not doing so.As is said about politicians (and lawyers for guilty clients):

“The only way he could have said less is if he had talked longer.”

The guys from TNT’s NBA studio show are an interesting bunch.  I feel they had it perfect a few years ago before adding a fourth member.  Ernie Johnson is a true pro who can keep a show going and, when necessary, throw in a quip or two of his own.  He realizes the stars of the show are the analysts, i.e. the former NBA players, much of their commentary being based on past experiences.

Charles Barkley gives the perspective of the team stud who, although close, could never get his guys an NBA championship.  He has no problem admitting how frustrating it was being on a number of teams, yet never grasping the golden ring.  While Kenny Smith was a starter and integral member of a championship squad, he was by no means the superstar.  Not with Hakeem as his teammate.

It was a perfect trio.  Everybody had enough time to express their opinion and still inject a good deal of humor, some of it inside stuff, some of it from “down home” (Charles), some of it from the street (Kenny).  Ernie was a wonderful foil for the other guys, often serving as the butt of the joke, but having no ego or issue with accepting his role.  When the station added a fourth, no matter who filled the seat, he upset the timing.  What information he added wasn’t as necessary as the time he took away from the show.

During a recent broadcast, one of the guards involved (a good possibility is J.R. Smith) was going through a miserable shooting series - not just a game - and the question was posed regarding how to snap out of it.  Opinions were offered.  One I remembered, and have heard on other occasions, was to get to the free throw line.  Many coaches agree with that idea.  Then Kenny was asked what he thought.  His reply made a great deal of sense as well - certainly for players who cared enough to attempt it.  It was “to play better defense.”  He explained that many times players thought about their shooting woes and thinking was the last thing they needed to do.  “Focusing at the defensive end” kept a player’s mind from being overwhelmed by negative thoughts and making a key defensive play or getting a steal which led to an easy hoop was a better formula.

In the world of TV, as in other areas, it’s often true:

“More is not always better.”

It’s vacation time!  This will be my last blog until Tuesday, May 14.  Look forward to returning with more stories to entertain and inspire.

Whatever anyone says about Jerry Tarkanian, no one refutes he was the master of getting guys to play hard.  The one type of guy who Tark couldn’t stand to have on his team, whom he knew that if he played, sooner or later, they were going to lose.  He called that kind of player a “Cool Guy.”  I haven’t talked to him yet about the Chicago Bulls but I imagine he was totally impressed.  Not because they won in Game 7 but because . . . they don’t have any cool guys.

One coach Tark has always been unbelievably impressed with is Tom Thibodeau.  Tibbs doesn’t like cool guys either.  He took a Chicago Bulls team without Kirk Heinrich, Luol Deng and, of course, Derrick Rose, a former MVP whose services he hasn’t had all year, into Brooklyn’s brand new digs and came out a winner.  He took a franchise which has had incredible success - but had never, NEVER, won a game 7 on the road.  Yet they did it.  Why?

Thibodeau has been telling us all along:

“We have enough.”

So LeBron James is going to be the MVP of the NBA.  A probability nearly as certain is that he will lead the Miami Heat to their second consecutive championship.  A year of debilitating injuries to guys who could influence games’ outcomes, e.g. Rose, Rondo, Westbrook, Nash, Bryant, Griffin, Gallinari and Lee seemed to align the stars perfectly for a Miami repeat.  Not that they weren’t poised for a repeat anyway, but if ever was there a year they could get by without Dwyane Wade at 100%, this one’s it.

Tomorrow’s MVP award will be his fourth, as many as Wilt, one shy of MJ and Bill Russell, two fewer than Kareem.  It will also be his fourth in five years, the string split by Derrick Rose, who, after taking the entire year off in order to be 100% when he returns, could pose a threat to both accomplishments (MVP and NBA champion) in the future.

Michael and Russ accomplished the duel feat a record 4 times, Larry and Kareem twice, and eight others once.  So, assuming the Heat live up to expectations, the championship would be theirs and LBJ would move into the company of Bird and Jabbar.  Certainly elite company but, as anyone who knows LeBron, or has talked to him, or has read about him, or has heard about him, . . . understands is that elite company is not his goal.  Unique is the level to which he aspires.

He turned 28 a little more than four months ago.  He’s in better shape than 98% of the guys he plays against and has enough resources to keep up with any new advances in science and technology, be they in nutrition, strength training, flexibility, cardiovascular or psychological.  How much longer can he play barring serious injury, at a championship/ MVP level?  Eight more years puts him at 36.  That’s a lot of hardware he could haul.

