Jack’s Blog

Maybe it’s because the college basketball season is over.  Or maybe it’s because we’ve been glued to our sets since before Thanksgiving and we’re running on emotional fumes (as far as trying to maintain a focus on hoops), but it seems that the NBA brings out things you seldom hear during what used to be considered basketball season, i.e. winter. 

Here were a couple I heard from the same “fan” yesterday, first following the Spurs win over Dallas and then again, at the half of the Portland-Phoenix game.  The first: “Dirk Nowitzki can’t be considered a truly great player because of his team’s post-season failures” (getting knocked out of the playoffs in the first round three out of the last four years).  To begin with, one has (nearly) nothing to do with the other.  If anyone wants to hear how good Nowitzki is just ask anyone who’s tried to guard him (meaning NBA players, not some guy who claims to have been at a club and “shut him down” - for two possessions).  Next was the statement about Dirk’s former running mate, Steve Nash.  “It’s evident that Nash’s best days are behind him.”  This was because of the uncharacteristic turnovers he had in the first 24 minutes.

Usually when you hear statements like that they’re coming from someone who has lost money because the guy they’re criticizing didn’t play as expected after the call went into the bookie.  To be fair that’s not always true.  Sometimes it’s just a jackass who wants to sound intelligent by being what he considers to be controversial, although foolish would be a more apt description.  Another similar quote I heard was that Grant Hill is just like “all those Duke players” - great in college, but can’t hack it in the pros.  The basis for this (asinine) comment was that Hill is 37 and, just this year, was on a team that made it to the second round of the playoffs.  Like one guy could actually win a playoff series by himself.

Another line I heard that gave me pause, not because it was foolish, but because it could only be heard in basketball was by winning coach Alvin Gentry of the Phoenix Suns.  When he was asked to sum up their win, he said, “Our defense was phenomenal.”  Only in basketball could a team give up 90 points and have its defense be recognized as phenomenal.

Gentry’s line aside, the fans who made the earlier statements, and others who utter additional idiotic observations, would be best served to abide by the line:

“It’s usually better to keep your mouth closed and have people think you’re a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

The NFL didn’t need another controversy but that’s exactly what it got when Miami Dolphins’ General manager Jeff Ireland conducted what was thought to be a personnel interview with wideout Dez Bryant.

Granted, Bryant’s had a checkered past and due diligence needed to be done, especially if the club’s going to shell out major cash.  Possibly because Ireland wanted to find out the root cause of Bryant’s behavioral issues, possibly because he was trying to elicit a reaction from the receiver to a highly personal question, or possibly because he’s simply an insensitive pig, he decided to ask Bryant if his mother was a prostitute.

A little background: Bryant’s mother was 15 when she had him.  His father was in his 40s at the time of his birth.  Bryant’s mother, who had three kids by the time she was 18, was a cocaine, marijuana and PCP user, as well as someone who served a year-and-a-half for distributing crack.  And Bryant himself has never been accused of being a choir boy.

But, hey, if you don’t want to sign the guy, don’t sign him.  No matter what his upbringing or past has been, she’s still his mother - and anyone with an ounce of common sense or an iota of sensitivity would understand that’s an inappropriate question!  Besides, would it have mattered what his answer was?  What, exactly, was Ireland, or the Dolphins’ brass expecting, or better yet, hoping to discover?  Whether he would lash out or if he’d show extreme poise in responding in a calm, yet firm tone.

When Bill Parcells interviewed with the Dolphins, did they ask him, “When you were a young boy, was your mother an obese blimp?”  Same type of probing, reaction-seeking and completely senseless query. 

Provocative or introspective questions aimed to gauge a potential employee’s reaction - as long as they are tasteful - are fair game and serve a purpose.  What Ireland asked (or was directed to ask) was totally out of line and deserves more than just an apology.  “Genius” is a word that’s long been used in football.  As the old saying goes:

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”�

Los Angeles played poorly in Game 3 and worse in Game 4 in Oklahoma City.  So much so people were talking about the Lakers looking so old that the youthful, but mature beyond their years, Thunder, knocking out the defending champs in Round One.  Yet, in the friendly confines of the Staples Center, the Lakers, as Doug Collins said during the game, “imposed their will” on the youthful squad from OKC. 

