Jack’s Blog

During every NBA finals there are usually a couple camps interested in the outcome: one pulling for the Eastern Conference champion; the other rooting for the winners from the West.  This year produced another group: those who watched the Miami Heat, hoping they lost.  The reasons are numerous.

First and foremost, was The Decision.  LeBron James is simply a product of this generation.  A huge ego, an overblown self-importance, a necessary feeling to publicize and promote himself.  Of course it was a long time ago but I don’t recall anything other than press release when Wilt Chamberlain joined Jerry West and Elgin Baylor with the Lakers.  Maybe it’s because of when I was born but in a 3-on-3 game, my money would be on the Lakers, each team being in their prime.  More recently, Karl Malone and Gary Payton took their respective talents to Hollywood to combine forces with Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal. No pyrotechnic celebration.  And when Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen chose the Celtics as their next home, there were no guarantees of championships by those three guys - just an intense work ethic - which got them a championship (and nearly another).

Another reason stoking the fires of, in today’s vernacular, the “haters,” was the constant “everybody is against” sentiment repeated by the Heat throughout the year.  Unless my memory is even worse than I think, I don’t recall any other of the power groups above constantly feeling so unloved.  Giving them the benefit of the doubt, the information superhighway has magnified any statement anybody ever utters.  Then again, the Internet isn’t something Miami’s Big Three isn’t aware of.

The Heat’s super three did themselves no favors with some of their actions, the latest one being Wade and James joking about Dirk Nowitzki’s illness in Game 4.  Nowitzki called it “childish” and “ignorant,” showing Dirk not only has talent but can evaluate tomfoolery too.

In addition to childish, ESPN’s Michael Wilbon labeled the Heat as frontrunners.  After watching them in the playoffs, he certainly has a point.  The three guys from Miami would be better served living by the code:

“Don’t tell me how good you are, let me find out.”

Of course I’m prejudiced when it comes to feeling which sport is the most exciting to watch.  There’s no other sport that has more non-stop action, abundance of scoring and plethora of great athletes than basketball.  A friend of mine has been saying for years the NBA is the best entertainment because it’s the best of the best basketball players in the world.  While that’s true, then it must stand to reason that this NBA Finals would be the best of the best - teams.

This year’s finals has both great players and groups of guys who understand the team concept better than all the other professional clubs.  The first four games were, at the risk of making one of the greatest understatements of all-time, intensely competitive.  The fifth one exceeded the first, mainly because both offenses were nothing short of sensational.

The Dallas Mavericks are putting to rest any talk of them being a soft, offense-only club with little heart.  Throughout the playoffs, game after game, they’ve battled back from fourth quarter deficits.  Last night was another example.  As far as the Miami Heat. Game 5 disproved any notion that they are a selfish team.  Anyone watching the game, independent of which team they were pulling for, had to see an incredibly well-played game.  Other than LeBron James not making shots - and looking uncharacteristically lacking confidence (in his jump shot) - the game was everything a fan could have hoped for when he or she sat down to check out the action.

The ESPN studio crew of analysts began their post game dissection with unusual praise (Michael Wilbon saying these past five games were the best first five games of an NBA final he can recall seeing) but they soon lapsed into their”comfort zone” of negative comments.  At the beginning of each show, Jon Barry is lauded for his pre-game on the money predictions.  Of course we never hear those pre-game gems until the post-game show.  Do I think the guys are making up JB’s “brilliance?”  Well, to borrow a phrase from, for my money, the most annoying sports anchor on TV, Stuart Scott, “I’m just sayin’.”

Barry more or less ridiculed Heat coach Erik Spoelstra for opening the game by posting up LeBron James.  Following Game 4 Spoelstra was criticized for not getting James more involved.  Trying to post him early was a tactical move like any other coach makes - wise if it works, open to second guessing if it doesn’t.  Wilbon entered the fray by saying LeBron should have been rested more.  His reasoning?  It was necessary to play James when Dwyane Wade was out of the game but when he returned and was effective, Spoelstra needed to put James on the bench for a blow.  Forget that James never looks winded and that the suggestion reeked of “Wade and James can’t be effective together because each needs the ball.”  If ever a move would be fodder the armchair coach, that suggestion would begun more arguments than who was better - Russell or Wilt?

To top off the late night tomfoolery, Magic Johnson chimed in with the statement, “Rick Carlisle is out-coaching Erik Spoelstra.”  Now, Magic Johnson is one of the game’s best players ever, one of its greatest ambassadors and as charismatic an individual as has played professional sports, but as a coach?  On second thought, maybe it was an insightful comment because, after witnessing his brief foray into the field of coaching, he probably knows better than anyone what getting out-coached means.

