Dwight Howard and the Houston Rockets' NBA Championship Hopes - by Sam Smith

The following is a contribution by guest blogger Sam Smith.

Ever since Dwight Howard played out the end of his 1st part of his career with the Orlando Magic, he has been under a microscope. He was traded to the Los Angeles Lakers, and he had a subpar season for the one year he was there. Now, he is starting his 2nd season with the Houston Rockets. People in fantasy basketball love his start, and he is the major reason why this team looks like a legitimate NBA championship contender.

Howard struggled in the last few years mainly due to some nagging injuries. It is still very early in the year, but it looks as though Howard is finally healthy enough to play the minutes he wants to. He is a force on both sides of the floor, and he can make up for a lot of deficiencies the Rockets might have in general.

Other than Howard, this team is not particularly dominant on defense. He shuts down the paint, and that really gives the rest of the team a lot more confidence knowing that they have some security.

In the Western Conference, every contender looks slightly vulnerable. Oklahoma City is really hurting with injuries, San Antonio is a year older and the Los Angeles Clippers are pretty inconsistent. The door might be opening for a team like Houston to put their hat in the ring.

A few years ago, Howard led a pretty mediocre Orlando Magic team to the NBA Finals. This team is better than that Magic team, but they do know that the Western Conference is extremely loaded. With Howard playing like his former Defensive Player of the Year, Houston might just be ready to take the next step. He is certainly solidifying himself as the top center in the NBA once again with his strong start to the season.

Rooting

I'm mostly a Washington sports fan. I root my ass off for the Capitals, I'm lamentably a Redskins fan, and the first sports ticket I ever bought was to a Bullets game. We didn't have a baseball team in the DC area when I was younger, so I took on the Baltimore Orioles, and I was totally stoked for this postseason.

That said, being a fan of my teams has been trying over the years. I became an official baseball fan in 1988, the year the Orioles set the all-time AL record for losing streaks when they opened the season 0-21. The game I went to, they actually won, which I didn't realize was a rarity that season. After the Jeffrey Maier bullcrap in 1997, my O's suffered 14 straight losing seasons. This season has already been a success, but things aren't looking great for a title run.

When the Redskins won the Super Bowl after the 1991 season, I was too young to realize it wasn't the kind of thing that happens all the time. And I don't remember watching any football games in between that Super Bowl and the previous Super Bowl, so obviously I wasn't much into sports. I think I was all about Nintendo at that point in my life (and 90% of all moments in my life since then). Since then, and particularly since Daniel Snyder purchased the team, Washington has been a black hole for football.

As I said, I liked the Bullets a lot when I was younger. I went to a few games, and was stoked when they acquired Chris Webber. I figured the combination of he and Juwan Howard was so successful in college, how could it not bring them deep into the NBA playoffs? Of course, I was wrong, but I've kept tuned in, and I'm hoping to reap the benefits of some solid seasons with John Wall, Bradley Beal, and the lot. I watch almost every NBA draft, even though I don't really know anything about college basketball anymore, just because it's a tightly packed blast of offseason roster updates.

The Capitals were a regular participant in the wide-open NHL playoffs by the time I started paying attention to hockey at all. I remember my friends Mike and Sergio assigning me teams every few days, usually in the form of, "Joe Joe Joe, what happened to your Nordiques last night?" It was enough to encourage me to catch a few games here and there. I watched each game of the Stanley Cup in 1998, which is to say I watched the Caps get pummeled by a team that was insanely, insanely better than them.

I've enjoyed their recent moments of marginal success, but the Caps' limited success seems to have brought every Penguins fan out of the woodwork. I can't wear a Caps shirt or watch a Caps game without some jag off Pens fan making some sideways (or sometimes straight-up-and-down) comment about how the Penguins are so much better. Like I'm unaware of how these teams have performed recently.

Which brings us to the meat of what I actually wanted to talk about in this post. People are fans of teams for a million different reasons. The majority of people just pick their home teams, presumably due to some combination of convenience and inborn patriotism, that desire to be proud of where you're from, and to share that feeling with friends and family. Others choose their favorite teams because of that team's success in their childhood, or a favorite player, or something as simple as an attractive uniform.

Are any of these "wrong" reasons to root for a team? Nope. Are any of these "more right" than others?

Yes.

It is more right to root for your hometown team than another team. Not insofar as you live a better life or you deserve praise, but because you're not abandoning a problem. Enduring the hardships together as a fan base gives you something to talk about with other people from your home town, and a sense of community is a good thing, even if you're a community with an experience mostly riddled with failure.

In my sports-watching adult life, I've endured as much disappointment as a fan of any city's teams, save perhaps Cleveland. While Cleveland has only three professional teams, they manage to pack a lot of despair into those three teams. And if you happen to like the Ohio hockey team (the Columbus Blue Jackets), you're not making up any ground.

Cleveland has sported a poorly run and poorly performing football team in the Browns, and since the mid-90s, the Cleveland Indians have wallowed in and around mediocrity. The Cavaliers have been to the NBA Finals, but The Decision, the departure, and the Heat winning a pair of titles have made that Finals trip ancient history. Cleveland is also noteworthy as the sporting home of "other Joe," my former partner in crime in the radio world. He's a guy who's known my pain for years and years, and while LeBron James' return means he's likely closer to ending his drought, we're mostly in the same boat.

Between Cleveland and Washington, we've got disappointment covered.

So why endure it? Obviously it's easier to pick individual teams with amazing players like the Pittsburgh Penguins or the Green Bay Packers, or a city with gobs of money and history like Boston or Chicago. You've got a better shot at a title, which means you won't have to deal with the shit that everyone else seems to enjoy throwing at people who choose to remain hometown fans. As a Capitals fan, I've not met a single Penguin fan in the DMV who resists the urge to twist the knife. And good luck finding a Cowboys fan in Maryland who doesn't exude glee whenever the Redskins falter.