One fact everybody knows but seldom mentions, is that Kobe Bryant is physically, a real mess.  Playing in the Olympics, acquiring injury upon injury (and not just the nagging kind), yet not taking time off, has reduced his effectiveness to a point well below what we’ve come to expect.  After all, this was a player whose name was in the conversation of “best ever.”

Kobe has been often compared to Michael Jordan and for reasons other than a similar skill set.  Beyond talent, what the two megastars share is 1) an uncommon intelligence - an ability to express themselves in an eloquent and confident manner, 2) an inner strength which allows then to play through injuries that would sideline most other NBA players - although we’ll never know if this is true or to what extent because they keep so much of their adversities to themselves and 3) a sense for the dramatic.

Kobe was asked about his playing hurt during the season and, when he had legitimate reasons to sit out a game or two why he didn’t, his response was that he realized people spent their hard-earned money to see him and he owed it to them to perform.  This reminded me of the famous Joe DiMaggio line.  When asked why he always gave a 100% effort, the Yankee Clipper replied:

“Because there might be somebody out there who’s watching me for the first time.”

Since I have been blogging since April, 2007, I might have posted something similar to this topic in the past.  If so, forgive me, but after this weekend, the subject came up on several occasions so I thought I’d comment on how difficult it is watching your child play after having been a coach for 35 years.

So many thoughts run through your head during the game.  One that doesn’t, because of his coach’s idea that he was going to limit the number of players to 8-9, is the complaint of playing time.  Alex’s team works hard so the guys actually need rest during a game.  The level of play is fairly high, i.e. they enter tournaments with other teams composed of college prospects.  Of course, you want your son to have fun, but there’s a little more to it when you get to this level.  Besides, as long as kids are playing, they’ll usually find a way to have fun.

Wanting your son’s team to win ranks high - one, because it’s natural and two, because as a former coach, you’re still competitive.  The problem here is making comments to referees.  The people who ref aren’t the best in their profession.  They are working for, as my old coach used to say, “blood money.”  In addition, they’re probably men (and, in a few cases, women) who are trying to improve their officiating skills or maybe just people who want to stay involved in the game or give something back to it.  Yelling at referees accomplishes nothing other than making yourself look like a jackass at best and embarrassing your kid at worst - especially if you cause such a scene that you disrupt the game.  I’ve seen parents thrown out of these games - which has to be a mortifying experience for their kids.

Factor in that this level of ball is fairly serious, e.g. play well enough and you could catch the eye of a college coach or a scouting service rep who could write something positive (or negative) about you as a player.  With that in mind, as a former coach, you’re always critiquing your son’s play - not a bad thing at all since one of the purposes of this type of competition is to impress.

This past weekend, Alex’s team (Organized Chaos), made up of players from the California Central Valley, competed extremely well against some of the best teams in the state.  In the opening round, they lost a close contest to the number one seed, Compton Magic, made up of some very highly recruited players.  The loss sent them into the consolation bracket, which they won, beating three teams, all tight ballgames, including the number two team, host Belmont Shores, who was upset in the first round.

At first glance, the contest looked to be a tremendous mismatch.  Belmont Shores was bigger and quicker than our players.  The Central Valley guys hung in there and managed to win 78-75.  Alex led the team in scoring for the weekend, including 21 in the consolation championship game.  Guess what we talked about on the 3 1/2 hour ride home?

There’s a fine line when it comes to being a parent of a young player and trying to “coach” him.  I’m not always sure how to deal with it (or any other aspect of child-rearing) but I read a good quote from a guy named Josh Billings:

“To bring up a child in the way he should go, travel that way yourself once in a while.”�

The AAU season has started.  This weekend I’m off to Long Beach to watch Fresno’s Organized Chaos and younger son, Alex, in a tournament at Cabrillo HS.   Monday night’s post will serve as Tuesday’s blog.  