The main point of this blog is, after such a competitive, well-played game, the best analysis would have been:

“Don’t hate; appreciate.”

After Game 2 all the talking heads were letting audiences know how giving up a fifteen point lead with seven minutes to go would be a crushing psychological blow for the Miami Heat, that they had a chance to go up 2-0 and gave it away.  It’s not surprising to hear it from people like Michael Wilbon or Stuart Scott who represent most fans, but for Magic Johnson, Jon Barry, Tim Legler, Jalen Rose and even Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith (earlier in the playoffs following a semifinal meltdown) to forget how quickly players put losses behind them is shocking.  Sure, games like the one Miami dropped sting - a lot.

But, and the magnitude of that but is quite significant, because they’re in a win-or-go-home series, they have no choice other than strapping it on and getting back to business.  Game video is poured over and positive feelings are reinforced after seeing that the game was yours for the taking (and every team thinks the same way).  After Game 2, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade mentioned they were headed to the video room to see what adjustments needed to be made.  That was hint #1 the Heat wouldn’t suffer emotionally from the previous contest.

Beyond video study, the reason “the game before” emotions matter little is very easy to understand.  How much energy and focus is necessary to simply compete against the greatest athletes in the world leaves no time for self-pity or reflecting on lost opportunities.  If a player is matched against Dirk Nowitzki, his total attention better be on the task at hand.  Ditto for . . . everybody else!  The game is too hard at that level to worry about anything but giving all-out effort.

Heat coach Erik Spoelstra probably said it best at the post game podium last night in his opening comments:

“What’s needed now is amnesia.”

Magic Johnson and Michael Wilbon do a good job on television, whether they’re together or with others, with Wilbon being the better of the two, but not by the same margin Magic was the better of the two at basketball.  However, yesterday’s breakdown of the NBA playoffs, using a giant screen and modern technology (tap the screen twice to enlarge, slide your finger to the right for the team on the right to appear, to the left for the team on the left) was far from riveting for one major reason.

Although what I know about modern technology can be put on the head of a pin (and still have room left over for love Terry Bradshaw has for Ben Roethlisberger), the giant screen wasn’t what made this segment useless.  The absurdity of the entire piece was that both Magic and Wilbon (as each are known) picked every higher seeded team to win.  Not just in the first round, but the second round, the semis and, to cap it off, when the mega screen showed the finals as the #1 in the West Lakers vs. the #1 in the East Cavaliers, they picked the team who led the NBA in wins, Cleveland, once again, the “higher seed.”

Unless the network needed to show off its new purchase, why not just say, in less than a minute, “While we think the playoffs will be good basketball, each of us thinks the higher seeded team will win each series and, ultimately, the Cavs will dethrone the Lakers  - and then use the rest of the time to do one of those short pieces on an individual that shows another side of a guy the fans know only as a basketball player?

I wonder how many other people feel this way - or if anyone else even noticed.  While the two guys were enthusiastic about their selections and even claimed a couple of uncertainties (I’m not too sure about this one; it will be a great series, . . . ), they always went with “the chalk.”  Novelist Edgar Watson Howe made the statement that sums up the Magic/Wilbon piece:

“Half the time men think they’re talking business, they are just wasting time.”

As far as which player is the best the sport of basketball ever produced, there’s no debate.  He’s Michael Jordan, inducted yesterday into its Hall-of-Fame.  There are three reasons why: 1) Offense - simply put, no one could successfully defend him.  2) Defense - he’s in the running for best on and off the ball defender ever AND he not only guarded the opponent’s best player, he demanded the assignment.  3) Because of 1) and 2), his teams won (an NCAA championship at UNC, six of ‘em in the NBA - all with the Bulls - and an Olympic Gold Medal).  End of discussion.

So, as Muhammad Ali dubbed it, the title of G.O.A.T. (Greatest of All Time) in the world of basketball belongs to MJ.  And, beyond that, he’s also the G.O.A.T. when the term “pitchman” is mentioned.  I defy anyone to name another person who has transcended racial, gender, socio-economic, age and geographic lines as he has.  White or black, male or female, rich or poor, young or old, no matter where in the world someone lives, they’re buyin’ what he’s sellin’ - or at least they’re watchin’.  And research has proven that if people watch a commercial long enough, eventually, they buy - even if it’s just out of curiosity.