Which brings us back to the question: why endure such pain? Wouldn't it be easier to just switch over to a better team, or a better city? Wouldn't you feel less disappointment?

Maybe.

But the whole idea of sticking with your team is that one day, it'll be worth it. I've ridden the Bullets/Wizards since I was a little kid. If they're ever able to win the NBA title, I'll celebrate my butt off. If the Caps are ever able to overcome history and raise the Stanley Cup, I can't even begin to imagine the relief and joy I'll feel. We stick with our teams because we have faith and hope that one day, they'll win. And we want to be around for it.

We see all these cities hosting parades and we think, "God, that would be amazing." We watch other teams raise banners and we think, "Someday that'll be us." We see guys like Trent Dilfer and Ben Roethlisberger and Tom Brady talk about their trips to Disney World, and we think, "There's no reason Robert Griffin or Kirk Cousins couldn't take that trip, right?" Some of it is delusion (the 'Skins may never win another game). Some of it is playing the odds (hockey has a great deal of parity in its playoffs; almost any team has a shot). And some of it is wishful thinking (Kevin Durant hasn't said he wouldn't come to the Wiz). And part of it is simple stubbornness. But at this point, no way am I changing sides.

The O's are still just four wins from the World Series!

Washington's Chances at the Hall

Note: I'd like to preface this article by saying if you read this on BleacherReport or one of those other sites, it'd be spread out onto at least 5 different pages. I won't ever make you click for no good goddamn reason.

No, this isn't an investigation into the Hall of Fame chances of Leon Washington (zero) or Ron Washington (non-zero, but still really low). With the summer abuzz with Hall of Fame inductions, it got me thinking; what's it like to have someone you rooted for extensively go into the Hall of Fame?

The only Hall of Famer from one of my favorite teams that I could say that I watched a good deal was Cal Ripken Jr. But even that, I was mostly a kid when I watched Cal play. I didn't have the sports-watching history and dare I say expertise that I have now. And, for those who are more deeply entrenched in Washington sports (over Baltimore sports), Ripken doesn't really apply.

So, if you're a Washington sports fan, the most recent your HOF rewards get are Russ Grimm, Art Monk, and Darrell Green, three players whose heydays were in the 1980s. Adam Oates was elected in 2012, but his best years were in St. Louis and Boston. There's also Deion Sanders and Bruce Smith, but I don't think we can fairly define them as Washington Hall of Famers. Washington sports has been pretty lightweight of late.

So for kicks, I decided to do a little research and come up with some players from each of the four major sports franchises in Washington who would be most likely to be elected to their respective Halls of Fame. I judged the players based on their performance already, a reasonable projection of future performance, and the various criteria that go into each sport's review process. I did not include players who played mostly in the 1980s and who have already been eligible for the Hall for several years. Joe Jacoby is a player who fits this mold; he's been a semifinalist on HOF votes, so he's got a real shot at getting elected, but he's not a recent Washington player.

For this process, I took the following headline and asked myself if it would make sense: "Former Washington Great ________ Elected to Hall of Fame". If the team doesn't make sense, then no go. Then, I gave each of the top few possibilities a percentage chance of making the Hall. Anyone I put at over 50% I expect to make the Hall of Fame; anyone below 50%, I do not expect to be elected.

Without further delay, here's a team-by-team analysis of potential HOFers:

WASHINGTON REDSKINS
Franchise total championships: 5
Last championship: 1991

London Fletcher, LB, 1998-2013
Anticipated year of eligiblity: 2019
HOF chances: 40%
Fletcher is probably the best shot that the Skins have at getting someone into the Hall of Fame anytime soon, and even him I wouldn't bet on. He was a productive linebacker for a long time, but with only three career touchdowns and topping out at 5.5 sacks and 5 INTs in any given season, his impact on a game was more subtle. That can sometimes work, but more often than not, those guys are left wanting when it comes to the Hall.

DeAngelo Hall, CB, 2004-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2023
HOF chances: 32%
Hall is perhaps the polar opposite of Fletcher. Hall's production has been up and down, down enough in Oakland to get cut altogether. But since joining the Skins, he's been their unquestioned #1 cornerback. Furthermore, he's got those highlight reel plays, the return touchdowns and leaping pass deflections. I still think Fletcher's got a better shot, but Hall, with a few more years of high-level production, can get pretty close.

Clinton Portis, RB, 2002-2010
Year of eligibility: 2015
HOF chances: 13%
Portis qualifies as a Washington Redskin, playing seven of his nine years for the burgundy and gold. The problem is, while he had some really nice seasons, he doesn't really qualify as a "great." He was very good a few times, but never had a season like Terrell Davis' 1997 or 1998, and Davis remains outside the Hall of Fame looking in. He had more longevity than Davis, but didn't come close to Jerome Bettis or Curtis Martin, the models of "just run long enough and they'll have to let you in." Good, but not HOF good.

Santana Moss, WR, 2001-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2020
HOF chances: 4%
Moss, like Portis, is a qualified Washington sportsman, but also like Portis, falls short of "greatness." He's only had four seasons over 1,000 receiving yards, and only one season each of 90+ receptions or 10+ TDs. Fine player, probably a Ring of Honor player (or whatever the Skins' version is called), but not a HOFer.

Sean Taylor, FS, 2004-2007
Year of eligibility: 2012
HOF chances: 1%
Sean Taylor's career was far too short, and he was far too erratic in his first two seasons to make the Hall of Fame. But it's a tragedy that just as he was beginning to become one of the best safeties in the league, his life was cut short. You can't extrapolate his performance from a season and a half into a fifteen year career, so there's virtually no chance he gets in. However, he does have indisputably the best play in Pro Bowl history.