I’m finding out there have been new readers, due to twitter accounts and good people passing along kind words about my blogging efforts.  For those of you in this category, take the time you’d spend reading a new post and check out one (or two, or more) of the archived blogs.  Find a category of interest, click and enjoy.

As far as this entry is concerned, last night saw two #8 seeds upsetting #1’s.  The Bulls jumped out early on the Cavs and had to hang on, while Oklahoma City got in a big hole right away and had to come back against the Lakers.  Much has been made of the coaching jobs done by the guys leading these young teams.

While the Thunder’s Scotty Brooks received the Red Auerbach Coach of the Year Award prior to last night’s game, the only thing the Bulls’ Vinny Del Negro’s received has been non-support from his superiors - culminating in a confrontation with his VP of Basketball Ops, John Paxson, that turned physical.  Which only proves one thing:             

“Money and power don’t always equate to common sense and good decision-making.”

Larry Brown has made the statement that he doesn’t know whether his Charlotte Bobcats can actually beat the Orlando Magic.  Many in the field of psychology would be appalled if they heard the leader of a group say something that would plant a seed of doubt in his team.  Being the underdog in the series, you’d think the coach would try to bolster the confidence of his club.

Why, then, would Brown make a comment like that?  My guess is that what Larry Brown said is exactly what he believes - and he’s been around long enough and has had so much success that he feels it would be foolish to try to play mind games or use some other psychological ploy.  As Charles Barkley (another who’s been known to speak frankly) pointed out, if Charlotte is to win (a game), the Bobcats need someone to have an other-worldly experience in terms of point production, because the Magic, who had five players in double figures in their game two victory, simply have too much firepower for Charlotte.

In the first two games, Dwight Howard, aka Superman, had subpar production, mainly due to foul trouble, yet the Bobcats never even posed a threat.  In game two, they scored a mere 30 points in the first half.  Their defense, or rather their half-court offensive philosophy of walking the ball up the floor on each possession, limited Orlando to only 41 points themselves.    

Gregg Popovich called his team out after their game one defeat in Dallas.  He said the Spurs played “like dogs.”  Whoa!  Psychology majors are in for a real challenge trying to analyze these two veteran coaches.  None of the players for San Antonio, though, when questioned, took exception with their coach’s comments.  And wouldn’t you know it, the Spurs came out in the second game and played like gangbusters, jumping to a 9-0 start and never looking back, leading by as much as twenty points.

The game did get close, however, when the Mavs cut the lead to five in the fourth quarter but eight straight points by ageless Tim Duncan squashed any hopes the hometown club had on sweeping the opening two games.  Not surprisingly, Duncan made no mention of his desire to prove to Pop he wasn’t a dog in the post-game press conference.

Both Larry Brown and Gregg Popovich have grabbed the brass ring - on more than one occasion - Brown claiming an NCAA national championship (Kansas) and a World Championship (Detroit) and Pop winning multiple titles with the Spurs.  Then why did Pop’s psychology work better than Larry’s?  I’ve done a great many of these blogs in which I’ve stated Jerry Tarkanian’s philosophy of coaching (click on the “Jerry Tarkanian” category and you’ll be sure to find it mentioned on numerous occasions).  “Talent” is always Tark’s reply.   

There’s an old saying that sums up why Charlotte couldn’t do to Orlando in game two what San Antonio did to Dallas (even though each is a #7 seed playing a #2).  Substituting for the chicken products that Charles Barkley - The Round Mound of Rebound - or, as he might now be referred to following Tuesday night’s TNT broadcast, the Prince of Profanity - would use in the old adage, the message is:

“You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

One of the first blogs I ever did (4/28/07) was on the NFL draft.  After hearing the hype about this year’s crop, I went back into the archives (you need to click on Aug, ‘07 to get to any blog pre-Sept, ‘08 due to technical incompetence) and re-read what I wrote.  If you don’t think everything still applies, let me know.  