The guy sounds too good to be true, so let’s knock him down a few pegs.  Even when talking about his alleged vices, he’s at the top.  It’s been reported Michael has a gambling addiction, is a world class womanizer (although not even in contention for NBA players’ G.O.A.T.  in this category - and I’m not just referring to Wilt) and has been a dismal failure as an executive.  Hey, if you’re going to do something, get after it and don’t hold back!

The final two segments of this blog define Michael Jordan.  When asked by Michael Wilbon, in an ESPN interview, “Was there anything you didn’t accomplish” (in your profession) “that you wanted to?” His Airness hesitated, briefly, thought about it and finally gave a one syllable response: “No.”  How great must it be to be able to give that answer to that question and not have the needle budge, even a little, if you were hooked up to a polygraph!

The reason for that is Michael Jordan’s most outstanding trait: his confidence.  In that same Q & A, Wilbon asked MJ if he considered himself the G.O.A.T.  He replied with a group of carefully selected words, with the main thought repeated on three occasions.  Part of that answer was, “I would never say I was the greatest player because I never played against all the people who represented the league prior to Michael Jordan.”  What he left unsaid summarizes the savvy of Jordan, a characteristic of his in which he was/is unsurpassed.

What he did NOT say, but left for us to conclude, is 1) “I was better than anybody I did play against” and 2) “don’t even THINK about bringing into the discussion any of the players who followed me,” i.e. today’s superstars.

It was inevitable that Michael Jordan and Nike would form a partnership (move just one space on a keyboard and N-i-k-e becomes M-i-k-e).  A company as visionary and creative in its advertising as Nike is, needed someone like MJ - and he needed them.  When the two finally joined forces, the company’s marketing branch wasted no time - or words - when describing him to the world.  Eventually, everybody wanted to:

“Be Like Mike.”  Â

A week or two ago, on the ESPN show, PTI, co-host Michael Wilbon emphatically stated that Tiger Woods was a better athlete than Roger Federer.  This occurred shortly after Federer won at Wimbledon, passing Pete Sampras for the most wins in tennis’ four major championships.  Wilbon, never short on opinion, said there was absolutely no argument that Woods was the better athlete.  What would possess Mike Wilbon to say this?

Could prejudice be behind his absurd comparison?  Certainly, but prejudice of what kind?  Racial?  Hardly.  He has more respect for the sport of golf than that of tennis?  Possibly.  He knows Tiger and is more influenced by his enormous endorsement income and international celebrity than Roger’s?  More likely.  To boost the show’s ratings?  Even more probable.  Because he has irrefutable proof?  Impossible.

Debates about who’s the best is one of the American fan’s favorite pasttimes.  Wilt vs. Russell, Mantle vs. Mays, Brady vs. Manning are fun for many to argue.  Kareem vs. Shaq, Butkas vs. Ray Lewis, Pele vs. Beckham may also be, but are more in the foolhardy category because of the time difference between their careers.  But athletes from different sports?  Ridiculous.  Enjoy their dominance.  Envy their superiority.  But to attempt to place one above another?

Examine some facts regarding Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and their respective sports.  One competes against humans, while the other also has a field of human competitors with which to contend, but in reality, is playing against a course.  One competes against opponents one at a time and is favored in every match (with the possible exception of Nadal at the French), yet could lose to an opponent who happens to have a “career day.”  Should one of the other’s competitors have such a remarkable day, it only accounts for 1/4 of the tournament score.

A tennis player can lose a set here and there (actually one or two per match) and still capture the championship, while a golfer doesn’t have to win any of the four days, but can still be the champ if his overall four-day total is better than anyone else’s.  In one of the sports, a player can catch a break if a rival is beaten and hence, is knocked out of the competition. Nothing like that happens in the other sport.  One of the two sports requires tremendous physical conditioning, where the other is much more mentally taxing, mainly because there’s so much more time to think - especially about the bad shots. 

Both can overcome a bad day, although it usually only takes one to crush the hopes of winning the title - the rest of the competition, at that elite level, is that good.  In tennis, Roger can win if his opponent plays poorly.  Tiger doesn’t have that luxury.  But, on the flip side, Federer can do something to cool off a sizzling hot opponent, whereas in golf, Tiger can only watch the leader board (or his playing partner) as the competitor’s score goes deeper and deeper into the red numbers.  Finally, in golf, more than any other sport, one thing for certain, you lose more than you win.

But to say the (arguably) greatest golfer of all-time is better than the (arguably) greatest tennis player of all-time is both foolish and something that will get a totally unknown blogger to stay up way too late posting a response.

The only statement that can be said regarding golf and tennis than can’t be argued is:

“It takes bigger balls to play tennis than it does to play golf.”  Â