Worth Mentioning
Alfred Morris has had a strong start to his career. If he can put together ten more seasons like this, he'll be in the discussion. Robert Griffin III hasn't done anything to make me think he'll be more prolific than Michael Vick, and I doubt Michael Vick gets into the Hall. Brian Orakpo is putting up good sack numbers, but his impact on the game feels small for his numbers. If DeSean Jackson ends up with a Hall of Fame career, that would likely require him to post at least some of that production with the Skins, so he's got a shot.

WASHINGTON WIZARDS (BULLETS)
Franchise total championships: 1
Last championship: 1977-78

Antawn Jamison, F, 1998-present?
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2020
HOF chances: 38%
Word is that Jamison is still trying to play this year, and I think he'll get one more chance in the Association, despite being a non-factor last year for the Clippers. At his best, Jamison was one of the best mid-range scorers in the league and a good rebounder on both ends. He was never much of a passer, but hey, the guy's job is to score points. I think Jamison is a tough nut to crack as far as whether or not he'll be elected to the Hall, but in the end, I think his lack of a deep playoff push at any point in his career will be what keeps him out.

John Wall, PG, 2010-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2033
HOF chances: 30%
John Wall took a big step forward last year, improving on both offense and defense as the Wizards got into the playoffs for the first time since he was drafted. He also seems to be embracing his role as the face of a franchise that's headed in the right direction. If Kevin Durant were to come to town in two years and help the team to a title, that'd give Wall a big boost, but even just steady improvements on his own and regular playoff trips could be enough.

Bradley Beal, SG, 2012-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2035
HOF chances: 12%
Beal's fate is obviously tied strongly to Wall's, and their respective chances of election to the Hall will most likely rise and fall together, along with the Wizards' win total. Beal will most likely have a tougher time, since he has the ball in his hands less frequently than Wall, and Wall is the more highly touted talent. To me, Beal seems kind of like the Jeff Hornacek to Wall's John Stockton (though obviously Wall has a ways to go before becoming Stockton).

Gilbert Arenas, PG, 2001-2012
Year of eligibility: 2017
HOF chances: 9%
While Arenas will mostly be remembered for the bizarre gun-related incident in 2009, there's no denying he was a force on the basketball court. In three seasons, starting in 2004-05, he averaged 25.5, 29.3, and 28.4 points per game. But in an era of Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson, Arenas never led the league in scoring. He was never really the same after the combination of injury and suspension limited him to just 2 games in 2008-09. The best comparison for Arenas is Penny Hardaway, and that means he's no HOFer. His high was very high, but his lows were just way too low.

Rod Strickland, PG, 1988-2005
Year of eligibility: 2010
HOF chances: 4%
Strickland won't make the Hall of Fame, and that's correct. But he was a better player than a lot of people realize. He was a potent scorer as well as posting at least 7.2 assists per game in ten consecutive seasons. Strickland's real problem was that he wasn't a winner. In a 17 year career, he started in just 35 playoff games, or roughly one series every other year. That's not going to get you into the Hall. The worst thing Strickland ever did for the Wizards, though, was to get acquired for Rasheed Wallace. The Wiz could've used a little 'Sheed.

Juwan Howard, PF, 1994-2013
Year of eligibility: 2018
HOF chances: 2%
Don't let my percentage make you think that Howard wasn't a good player. He was a skilled scorer and a solid rebounder. But he never went beyond just being a good player. Even after being paired with his college teammate Chris Webber, the Bullets/Wizards made the playoffs only once during Howard's six years with the team.

Worth Mentioning
Richard Hamilton might top this list, but he'd likely be considered more a Piston than a Bullet/Wizard. Chris Webber was also prolific while he was in town, but his career really crested in Sacramento; that's where people will remember him playing. And both probably fall more into the "really good player" category than "all-time great."

WASHINGTON NATIONALS (MONTREAL EXPOS?)
Franchise total championships: 0

I elected to ignore players who spent the majority of their time with the Expos, even though they belong to the same franchise. This article is intended to investigate the Washington players who might make the Hall of Fame. I was a big Expos fan, but I doubt many other Washington fans were. So with apologies to Moises Alou, Javier Vazquez, and Vladimir Guerrero, they'll have to find another blog post to make their case. That makes this a pretty short list.

Jordan Zimmermann, SP, 2009-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2030
HOF chances: 23%
Don't look now, but Zimmermann is the best chance at the Hall that the Nationals have right now. His ERA has been exceptional, and he seems to be able to stand a good deal of innings. His strikeout numbers haven't been outstanding, which means he's basically Roy Oswalt in the making. If he doesn't make a leap, he'll have trouble making the Hall, but there's plenty to work with so far.

Bryce Harper, OF, 2012-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2036
HOF chances: 19%
There are plenty of highly touted guys who fall well short of Hall of Fame careers. Stephen Drew, J.D. Drew...lots of Drews. Delmon Young has also been a disappointment versus expectations. So there's certainly no guarantee Harper will be a legend. But his ability to handle major league pitching at age 19 was remarkable. You hope he becomes a better hitter; his strikeout and walk rates haven't improved since his rookie season. Hopefully he can stay healthy going forward, and hopefully staying healthy will help him improve his approach. But right now, he's still far from a sure thing.

Stephen Strasburg, SP, 2010-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2031
HOF chances: 15%
I would guess that a lot of people would expect Strasburg to be higher on this list than he is, but for a lot of the same reasons as Harper, he's got a ways to go. He's still very early in his career; he's in only what would be his third full season after losing most of 2010 and 2011 to Tommy John surgery. The other potentially larger issue, though, is that he hasn't been amazing. He's had flashes of brilliance, and his strikeout rate has been excellent since day one. But in 30 starts last season, he won just eight games. His career ERA is 3.11. Strasburg's got the tools, but as with so many Nationals, he has to improve to have a chance at the Hall.

