It's nice to be able to write something positive about a superstar.
I don't know why all of the ones I've been running into are basketball players but maybe football players aren't as visible to me (although come to think of it, I did see one of those, too, but I didn't talk to him so it's not worth mentioning). Anyway, on with the story.
I've never been a huge fan of him, not because of his personality or anything like that, but just because he has been on team(s) I could never root for (not if I wanted to go back home, that is). But I had the absolute pleasure of randomly chit-chatting with this NBA superstar and I must say, he was quite impressive. He seems like an intelligent guy on TV, even in his "holy role," but he's not just smart, he puts his money and time where his mouth is, and encourages his teammates to do the same.
In a 20 minute convo with him and another sports figure, basketball was not on the agenda. Instead, we discussed topics such as why our society is in poor health. By all accounts, he is a rare breed indeed in any sport, but every team could use a guy like him in their locker room.
The sky is definitely the limit when it comes to his post-NBA vocation.
If this isn't easy enough, I'll add that he and his team are in the playoffs.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Quickie: The Smart Guy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Since I'm batting 1.000 on these, I'll venture a guess on this one:
King James or Jesus Shuttlesworth
Hmmmm... Let's see. I know you don't like LeBron. The "Holy" comment refers to the fact you think that he's "too young to demand calls."
You also can't root for him given the 48 he dropped on the Pistons in '07. The Last 29 points that you "didn't see what the big deal was."
And since the Cavs are playing Detroit currently and he is in Detroit perhaps that explains the chance encounter.
He does seem intelligent on interviews too.
Am I right?
Frank White
Interesting analysis, Anon #2.
The difference between LeBron in years past and LeBron this year is that he has more help and he's actually elevating the level of the players around him. Back then, he was the only reason they stayed in the game. That doesn't win championships, and that's why I didn't see the big deal. Every really good player does that. I don't dislike him as much anymore, I think he's starting to "get it."
And no, you're not right. No D connection for me or the player.
Anon #1 - interesting choices. Curious as to your thought behind that.
I will confirm on this one because I think he deserves it - in a good way :-)
I respectfully disagree. The only other example of a player taking a group of no names to the finals is AI back in '01 when he was MVP. When Kobe was in the same boat they didn't make it out the first round. So suggesting that all good players on teams with little help easily advance their teams deep into the playoffs seems a like a unfounded b/c it closer to rare than common.
But I digress. How about Dwight Howard. He definitely has a "holy" image ... perhaps you were in philly?
I don't think I suggested that really good players take no-names deep into the playoffs regularly. You misunderstood what my "that" meant. My point was that really good players consistently keep their teams competitive (i.e., in games or winning them) by scoring the bulk of the team's points.
And, no.
Well there is a difference between doing that in any game and the conference finals.
Kevin Garnett. He was in Chicago and played for team(s).
Let get the easy ones out of the way first...
It's not Dwight Howard: He did go to Greater Atlanta Christian Academy, but it's well documented that he's a farter and a basically a kid himself, i doubt he could give you 20min of impressive conversation about why our society is in poor health.
It's not KG: The rap on him is he's rarely out in public. He's never carried a holy role...just the role of being annoyingly intense (depending on whether you're a fan or not). However, He's older so he could have the perspective on life to give you 20 good ones, but I don't know. He couldn't be in every locker room - ask guys not like Big Baby Davis. What ultimately decides this is "He is not in this playoff" - Doc Rivers
King James: His Bible being the holy role. His homies running his business being money where his mouth is. As someone else mentioned, that'07 just wasn't right, being a reason not to be a fan. (but really, who can't be a ran of lebron). Howeva, who gets 20 minutes of face time with LBJ!, that's gotta be hard to come by. Ultimately LBJ is about PAPER, not the health of society, wasn't him.
But finally - Ray Allen.
Holy Role - Blue Chips Jesus Shuttlesworth. Is he an NBA "super"star? (debatable) He does come off as intelligent, but people don't know much more about him than that- which is good when considering post-NBA vocations. Every locker room could use him. He plays for the C's, played for the Bucks (divisional foe)...He is your answer. He's in chicago. Again, he's older so he's more likely able to wax philosophical about society.
Good one.
Nice work. I also debated the "super"star tag but I think it's warranted if you factor in the game in its current state and don't get caught up in just hype.
I'm all over the place so guessing based on where you think I might be is not a safe bet.
P.S. I'm not taking the bait on the the LeBron tangent because I have different criteria for what makes a "great" player. I'm in the camp who still thinks the Chauncey/AI trade was a great trade if that's any indication . . .
Oh, and it's He Got Game, not Blue Chips, but Jesus Shuttlesworth is indeed the holy role.
(Punching myself in the forehead)
Well, the first anonymous guessed Ray Allen, but you didn't confirm. That's not fair.
The funny thing is that you turn this discussion into a "great" player debate. Regardless of his "greatness", my point is to score 48, 29 of the last 30 points in a pivotal double overtime game over a clear favorite to catapult your team into the finals is not common or routine.
Comments like "every good player does that" are not really true considering the circumstances. It doesn't validate his whole career, but for that one specific game it is a "big deal."
FW
I asked for an explanation and none was forthcoming so those are the breaks on my blog.
