Jack’s Blog

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.”

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 a year on my self-imposed DL, I’m back and ready to entertain, share my views and stimulate thought with the reader.

Game One of the NBA finals is in the books and reactions are exactly as expected.  The Heat jump out to a 13 point lead in the first half at OKC, only to have the Thunder catch and pass them in a 105-94 victory.  Even the “experts’ ” opinions were quite predictable, e.g. Spoelstra must start Bosh, LeBron must guard Durant, cross matches kill them in transition and then - the beauty of them all from none other than Mr. Know-It-All himself, Jon Barry (the mastery of all things basketball and grating personality must be inherited).  He made the statement that 13 first half points by Shane Battier were “fool’s gold,” that the Thunder have no problem with that.

What’s so preposterous is that, as the game is going on, the shots Battier is making are exactly the ones all the prognosticators are saying -  before the game - that he would have to make if the Thunder force the ball out of the hands of James and Wade.  At the outset of the game, Jeff Van Gundy (arguably the best commentator for people who know basketball) made the statement that when he coached Battier (at Houston), he had complete trust in him because, of everybody on the roster, Battier understood the game plan and what the coaches wanted better than the rest.

In last night’s match up, this was evident in the first half.  Battier was taking shots that were “his shots,” shots in his wheelhouse tht he was confident of making, shots the offense was designed for should the Thunder guard in the manner they did.  Imagine if he hadn’t taken them?  “Battier needs to step up and take those shots.  They’re what the defense is giving him.“  Or one of the most overused terms, Battier simply was “letting the game come to him.”

I have a tough time thinking OKC’s game plan is to let Battier open enough from three to measure shots.  Now, they may have told their guys if it means helping on James and Wade or staying closer to Battier to chose the former.  If so, they may re-think that because I can’t believe they want to give Battier uncontested threes.  Joel Anthony maybe, but not Shane Battier.

Had the Heat gone on to win, I think post game remarks would have sounded like: “I know the Thunder have a history of letting a team jump out on them and than kicking it into gear but, hey, this is the NBA finals so they’d better change whatever their pregame routine is or this could be a short series.”  Or “When will Russell Westbrook realize the Thunder’s offense needs to go through Durant and KD should be taking the most shots?”  Or “Eric Spoelstra’s decision to cross match and putting LeBron on Perkins, freeing James to roam on defense, was nothing short of brilliant” (which was how the move looked in the first half).  Or the one that fits all in this series “The Thunder better work on their transition defense.  The Heat get way too many fast break points.”  First of all, if anybody thinks there’s a way to stop either of these to score in the open floor, short of making that priorities number 1, 2 and 3, I’m sure both coaching staffs would be delighted to hear from you.

Second guessing has been around since games were invented.  “Dr. Naismith, don’t you think something bigger than a peach basket would make the game more fun?”  It gives us something to do for hours days after the competition has ended.

Everyone ought to be able to express whatever opinions they want - although the Internet has taken this to levels that occasionally cross the line.  Just make sure you keep in mind the quote:

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

The last two games of both conference final were mirror images with the Oklahoma City Thunder and the Chicago Bulls each snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  In games 4 & 5 the eventual losers held commanding leads, only to have their offenses desert them and see their opponents score on nearly every possession.

Although the heartbreaking losses were due to team breakdowns, as well as defeats to superior squads (the youth of the Thunder & the Bulls were magnified in late game situations), there are two individuals who have a difficult time escaping a great deal of blame.

This space has criticized OKC’s Russell Westbrook for lack of a point guard mentality (which is tough because he was thrown into the position without the requisite seasoning).  The culprit on the Bulls’ side has to be the $80 million man, Carlos Boozer.  A defensive liability, he played far below par on the offensive end.

Players, coaches, executives (especially those who made the deal) and fans all witnessed live what TNT’s Steve Kerr said during last night’s telecast:

“Everything’s exposed in the playoffs.”

Much is made regarding the maturity of Dallas compared to Oklahoma City’s youth.  This can’t be understated (unless OKC comes back to win - then we’ll all be hearing about “young legs” and how the NBA is a young man’s game).

There is one area in which experience is overwhelmingly in the Mavericks’ favor.  That area is the point guard position. While Russell Westbrook is a marvelous talent - and can physically do things Jason Kidd never could - at the end of the game last night, first during the Mavs’ comeback, then in the overtime, one guy gave the other a clinic in how to control a basketball game.

Certainly it didn’t hurt to have the German scoring machine that is Dirk Nowitzki but recognizing when and where to get him the ball is something Kidd inherently understands.  Although we may never know, I’d bet Jason Kidd would never have let a lead like the one the Thunder had evaporate so rapidly, independent if one of his major offensive weapons had fouled out (like James Harden did for OKC).

Mark Jackson, on record as one of Westbrook’s biggest fans, made a poignant comment during that stretch.  Jackson, the NBA’s all-time assist leader, said that Westbrook is a terrific talent and will be sensational . . . once he understands how to be a point guard.  This isn’t something he should be blamed for as he never had a chance to hone point guard skills.  He never really played the position but was thrown together with some incredible young talent - who had the admirable skill of playing hard - and, more or less by default, was anointed point guard.  Tough position but Russell needs to understand:

“To whom much is given, much is expected.”

Much has been made of Thunder head coach Scott Brooks benching his starting point guard Russell Westbrook during the entire fourth quarter last night in favor of Eric Maynor.  After all, Westbrook is a second team all-NBA guard.

The Thunder’s bench was playing at a high level during the last stanza but down the stretch, the Mavs were making a comeback and the game was by no means over.  At that point, color commentator Mark Jackson made the comment he thought Brooks should have gone to Westbrook (actually, Jackson thought Westbrook should have been in the game the whole time, but coming from a guy who was a starting point guard in his day, that’s not so unexpected) but Brooks would not relent.

As Dallas cut into OKC’s lead, I wondered if Brooks was going to put Westbrook into the game too.  Was Brooks trying to make a point?  After all, Westbrook did direct comments which certainly seemed less than complimentary after his coach criticized his overhandling which resulted in a turnover.  However, it takes a pair of brass ones to make a statement in the second game of the conference finals, especially when your team is down 0-1.

There has been scuttlebutt in NBA circles that Kevin Durant and Westbrook aren’t particularly close (what many would call a major understatement), especially following the first round playoff game in which Russ, whose teammate KD is the NBA’s leading scorer, put up 32 shots and was roundly criticized.  Westbrook doesn’t take too kindly to criticism (really, how many NBA players do?) and there was even talk, however serious is unknown, that OKC might even trade their point guard - since he currently has so much value for another of lesser skill but a better locker room guy (plus whatever else they could obtain).  Not such crazy talk when, in reality, Westbrook is not really a pure point guard.

Had the Mavs come back and won game two - with the Thunder’s starters (sans Durant) on the bench, heads could have been rolling.  Scott Brooks’ stand last night took a page from Harry Potter:

“It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to your enemies, but a great deal more to stand up to your friends.”