Worth Mentioning
Gio Gonzalez is still building a resume, but he's got 76 wins at age 28, and is an innings-eater. Those are the guys who rack up wins. Ryan Zimmerman has been the face of the Nationals since nearly day one in DC, but he's only been a good player, not a great one. Ian Desmond may have a shade higher chance than Zimmerman because of his speed, but unless either one improves (unlikely at their ages in this steroid-testing era), it's doubtful either puts together a Hall of Fame career.

WASHINGTON CAPITALS
Franchise total championships: 0

Alexander Ovechkin, W, 2005-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2029
HOF chances: 99%
Well, now we're in business. Ovechkin is one of the most prolific scorers in NHL history. If you check out his hockey-reference page, some of the people it lists as being similar are Mike Bossy, Teemu Selanne, and Mario Lemieux. He's that good. I left open the possibility that he does something heinous to keep himself out of the Hall, like armed robbery or something, but realistically, he's already in.

Sergei Gonchar, D, 1994-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2018
HOF chances: 70%
It's been a long time since Gonchar's been in Washington, but all along the way he's been a strong scorer and a power-play quarterback. His numbers compare reasonably well with Scott Niedermayer, who's in the Hall of Fame, and Chris Pronger and Sergei Zubov, both of whom likely will be. Gonchar finished among the top ten in Norris votes on nine different occasions. He might still be on the borderline because of his sub-optimal defensive play, but his championship with the Penguins in 2009 seals the deal in my mind.

Peter Bondra, W, 1990-2007
Year of eligibility: 2010
HOF chances: 40%
Bondra is an interesting case, because if he'd left the Caps for a different team, he'd likely have a stronger resume. Playing on a fairly weak Capitals team for most of his career, he had mostly unexceptional talent around him, and as such didn't make it far in the playoffs, save the 1998 dash to the Stanley Cup Finals. His career stats are very good, and his year-by-year stats are very good, but he was a virtual non-factor in end-of-season awards. If he'd extended his career by a couple more years, he'd be Mark Recchi, who's likely to get in at some point. But for Bondra, he may be stuck as one of the greatest players not in the Hall of Fame.

Dale Hunter, C, 1980-1999
Year of eligibility: 2002
HOF chances: 38%
Hunter is a curious case. His playing career was absolutely noteworthy; he amassed 3,000 penalty minutes and 1,000 points, the only player to do that in, ever. He was an agitator in the truest sense of the word. But he's been on the ballot for a decade and hasn't been elected. So why do I have his chances as high as they are? Well, I think NHLers still appreciate his grittiness, and like an opposing sniper, he wears you down. Additionally, he's coached successfully in the OHL, and did an admirable job filling in for the Capitals on an interim basis. I could see him getting another NHL job if he wanted, and if he does, he's continuing to build his Hall of Fame resume. He's got a shot.

Nicklas Backstrom, C, 2007-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2031
HOF chances: 33%
Backstrom roared out of the gates as a rookie, finishing second to Patrick Kane in the Calder voting. He's averaging a point per game throughout his career so far, and as long as he and Ovechkin stay in sync, there's no reason to expect that to drop off. But I think Backstrom would be helped tremendously by a trip to the finals at least, and a Cup would push him over the top. He's a responsible two-way center who can score and he's a good hockey citizen. All that's left is to prove that he's a winner.

Mike Green, D, 2005-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2030
HOF chances: 12%
I was surprised when I looked at Mike Green's stats and saw he's coming into his 10th season in the NHL. He's spent so much time on the shelf in recent years, you forget he's been around for a while. You also might forget how good he was when he was at his peak. He was an offensive juggernaut who was so good at creating points that he finished second in Norris Trophy voting twice, even though he's at best an average defender. There's a lot of unknown with regards to Green's future, but if somehow he's able to play 75+ games each year for the next seven or eight years, he could put up scoring numbers that would be tough to ignore.

Alexander Semin, W, 2003-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2025
HOF chances: 9%
If it were the Hall of Talent Whether Realized or Not, Semin would be a shoo-in. But that's not the Hall. As is, Semin is a highly skilled scorer who should score more than he does, defend better than he does, and pass better than he does. All the talent is there, but there's something about taking talent and converting it to performance. Jonathan Toews isn't the most talented player in the league (or on his team), but he's widely considered an unmatchable franchise player. Semin would have to spike up to Ovechkin levels to get close to the Hall, and at this point, that's unlikely.

Worth Mentioning
Jaromir Jagr played for the Caps and is a surefire Hall of Famer, but he'll go in as a Penguin. Also he was pretty much trash in Washington. I still believe in the potential of John Carlson and Karl Alzner to be great, but it's obviously early for them. According to my friend Rick, Evgeny Kuznetsov is already a lock for the Hall. Most mentally stable people think it's too early to say that, but he's definitely talented. Olaf Kolzig was a solid goalie, and actually managed a Vezina Trophy in 1999-2000, but for the most part, Olie the Goalie was just Olie a Goalie.

Wrap-Up
So, in case you haven't been paying attention, the Capitals are way better than their city-mates. I feel like the Skins could've had some better options, but they have such frequent roster turnover that it's hard to get attached to anyone. The Nationals are still a fledgling franchise, so it makes sense that they'd have a short list for now. Hopefully that grows in the near future. The Wizards have, with few exceptions, been terrible for a while, but the future looks bright.

But there's no question that, for all-time star power, Alex Ovechkin is far and away your best bet from our home teams. So the next time you go to the Verizon Center to catch a Caps game, take some time to just watch Ovie play. That way, when he gets inducted to the Hall, you can say that you remember watching him.

I'm happy to say, I definitely will.

Halls of Fame

So this was originally going to be a post about Pau Gasol.