Your comments suggested that you were calling him/his performance great . . . a lot of assumptions went into what you said but my point when I first discussed King James was just that I didn't agree with some people's characterization of that game. I wouldn't call his performance "common" or "routine," either. There aren't that many "good" players to begin with so any performances of note already are far and few between but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the significance. We don't agree on the criteria, namely, that one dude scoring all of the points on a weak team and winning by a narrow margin against a team that couldn't buy a basket (yes, the "clear favorite" played like doo doo and had been on a downward spiral since '04 - that game right there is case in point why I agreed with the Chauncey trade) just does not fall in my "spectacular" category, no matter who you are. The way I looked at is someone has to score the points. It's not mundane, but given what he had to work with, he was pretty much all they had. The stage and opponent don't change my reasoning because it's all about matchups (as this Bulls/Celtics series proves, even though KG is MIA).
I should note that if LeBron had blown out the Pistons all by himself, I would be singing a different tune.
OK.
I would venture to say however, that it is more difficult to score "all the points" on a weak team because the defense theoretically could only focus on the one bright spot. Versus if you have kobe and shaq the defense is forced to make a decision, perhaps making it easier on the nonfocal point.
So, was Kobe's 81 not great either?
I agree games have various significance and circumstances but I think some individual performances are extremely noteworthy even if there are some obvious things the opponents could have done differently. I think if you saw the game and it was a team not from your hometown, you could appreciate it in a different light.
I wasn't going to respond to that last comment at first because I think I've answered all of the previous "charges" levied against me about this.
However, I have to take exception to the criticism of my opinion based on perceived hometown bias. To wit, I'm actually as critical if not more so of them because nobody gets a pass on this blog (or in real life, for that matter). When my opinion is based on team loyalties, then I say so (i.e., mentioning that I wasn't a fan of Mr. Shuttlesworth for no other reason than he was on another team), but on here, despite the anonymity, I do seek to maintain the integrity of the opinion's I express.
I just really don't agree on the significance here. Part of the reason I was not a fan of King James was not all due to his own actions but because of the excessive hype he received. That may not be his fault but it doesn't change how I assessed the situation. Unfortunately, I don't find hype to be always based upon what I'd term "legitimate" criteria. What constitutes "legitimate" seems to become more clear as the player's career advances . . . so those players who never win 'ships will always have asterisks next to their names, no matter how hyped they were.
Even though we're talking about a 48 vs. 81 point performance (or perhaps you are saying they're equal due to circumstance...either way), I'll take that challenge because it may explain how I look at these things. In my view, Kobe's 81 can reasonably be seen a few ways: (1)a magnificent offensive outing, (2) a selfish outing on his part, or (3) a ridiculously weak defensive effort on the part of the Toronto Raptors. I think the truth is a combination of all three, and then I'd leave it at that. By the same token, when I was younger and first learned that Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points in a game, my first thought was not just "wow, Wilt's a beast" it was "he must have been a man among children (physically), children who had no clue how - or lacked the ability - to defend against him." There's always more to the story and I just want to know what it is. That's one of the reasons why I like watching the games instead of just watching SportsCenter or looking up the stats.
Your "weak team"/defense theory hasn't held up in practice from what I've seen, and the 81-point performance is just further evidence of that. There are an infinite number of reasons why someone ended up scoring most of the points. If you're on the team with AI and he's scoring 50 on 35 shots and the team only scored 75 points. . . you might look at that a little differently. The funny thing is that while I agree that LeBron had a great individual performance, I didn't say it was "no big deal," I said I didn't think it was the "taking over the game" that it was made out to be. I really think reasonable minds could differ on that, depending on the criteria you use to evaluate and your view on what constitutes "great."
And to clarify, while the Pistons did play like doo doo, I don't think they could have done much differently with what they had when they had it. The reason I agreed with the Chauncey trade is because that game and several others in that series (combined with LeBron's excellent play) revealed that they were closer to the 2009 playoff showing than they were to their 2004 championship form. So that game wasn't an anomaly, it was actually the best they had to offer, even if that offering was weak.
My default mode is "that don't impress me much" when it comes to basketball but I do give credit when I feel it is due. I had an interesting conversation with a sports writer one time about people saying that they are always critical. He said that it's not because they don't want to believe, but because they've believed in the past and then got burned, they turned into cynics. That's kind of how I feel. I ask the questions so I can separate truth from hype.
One of the reasons I think there will never be "the next MJ" (Jordan or Jackson) is because once you've seen MJ, the bar just got a whole lot highter, and we're now seeing everyone who comes after with new eyes.
That said, both the Celtics and LeBron (this year, with the team rising to his level) have eventually won me over with their performances.
I'm not a hater, just a truth seeker . . .
Excuse my "charges." Sitting on my couch your quote was something like "what's the big deal?" I'll admit that's not the same as saying it wasn't a big deal.
My emphasis was moreso on not seeing the game in real time as oppose to the hometown bias. From watching the game, there was a lot the Pistons could have done differently ... even after he scored 20 odd straight they still chose not to even fake the threat of a double team. I think that was more of a flip saunders issue than personnel.
If we compare everything to MJ, most things will pale in comparison. Speaking of expectations, at that point in time, no one expected the Cavs to win the series and the pistons had another eastern finals left in them. In retrospect, we both know the ides of march were approaching, but that wasn't the prevailing belief. Even Joe Dumars who fired coach of the year Rick C in a hearbeat, kept Flip another year.
Additionally, though Lebreezy didn't blow them out, there were multiple occasions in the 4th quarter & OT where the Pistons built significant leads and he brought them back. So perhaps it wasn't Jordan great. Perhaps it wasn't '09 great. But it definitely was "we shouldn't win this game, but I am gonna put the team on my back since they are for the most part bums, plus I was criticized for not taking the last shot in game 1, 2007" great.
It's been fun.
Post a Comment