OK, It’s Not a Science. What Is It? Home Ec?
Forever, we’ve heard that draft day is so difficult for professional teams. No one’s sure which list is longer - first rounders who became busts or low draft picks (or even free agents) who became All-Stars.

Each year, greater technology is used but it never ceases to amaze us how wrong certain picks can be. This has to be due to the human element. Way back when, guys were selected though what decision makers, e.g. owners, general managers, coaches, player personnel directors heard about the players from friends, other coaches, confidants and, who knows, maybe even fans or sportswriters. Now, we have combines (I thought that’s how wheat was harvested, not players) and tests, both psychological and written.

It would seem that watching a player play would be a better indicator than how fast someone runs a 40 (if a guy has a great 40 time, you’ll want to play him in case the other team has someone real fast who breaks away and you need to catch him, except when that happens, it’s too late to sub), how many times he can bench press 220 lbs. (”Boy, he looks awful on video but how can we pass on some so strong?), how high he can jump (jumping doesn’t seem to be in the top 5 talents needed to play football) or how well he scored on a test (remember, many of these guys haven’t taken a test without the help of a tutor in years).

Coaches always say, “The film doesn’t lie,” yet film be damned when it comes to evaluating talent (”Just let me see him at the combine or in an individual workout) - where the are no fans screaming, there’s no “team” scoreboard on and the competition are stop watches, free weights and sticks coming out of a pole.

Call me old-fashioned (because I probably am), but watching a player in person - on film if being there’s not possible - of course, taking into account who the opponent is and calling on people you can trust (relationships made throughout a long career) has to be more reliable. Some guys are magnificent performers “until the lights go on” - and with the money and future (your job!) being invested, you’d want to be as certain as possible.

Naturally, one-on-one interviews are a must, but, again, some people can fool you. Using all the modern methods of information gathering isn’t a waste, but the greater variety of these tools used, the greater number of egos become involved. You may tell me he’s fast, but I want to time him (or have one of my people do it). A psychologist has mounds of empirical data from a test (s)he’s developed, along with accuracy of prediction of success. Having things you can trust (a pair of eyes which have watch thousands of hours of video) and an experienced mind (who’s he compare to from years past?) and the opinions of people you would select to be in a bunker with you if it came to it ought to make you more comfortable than a new breed of “experts.”

When it comes to technology, I agree with Dale Carnegie:

“As technical skills have gotten better, communication skills have gotten worse.”

The Chicago Bulls got blown out in the first half of the first game of their best-of-seven series against the Cleveland Cavaliers.  Give the Bulls credit.  The second half was a different story as they shaved the Cavs’ lead to seven and, while there may not have been many people in Quicken Loans Arena who were really worried their home town guys might actually lose, the Bulls left the court realizing that, if they could put together the perfect game, they might be able to steal game two.

So they went out and did just that.  Chicago had four turnovers and limited the Cavs to a mere four offensive rebounds.  They were even ahead in the second half.  But there were indications that parity hasn’t hit the NBA like it has the collegiate ranks - and his name is LeBron James.

James treats every player in the league like the UConn women do their distaff “competition” - if that’s what it’s called.  Early in the game, Chicago tried using rookie James Johnson against the King and his defensive philosophy was to be physical with LBJ.  After watching that matchup, I thought the Bulls’ strategy might have been to hope law enforcement would see the confrontation and arrest James for child abuse.

It turned out that was only a preview of what Bron-Bron had in store for the visitors.  No matter who played him, he just toyed with them - if you consider hitting fadeaways from three-point territory toying.  Basically, he does what Michael Jordan used to do - except he’s 6′8″, 270 lbs!  He seems determined to make sure that no one will confuse him with anyone else who’s ever played the game by creating a signature move - the “run down block.”  That’s where the offensive player is in front of everyone and about to lay the ball in - or even dunk it - until the long arm of the law decides the ballhandler has had too much fun.