I was reading some article on ESPN about this year's offseason and the implications of various players signed, traded, or drafted, and the author passingly mentioned how Pau Gasol is a Hall of Famer. I tried to keep reading on, but that one point really stuck in my craw, so I did what Joe and Joe always do: I went to Basketball-Reference and pored over stats.

I reviewed similar players statistically, like Mark Agguire and Tom Chambers (non-HOFers) and Alonzo Mourning and Robert Parish (HOFers). The differences were unexceptional; usually it was a matter of championships. But can you really just declare that, because Mourning got a title as the 6th option on the 2005-2006 Heat, that puts him over the top? Seems inappropriate.

So, my investigation took me further, comparing this player to that player, trying to adjust across eras, and taking into consideration various players from the game today who are "lock" HOFers (Dwyane Wade, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett), and who oughtn't be but you could see people sticking up for (Lamar Odom, Antawn Jamison).

But as I try to get more information, more questions arise, and I have no answers. Will Chris Bosh be a member of the Hall of Fame when it's all said and done? He's likely to finish with numbers around Gasol's, and he's got a pair of titles with the Heat. Tim Duncan is a surefire Hall of Famer; what about Parker and Ginobili? They were obviously vital to the Spurs' success, but wasn't Horace Grant also instrumental to the Bulls' success in the mid-90s? Less than Jordan or Pippen, but still important. Grant went to one All-Star game in his career; Ginobili's been to two. And Jamison has scored an awful lot of points. Will that be enough to warrant immortality? It wasn't for Bernard King, but who knows.

Baseball used to be easy to wrap your head around. Certain statistics were benchmarks, but then came the steroid era, throwing that into the wind as well. So now, we rely on a combination of statistics, championships, anecdotes, and a "smell test" to determine who deserves to be enshrined forever. Is Alonzo Mourning on that list? Apparently. And if he is, I suppose Gasol deserves to be there too.

I'm not really sure where this blog post ended up. But I think you can count on more posts about the Halls of Fame.

Haphazard NBA Lockout Comments - October

First and foremost, I don't know anything. I know there are all sorts of arguments and debates, and different sides think different things and bla bla bla. So I'm no expert on the subject. But I did notice something that would indicate that the owners are total liars.

Here are a couple paragraphs from Yahoo's article on the NBA canceling all of November's games, and declaring that it would be impossible to play a full season at this point:

“It’s not practical, possible or prudent to have a full season now,” added Stern, who previously canceled the first two weeks of the season.

And he repeated his warnings that the proposals might now get even harsher as the league tries to make up the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be lost as the lockout drags on.

“We’re going to have to recalculate how bad the damage is,” Stern said. “The next offer will reflect the extraordinary losses that are piling up now.”

Harsh circumstances, and harsh words. And at first glance, sure, you can understand how owners would be upset about all that lost money.

But hold up. Wasn't it part of the NBA's premise for the lockout that the league was losing money simply by operating? And let's be clear here, we're not talking about losing a few grand, or a few hundred grand. The line used in the article is "hundreds of millions of dollars." If the NBA is going to lose that much money by not playing games (AND not paying players to play those games), I think maybe they were pulling in a decent rake from the regular season.

The second part is more obvious: the players are losing their share of that money as well. You can think whatever you want about whether NBA players are "worth" what they're paid, but the fact is that the market has determined that 20 point-per-game guards are worth about $10 million a year, because that's what they make. And while it may behoove NBA players to accept a small pay decrease in order to help grow the league, they're entitled to fight for the right to a share of the pie.

For kicks, I did a little searching and found out how revenue was split in 2008 in other leagues (NBA owners are demanding a 50/50 split).

Percentage of revenue paid to top-level players (not including minor leagues, as of 2008)
NFL - 59%
NBA - 57%
NHL - 56.7%
MLB - 52%

The new NFL collective bargaining agreement actually has the NFL players' share plummeting down to about 48%, but that might be more appropriate based on the draw of individual players in the NFL versus the draw of the franchise itself. Browns fans like the Browns regardless of who's quarterbacking the team. I cite Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson, Charlie Frye, Trent Dilfer, Jeff Garcia, Kelly Holcomb, and Tim Couch, and the fact that Joe Mandi still loves the Browns. Or the nightmare of teams Washington has put on the field, and that the Skins have still boasted the first- or second-highest gross weekly attendance in football every year since 2006 (when apparently ESPN believes people began attending football games).

Anyways, I think it's a fair argument that NBA players are a greater part of the draw for their sport than the individual players are in any other sport. People go out to see Kobe or LeBron or Melo more than they go out to see the Cavaliers, the Knicks, or the Heat. It seems sensible that they'd command a higher share of the revenue, from a very basic standpoint.

I'm sure the issue is much more complex than I'm giving it credit for. But today, like most days, I'm siding with labor.

What's This? What's This?

Not unlike Jack Skellington, I find myself confused with the feelings I have tonight. The NBA just announced that they've canceled the first two weeks of the regular season, and most expectations are that more games will be canceled before all is said and done.

Inexplicably, after a decade of not caring about the NBA, I find myself saddened to hear this news. Last season was perhaps the NBA's best in just as long a time, with the Dallas Mavericks upsetting the Miami Heat in the NBA Finals, but even before that, the entire playoffs were incredibly competitive and entertaining. The second act of Miami's dream team held an opportunity for all sports fans to root for or against a "super-team." Between Kobe's Lakers, the old Big 3 in Boston, the Derrick Rose Show in Chicago, a Knicks team that has a full season of Carmelo and Amare, and a burgeoning elite team in Oklahoma City, there were plenty of teams set in the path of the Heat and Mavericks.