The obvious question then is: Is he the best player of all-time?  Maybe it’s my age or when I was involved with basketball at a level just below the NBA but my answer could lie in an old joke:

“George Washington was first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen.  First president of the United States.  But he married a widow - which just goes to show, that no matter how hard you try, you can’t be first in everything.”

In the April 28, 2008 addition of Sports Illustrated - yeah, five years ago - there was an article about the NFL draft.  Not surprising, since it was the same time of year as the one held a few days ago.  The article was about the 1998 draft, the one with Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf, and with the #5 pick (Curtis Enis, who retired from the league two years later) and the #92 pick (Hines Ward, who became the Super Bowl XL MVP).  A couple of the people quoted in the piece were New Orleans coach Sean Payton and former Green Bay Packers general manager, and current San Diego Chargers consultant, Ron Wolf.

Their discussion was, naturally, about the “science” of drafting football players.  Their comments, however, rang just as true as if they were discussing the NBA draft.  Payton’s comment was, “You get excited about a guy because of his tools and projecting his ability, but so much of this is looking beneath the surface.”  As the NBA playoffs continue, it’s impossible not to look at the “nobodies” who slipped through the draft cracks and the high profile picks which have yet to live up to pre-draft hype.  Everybody knows the Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan gigantic  mistake and Greg Oden before Kevin Durant humongous error.  Another interesting example would be the 2009 draft in which the Minnesota Timberwolves were in the market for a guard (several as it turned out).  They took Ricky Rubio, Spain’s version of “Pistol” Pete Maravich, with the fifth pick.  They also had the sixth pick and, because most thought Rubio would be difficult to sign, they decided to go with an additional point guard.  Their choice was Syracuse’s Jonny Flynn - whose career mostly has been in the NBA, although last season he played for the Melbourne Tigers in Australia.

What Payton meant can clearly be seen in that selection.  Not only did Minnesota select Flynn over the next pick, Stephen Curry, whom the T-Wolves are constantly being reminded went to Golden State but they also passed on #10 Brandon Jennings, #17 Jrue Holiday, #18 Ty Lawson (they actually did draft Lawson but it was only to trade him to Denver for a future first round pick) and #19 Jeff Teague.  It’s more than a stretch to say that guys picked in the first round “slipped through the cracks” but it does show how the draft is such a crap shoot for a team when its name comes to make its draft selection.

Other classics?  How about the Clippers, a year after they wisely (OK, that year, a three-year-old would have) picked Blake Griffin at #1, they felt they needed to get a small forward with the ability to get his own shot.  They chose Al-Farouq Aminu with the eighth pick.  The Jazz took Gordon Hayward next, just before the Pacers who grabbed (and has never let go of) Paul George.  Why would the Clippers pass on Paul George for Al-Farouq Aminu?

For the answer, listen to the eerie crossover similarity between football and basketball, as told by Ron Wolf:

The fascinating thing about pro football is, no matter how long you’re in it, you can’t predict how guys are going to handle the pressure, the limelight, the money.”

There hasn’t been anyone who’s seen the video of former Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice who can believe it.  Including (probably) Mike Rice.  Coaches - even some of the most highly successful ones who have been around for a long, long time - have been quoted that they felt uncomfortable just watching it.  Kobe Bryant claimed he would’ve “smacked the hell out of him” - even if he were only an 18 year old freshman.  Yet, not one of the Rutgers’ players even gave their coach a dirty look.  Keep in mind, however, the video was a “highlight film” (or “lowlight”) of Rice’s bullying antics, i.e. what people saw wasn’t from just one practice.  In fact, it might have been a compilation of weeks of practice video.

Most people have asked “Why did they take it?”  Why did none of them act in the manner Kobe said he would have.  Did the coach brainwash them?  Actually, that might exactly be why they took it.  Here’s my scenario (and keep in mind, it’s nothing more than conjecture, i.e. there is not a shred of evidence to it):

Coach Rice: “Look, guys, we’re the ugly stepchild of this league (the Big East).  Nobody has any respect for us.  Everybody bullies us.  For us to win, we’re going to have to be tough.  Tougher than the guys who want to bully us.

“So I’m going to bully you.  Now, it will just be in practice.  Before and after practice, nothing about our relationship will change.  My door’s still always open, you’re still my guys .  But, at practice I’m going to bully you.  I’m going to shove you, verbally abuse you and throw balls at you.  How are you going to react?  Are you going to cave in to the bully?  Or are you going to ignore him, play harder and beat him?”