At the beginning of games, he’s content to get his teammates involved.  Should the game get out of hand, then he decides to take over - by driving and passing to a teammate for a wide open shot, continuing to the bucket for a score or (mostly and) a foul or staring down his defender until the shot clock nears zero, then rising up to knock down the shot - independent of who’s guarding him or where he is on the floor. 

Watching LeBron James reminds me of a line I read a long time ago:

“All men are created equal - but some are more equal than others.”

Last night, after searching the Internet for information regarding which collegiate players have declared for the NBA draft, I found the number was 54.  When I checked the night before, the number was 50.  Then I noticed a related story that Arkansas soph point guard Courtney Forston had declared, yet his name was not on the list, so that pushed the number to 55.  Additionally, neither Kyle Singler’s and Patrick Patterson’s names were on the list and most people feel Singler will declare if, for no other reason, than to see how he stacks up to the other potential draft picks and listen to where the NBA people think he’ll be drafted.  In Singler’s case, he has the perfect mentor in Mike Krzyzewski.  This isn’t John Calipari’s first rodeo either, so Patterson has someone with knowledge to lean on, too.  

If an NCAA athlete hires an agent, he immediately forfeits any remaining eligibility.  If he doesn’t, he has until May 8 to withdraw his name to retain his eligibility (unless he’s pulled this trick once before - as in the case of Patterson last year - in which case, once the player declares for the second time, he’s considered a pro).  Players have until midnight on April 25 to file.

One website listed whether the player had, had not or probably would hire an agent.  The number of those who had hired an agent was 19 (probably 20 with Patterson), the “had not’s” numbered 25 (actually 26 since Forston has not) and in the probably category, there were 10.  Considering there are only 60 draft picks (two rounds, 30 NBA teams) - and there will certainly be some seniors and foreign players drafted, it seems as though some guys are being subjected to really bad advice.

First of all, players declaring for the draft fall into different categories.  The guys who don’t hire an agent (especially juniors, since they’re only allowed one mulligan) are, like most feel about Singler, testing the waters.  Similar to football, if a guy shows well at the pro-sponsored workouts, NBA decision-makers tend to discard the previous year(s) of his career and raise the guy’s stock.

Guys who do hire an agent usually come in three varieties - 1) a sure-fire first rounder who wants sound counsel regarding his future; 2) a dreamer with less-than-average intelligence (who’s listening to all the sweet nothings - and usually that’s exactly what they’re worth - that some wannabe is whispering in his ear), and 3) a guy who thought (or was told) “this was my (your - our?) year” and stopped going to class.  In this third case, declaring and hiring an agent shows the public (in his mind) that he’s a pro.  When he, as often happens, goes undrafted, blame will be lain at the feet of someone or many people (but not him).  Mostly, this guy was going to be dismissed from school for academic reasons and declaring for the draft is simply a means of saving face.

There is another guy who fits in the third group and that’s the one who does not hire an agent, yet has no intention of returning to school.  This is a slick way of making it look like you’re exploring all options when, in reality, you’re not returning for one major reason: you can’t.  It, then, comes as no surprise when, in spite of poor showings, this student-athlete decides, after all, to go pro. 

While recruiting has become a slimy business, the time when players finish their careers might be worse.  That’s mainly because now, we’re talking serious money.  The lack of conscience of some of the characters influencing these teenagers (or young men in their early 20’s) is akin to a Larry Stowe, the snake oil salesman who was exposed last night on 60 Minutes.  To prey on innocent - or in some cases, not-so innocent - kids has got to bother anyone with any sense of decency.

I found a perfect quote to wrap up this blog, but I can’t find who said it:

“The key is to get to know people and trust them to be who they are.  Instead, we trust people to be who we want them to be - and when they’re not, we cry.”�

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.”