Not even mentioning the Wizards' potentially growing team, there was plenty to look forward to with this year's basketball season. I won't lie and say that I'm not kind of excited about the NHL's opportunity to pull in some of the NBA's disillusioned fans, but it's a damn shame that the NBA is wasting this chance to build on the best product they've offered in years.

Figure it out, guys. Nobody benefits from games being canceled.

2011 NBA Draft Predictions

Other people like ESPN's Chad Ford rely on insider information to determine which prospect will be drafted by each of the various NBA teams on Thursday night's NBA draft. I use what limited information I have about each player's pro potential, and what I perceive to be each team's needs. Remember 2009, when I inexplicably put DeJuan Blair ahead of Austin Daye? Well, Blair is a solid contributor on a good team, and Daye is a do-nothing forward on a crummy team. So maybe I'm not always wrong.

Anyways, here we go. A wide open draft lottery gets predicted by an amateur...right now:

1. The Cleveland Cavaliers select Kyrie Irving, guard from Duke University. The Cavs are feinting that they're still considering Derrick Williams at the #1 pick, but I don't buy it unless they work out a deal with the #4 pick. Irving and Williams are neck-and-neck in this draft, but Irving would be harder to replace with the talent I expect to be available at #4.
2. The Minnesota Timberwolves select Derrick Williams, forward from the University of Arizona. Even the Timberwolves can't mess this one up, right? Whoever doesn't go #1 is a no-brainer at the second pick, and while Minnesota has made some no-brain picks in the past (drafting Ricky Rubio, then drafting Jonny Flynn, then drafting and trading Ty Lawson), Williams is a lock for #2. It's possible they trade the pick, but Williams will go second, for sure.
3. The Utah Jazz select Brandon Knight, guard from the University of Kentucky. When you're consistently a good team, you don't have many opportunities at high draft picks. But they've made the most of their limited opportunities, grabbing superstar Deron Williams with their only top 5 pick since 1982. They're back at the top of the draft with a pick they acquired for Williams, and I think they'll use it on the most similar player to Williams in this draft. Knight is smart, agile, and motivated, and he's a great finisher at the rim. He might not be the next Deron Williams, but he also might be.
4. The Cleveland Cavaliers select Jonas Valanciunas, center from Lithuania. I went back and forth on this pick, and this is where the draft really shakes loose, so each of these picks has a huge impact on the next few. Valanciunas is apparently locked in for another year with his Lithuanian team, which people say is scaring teams off. Hogwash, I say. The Cavs are among several teams that love love love the big man, and I think, with two top picks in the draft, they know they've got a couple years before they can expect to compete. So pick the guy you want, and be patient. And send a coach over there to keep him on the right path, basketball and otherwise.
5. The Toronto Raptors select Enes Kanter, center from Turkey. I'd like to find a way to have Kanter drop to the Wizards at #6, but realistically he'll go at four or five, and I'll sigh. Anyways, Kanter is a banger with good hands, the kind of guy who can really improve his teammates. His presence, along with the hopeful development of Ed Davis, could allow Andrea Bargnani more freedom to possibly grow into a legitimate star. Good fit.
6. The Washington Wizards select Kawhi Leonard, forward from San Diego State University. As I said, I think the Wizards would love to have Kanter as a Robin to John Wall's Batman, and they should explore trading up to get him (especially if they can unload that nightmare Andray Blatche). But if things go as I project, I think Leonard is a nice piece. He's unrefined, and he's still growing into his body, but his intensity is the real deal, and it shows in his defense and rebounding. It does mean the team is still on the lookout for a Robin, though.
7. The Sacramento Kings select Jan Vesely, forward from the Czech Republic. The Kings have a sort of patchwork team right now, one without much of an identity. They've got some interesting pieces, particularly Tyreke Evans and DeMarcus Cousins. Vesely should slide in easily, even though he's still unrefined. He can play either forward slot, and has a lot he can do from mid-range offensively. The Heat's big three they ain't, but Evans, Cousins, and Vesely could definitely guide the Kings back into the playoff hunt.
8. The Detroit Pistons select Bismack Biyombo, forward from the Congo. Detroit allowed the highest field goal percentage in basketball last year, which is simply unacceptable from the way this franchise has won titles in the past. Biyombo is one of the mysteries of this year's draft, but the physical tools are there to be a defensive force immediately, and a defensive superstar soon enough. There's risk, sure, but there's reward as well.
9. The Charlotte Bobcats select Kemba Walker, guard from the University of Connecticut. Charlotte is paltry up front, but two things prompt them taking Walker in my estimation. First, he's the best player on the board by a good margin. Second, the word is that Charlotte would like to get someone who can contribute right away, which jives with my assessment of Michael Jordan's preferences. Which are wholly speculative, of course, but as good a guess as anybody's.
   
10. The Milwaukee Bucks select Alec Burks, guard from the University of Colorado. Apparently the Bucks cooled on Brandon Jennings pretty quickly, as he's now been the subject of trade rumors. I think Burks is a good fit for the team either way. He's a slasher guard who can make his own shot. There are concerns about his ability to hit jumpers, but some good old-fashioned practice should take care of that.
    
11. The Golden State Warriors select Klay Thompson, guard from Washington State University. Golden State's top two scorers from last season were Stephen Curry and Monta Ellis, their starting backcourt. So why would they draft another two guard? Well first, Thompson would be a nice complement to either Curry or Ellis, making both expendable if needed. The Warriors could really use a center, but they're better off trying to get one via trade at this draft position.
12. The Utah Jazz select Jimmer Fredette, guard from Brigham Young University. Honestly, when I started putting this together, I thought the Knight pick at #3 would preclude Fredette going to Utah here. But the reality is that Utah's most glaring need is scoring punch, and if Fredette has shown one thing, it's a knack for putting the ball in the bucket. Utah's best move might be to simply go with a small lineup and try to play Suns-style basketball, running and gunning. Could be fun to watch.
    