Once again, this is complete conjecture.  After seeing the video - and noticing the players never seemed to get upset, never questioned Rice (although in other clips, players are seen pushing back assistant Jimmy Martelli after he shoves them - hey, assistants only get so much leeway) led me to believe that these were playing along.  Like it was a play and they were playing a part in it.  Why else would macho guys - as a good deal of today’s ballers see themselves - allow themselves to be subjected to such bullying.  Especially by somebody who recruited them - who was in their homes, spoke with their parents and their coaches.  You know he never told them to expect any such tomfoolery at practices.

Naturally, even if this were true, Rice could never admit it as it’s as asinine a strategy as telling them to play on their knees in order to get lower in their defensive stances.  Plus, admitting to using the homophobic verbiage as a ploy - in any day and age - but especially this one would force any administrator to fire him on the spot.

All of the above is only my imagination’s explanation of what occurred at Rutgers, so we should all keep in mind that:

“Just because you can justify something in your own mind doesn’t make it right.”

Most people, myself included, read Sports Illustrated for the articles.  At least until the swimsuit edition arrives.  But other than that issue, pictures are secondary (after the first few pages) to the written word.  The last page has become an audition to see which writer comes as close in popularity to the readers as Rick Reilly.  It might be a stretch to compare him to John Wooden but there seems to be no outright favorite yet even though there have been several very good columns.  It seems that there are many Gene Bartows, Gary Cunninghams, Walt Hazzards, Jim Harricks, Steve Lavins and Ben Howlands (most of whom were outstanding coaches) at SI but no one like Coach Wooden.  For my money, there hasn’t even been a Larry Brown yet.

When SI first asked its readers which of a list of sports, other than football, basketball, baseball and possibly a couple others that currently escape my mind (which shows my particular tastes), they had an interest in, e.g. tennis, golf, auto racing, etc. my choices came down to tennis and golf.  It was a tough choice and if I were younger - and still playing tennis - that would have been what I’d have selected.  Since my back issues eliminated playing tennis about a decade ago, I chose golf.  Now I get additional articles on the sport as well as special extra editions.  A good friend of mine is a scratch (or close) golfer so those issues go to him, after I’ve briefly scanned them.

The one on the Masters that just came out intrigued me enough that as I perused it, the article with their panel of (three) experts (and one anonymous pro) caught my eye.  Opinions abound in sports and I’ve found (through experience) it’s always a good idea to hear what others who are deeply involved in a sport or topic think before you start popping off, or even discussing, issues so as not to look foolish.  Although I’ve read some interesting points in the past, little did I think I’d come across as introspective an explanation as Gary Van Sickle’s regarding Rory McElroy’s approach to his profession.  Van Sickle said of the young star:

“He’s not all golf like Tiger was.  Rory is going to take the time to enjoy his life.  He reminds me of Arnold Palmer a little there.  He’ll be streaky great, and he’s got other interests.  He’ll have a better quality of life, and if that means a couple fewer major wins in the long run, that’s all right.”

In addition to expertly defining the differences between the two golfers, the Van Sickle quote speaks volumes to most everybody who has a job.  If you’ve just entered the working world, those are your choices.  How do you approach your profession?  Do you love it so much that it consumes your every waking minute?  In the business world, that type of an employee is called a workaholic.  Those people often find an abundance of material wealth, yet, frequently, there is something missing in their life in another area of it.  In the field of sports, we call them single minded and driven.  Some (most?) people think a person’s life should be balanced.  We all remember the old adage “All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.” 

The times and people (and salaries/purses for sporting events/endorsement deals) have made that quote obsolete.  Now, it’s “get it while you can” and “the window of opportunity is open only so long.”  Maybe not so much in golf where some wise brilliant old golfer had the imagination - or told somebody else - to create a Seniors Tour.  Still, people don’t want to see extraordinary talent not pushed to the ultimate.  Usually parents and agents because 1) nearly all of them weren’t as athletically blessed and 2) they don’t have to do the heavy lifting.

Far too many people have altered the line so that it turned around the original message.  Maybe Rory McElroy has it right but for now it’s become:     

“All work and no play make Jack (or Jill) a champion.”

Since Michael Jordan turned 50 this past Sunday, talk show hosts (and several other media members) felt it was necessary to raise the unanswerable question of “Who’s the best player of all-time?”  Naturally, because they are the two best current players (with Kevin Durant nipping at their heels), the argument shifted to who’s better between Kobe Bryant and LeBron James.

All the comments were made - Kobe has five rings, LeBron is at his prime with many years left to play dominate.  The debate is a necessary one - if you’re ten years old.  Maybe fifteen.  Anytime past that age, if you continue to play the “who’s better/who’s the best game,” you need to at least realize that there are no winners (and plenty of losers.