13. The Phoenix Suns select Tristan Thompson, forward from the University of Texas. Kind of a coup for the Suns to land Thompson, who's more like a top 10 talent in this year's draft. He's a do-everything forward, but in a good Jeff Green way, not a bad Joe Alexander way. He might not project to be a superstar, but I'd be pretty shocked if he wasn't still an effective NBA player in ten years. His character and ability should make him a lifer.
14. The Houston Rockets select Nikola Vucevic, center from the University of Southern California. The Rockets are a mess. They have needs basically across the board, and since there's no lightning in a bottle at this point in the draft, I think they'll go with the most projectable guy out there. Vucevic played three years of college ball, improving each year, and becoming a very good scorer and rebounder by his junior season. He's not Dirk, but he's got a good shooting touch and can help any team. It's a start.

The Wizards pick again at 18, which will probably be the last pick I watch live. The draft is basically a crapshoot after #9 (and Valanciunas could fall back into that area as well), but one guy I'd like to see Washington take with their second pick would be Jeremy Tyler. He's got size, athleticism, and skill, but is utterly lacking in maturity. My dream scenario would have the Wizards acquiring Shane Battier, and letting Battier groom Tyler. But that's probably just that: a dream.

Good luck to all the teams in the lottery, and here's hoping that the Wizards are a winner on draft night. And also that there are lots of trades. Big ones.

2011 NBA Draft Preview

I've always held a place in my heart for the NBA draft. Part of it is the hope that comes with adding the very best newly eligible players. Part of it is the fact that NBA draftees are often the most impactful of any of the sports. And part of it, I'm sure, is the fact that the Bullets/Wizards have had lottery picks more often than not over the past twenty years. They're really quite bad.

This year, however, I'm even more interested than usual. Here are a couple thoughts as to why:

• The Cavaliers' rebuilding. One year removed from losing Lebron James to free agency, the Cavs ended up with the #1 and #4 picks in this year's draft. They have a chance to acquire two potential all-stars in a single night, and that's exciting no matter what team it is.
• The Wizards have the #6 pick. It's early enough that you've got a shot at this draft's top tier talent, but not so early that you're out of the mix right away. Having to watch those first five picks go will be good drama for all thirty-six Wizards fans who watch the draft.
• College players at the top. While Enes Kanter and Jan Vesely will go early, the projected top three picks are all players out of college. I may not have watched much college hoops last year, but these are at least a few names I recognize.
• Trade buzz! There are always plenty of rumors leading up to the NBA draft, but it seems like the buzz is deafening this year. With so many of the early picks seemingly up for trade (the Timberwolves at 2, the Jazz at 3, the Cavaliers at 4, and the Wizards at 6), we're all hopeful for a flurry of activity on draft night. Usually that hope gets dashed by about pick 16, but hey, dare to dream, right?
• It's not the NFL draft. The NFL draft this year was just terrible. I'm interested to see if the NBA draft, which I've loved since I was in middle school, is its own machine, or if they suffer from the same shortcomings.

Look for my lottery mockery later today or tomorrow.

Completing the Circle?

The Dream Team was honored at the Hall of Fame last week. Only two of the members of the 1992 Olympic basketball team are not already in the Hall as individuals: Chris Mullin and Christian Laettner. (Karl Malone and Scottie Pippen were inducted this year.) Should Laettner and Mullin be in the basketball Hall of Fame as well? Let's have a look.

Christian Laettner

Laettner had a nice NBA career, averaging 17 points and 8 rebounds per game over his first five seasons. But he played on some really bad teams, including the near-expansion Timberwolves and the donkey ass Wizards of the early 2000's. His only sniff of a championship caliber team came with the 2004-2005 Heat as a role player, his final NBA season. The team lost in the Eastern Conference finals to the Pistons.

But if Laettner were to be considered for the Hall of Fame, it would be based on his college performance less than his NBA career. He was the best player on the best team of his era, hitting clutch shots, and frustrating fans of the Michigan Wolverines and their "Fab Five" superstar recruiting class. He's the only player ever to start in four consecutive Final Fours. He holds the record for most points scored in NCAA Tournament play.

The logical comparison case is Bill Walton. Walton's NBA career bore a resemblance to Laettner's, featuring averaging about 16 points per game in his first five seasons, but he was definitely a better defensive player. Walton pulled down 12+ rebounds per game in each of his first four seasons, and had 2.5+ blocks per game in three of those four campaigns. Perhaps most importantly, his teams were a lot better than the Timberwolves ever were.

Walton also had a more illustrious college career, being the centerpiece of the unreal 88-game winning streak by UCLA in the mid-70s. And there's the main difference between Walton (a HOFer) and Laettner: hardware. Walton managed to garner an NBA MVP trophy in 1978 (not sure how, with just 19 points and 13 rebounds per game, and only playing in 58 games). He's also got two each of NCAA championships and NBA championships, and he was named Finals MVP in 1977 for the Portland Trail Blazers.

The reality is that Christian Laettner doesn't come close to Walton in terms of overall performance; Walton was a better college player, and a far better professional player than Laettner. Perhaps a better comparison to Laettner would be Vin Baker (who by the way was my favorite player in Electronic Arts' Live '95 game for Super Nintendo).

Verdict: Not a Hall of Famer.

Chris Mullin

I chose to review Mullin second because he's basically Laettner, except better. Mullin was a superstar at St. John's, winning Big East Player of the Year honors three times in his four years, as well as being named an All-American three times. Additionally, he won Olympic gold in 1984, eight years before he did it again with the Dream Team.