Kobe is sensational - skill set, mind set, defensive ability, personal drive and (which can be a negative, depending on how strong or fragile your teammates are) ability to demand/produce the best in your teammates.  MJ shared the exact same qualities.  Which is why Kobe has them - because, from the day he entered the league, he has modeled everything he does like Jordan.  Not just his play, which is sensational, but his mannerisms, his dealing with the media, his gait … his being.

LeBron can’t match those two because his skills, body, mental aspect - nothing - is like those two.  He’s 6′8″ and willing to admit to 250, with rumors as high as 280, and negligible body fat.  For that reason, people have tried to compare him to Magic.  LeBron is no Magic either, if for no other reason than Magic was a point guard and LeBron is not.  LeBron is the epitome of what Don Nelson used to call a point guard.  Magic ran the show and, when he shot, it was a set shot.  He could drive, but it usually ended with a pass or a layup, seldom a dunk.  LeBron is the show, shoots (real) jumpers, and when he drives, the result is … louder.  It still obtains the same desired results as Magic - Ws.

Sure, you can get into “rings,” what we used to call championships but what now needs to be defined as something you can wear and show off, as opposed to a something you were part of, that only a selected few can actually claim they “be” (as opposed to “have”).  So when the trump card in the Kobe vs. LeBron debate is five rings to one, the line LeBron used (oh so obviously created by one of his publicists), that if rings are the determining factor, then Bill Russell must be the best because he has 11 and Michael has six.”  Then, others had to be brought in besides Russell, e.g. Wilt Chamberlain, Jud Bueschler, Charles Barkley, Robert Horry, Reggie Miller, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing and a cast of characters from NBA past and present.

I’m on record as saying MJ is the G.O.A.T. but as far as Kobe versus LeBron, it’s too tough a call.  They’re waaaaaay different, each with their own strengths.  Kobe couldn’t have won as many without Shaq but Shaq couldn’t win as many without Kobe (even though they each did without each other).  LeBron couldn’t win without selecting his current teammates but, c’mon, he got to the Finals with the Cavs.  Have you ever checked that roster?  Closely checked it?  Had he won the whole thing with that group, the comparisons would be with Bill Walton and the Trailblazers.  Take LeBron off the Cavs and Walton off the Blazers and pit the remaining players against each other.  That finals would probably be the least watched in television history.  Definitely the most boring, lackluster series ever.

It’s been used before but John Harbaugh’s rule should be considered prior to anyone opening their mouth in the Kobe-LBJ discussion:

“I’ve got this rule.  We make no comparisons.  Somebody is going to be devalued.”

Sorry, readers, but no new blogs until Tuesday.  Watching younger son, Alex, play a couple games in the Bay area.  

Kobe Bryant has such passion for the game of basketball in the way he plays (30,000 points is only one aspect of his greatness), speaks (to his teammates) and acts (he’s absolutely obsessed), it’s transparent that he wants to be known as the greatest of all-time (G.O.A.T.) but that moniker belongs to one Michael Jeffery Jordan.  He’d probably be thrilled to be referred to as the best of all-time but, alas, Pat Riley, the master of copyright (remember “Three-peat”?) has taken B.O.A.T. off the market, donning his superstar, LeBron James with that acronym.

So what’s left for Kobe?  First, getting Steve Nash on the floor has got to be his Christmas wishes #1 through 10.  Short of that, he needs to change his motivational speech to Pao Gasol.  Pau has been a part of a championship team so it’s not like he doesn’t know, or can’t handle, the feeling of winning it all.  Kobe’s verbal assaults, “You’ve got to put on your big boy pants,” being the latest, might have a reverse effect on the apparently ultra-sensitive Gasol.  How to reach Gasol in time to turn the season around is something beyond anyone not close to the Lakers and if anyone were to think otherwise, they would be foolish.  It’s just that Kobe wants desperately to win, Pau’s not getting it done and Kobe blitzing Pau with sharp words hasn’t been a solution.  Suggestion?  Try something else.

Next, downplay Dwight Howard’s poor foul shooting.  BUT, get him to make up for it at the defensive end.  Dwight was right when he said their loss to Orlando wasn’t due to his poor foul shooting.  It was the fact they continued to allow the Magic to score following his misses.

Finally, Kobe and Mike D’Antoni need to stay together during the tough times, e.g. until Nash comes back.  The coach can handle hostile fans and media considering where he’s been (and I’m not talking about Phoenix).

If Kobe can do all that, keep on scoring and doing whatever else it takes to win, someone will come up with an anagram for him.

What might work for Kobe is Goethe’s line:

“Treat people as they are and they’ll remain as they are.  Treat them as they can, and should, be and they’ll become that.”