Mullin was drafted seventh overall by the Golden State Warriors in the 1985 NBA Draft, in a draft that saw power forwards or centers get drafted with 15 of the first 17 picks. He contributed immediately, sliding into the starting lineup by the middle of his rookie season, and 14 points per game. His scoring average increased over his first four years, up to a career high of 26.5 in 1988-89. He scored at least 25 points per game over the next four seasons as well, guiding the Warriors to five consecutive playoff appearances. He also made better than 50% of his field goals, remarkable for a spot-up shooter.

His performance over this period earned him his spot on the 1992 Olympic team, and he took full advantage. He may not have provided any memorable highlight reel dunks or passes, but Mullin was the 4th leading scorer on a team of legends, despite starting only two of the team's eight games.

Unfortunately, injuries took away parts of four seasons, as Mullin missed 140 games over that period, preventing him from building on his Olympic success. By the time he was fully healthy and able to play a full season's worth of games, he was 33, and his skills had begun to fade. He'd never again break 15 points per game, and his career faded out of memory.

So how do we judge him? Comparing him to Walton is pretty fair; he was a dominant college player who had success in the pros. Walton picked up an MVP trophy, but I'd say Mullin was more productive, so we'll call their NBA careers, production-wise, a wash. So the question is this: Does Mullin's Olympic and college success measure up to Walton's college dominance, and the NBA title he pulled in?

Answer: Almost. Walton's NBA championship is impressive, and he was clearly an integral part of the team, rating second in scoring and first in rebounds and blocks on that Trail Blazer team. But I can't give top credit to Mullin for either of his two Olympic golds, for the same reason I don't assign much value to Walton's second title with the Celtics in 1986. Mullin was important to his two gold medal teams, more important than Walton was to those Celtics, but not nearly as important as Walton was to the Portland team.

The final piece of the puzzle is this: While Mullin was a prolific scorer, he never led the league in scoring. Granted, this was during Michael Jordan's heyday, but if a player is going to be elected to the Hall of Fame as a prolific scorer who never won a title (in the NBA or college), he'll have to have led the league in scoring at some point. If Dominique Wilkins can't get in, neither can Mullin.

Verdict: Not a Hall of Famer

I think it's important to note that, specifically with Chris Mullin, this isn't a slouch we're talking about. He's one of the all-time greats, maybe the second-best player in Warrior history behind Wilt Chamberlain, and certainly their best player since moving out west. But the Hall of Fame isn't (and shouldn't be) about being a good player, or being the best player over a short period for one time. It's about being a legend. And we should reserve that for the elite.

And yes, I'm looking at you, baseball.

Back on the Radio

In case you missed it, I had a radio show with special guest Chris Reed last week, reviewing the tumultuous NBA offseason. Go here to listen.

Looking forward, I'm hoping to provide radio shows to preview all of the upcoming sports seasons (basketball, football, hockey). If you think you'd like to co-host, drop me a line at joe.joe.sports@gmail.com.

Finally, I'm looking at doing a "stretch run" fantasy baseball show. Again, if you'd like to co-host, let me know.

Vote in the poll!

Fill In the Blank: LeBron James is a ____.

There are two answers to this question, but let's look at the whole situation for a second first.

First off, money was never going to be an issue for James. He commands a max contract wherever he goes (I mean, Joe Johnson got a max deal in this market), and I imagine he'll get that or close to it in Miami. But he'll likely get at least as much money from endorsements, and possibly a lot more than his basketball salary. Miami, Chicago, New York, New Jersey, Los Angeles, Cleveland, it wouldn't really matter. James is a nationwide sensation, and between sodas and shoes and razors and fast food and clothing lines and everything else, he'd have garnered serious income regardless of where he played basketball.

If anything, he actually hindered his endorsement brand by going to Miami. He's going to a city that already has an elite basketball talent. The main difference between James and Dwayne Wade is that Wade's already got a ring. And as an elite passer, James is the most likely to find his production drop, specifically with regards to scoring. He'll have to be as good as or better than Magic Johnson to earn more credit than Wade for any future title runs. Not exactly an easy task.

But even still, James was going to make truckloads of cash anywhere he went. So let's get back to the title of this post, and let me give you my first answer.

LeBron James is a child.

I read an article yesterday by Bill Simmons that hearkened back a rumor that went around back in 2008 about LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, and Chris Paul wanting to work themselves onto the same team. Making a "pact" even. I don't remember hearing the rumor at the time, probably because it sounded so ridiculous, but today it obviously sounds a little more believable. And if it's true, if James' plan all along was to find a way to get on the same team as Bosh and Wade, then he's a child.

He's a child because that would've been impossible with the Cavaliers, and the team and Cleveland deserved to know that right away. This is the city that threw themselves at James, came out in droves to support him, and rooted him on even through playoff loss after playoff loss. James' Cavaliers kept coming up short, but Cavaliers fans were always willing to say, "Next year is our year. Just gotta get rid of ____, or find someone who can ____." If James was always planning on getting together with Wade and Bosh, then he should have used his considerable marketing machine to get the word out that he wouldn't be staying, and he certainly shouldn't have set up last night's ridiculous, narcissistic, anti-climactic ESPN special. There's a way that adults go about things (Michael Jordan's fax saying "I'm back" comes to mind), and LeBron James seems to have gone the other way.

Furthermore, he led on every other team that poured their hearts into every pitch to try to bring James to their town. Wade may have done the same, but everyone in the NBA was 99% sure he'd be back in Miami. So when he announced his intention to stay in Miami, no one was surprised, and realistically, no other NBA team could feel particularly slighted. But the Bulls, Knicks, Nets, and Clippers sent envoys to Ohio to meet with James, to try to sell him on the idea of playing for their franchises. Say what you will about NBA executives, and you can certainly think that the Knicks and Clippers sometimes show some questionable leadership. But these are serious men with serious jobs, and James yanked them around. Wouldn't it have been awesome to hear that Clippers GM Neil Olshey walked out of their meeting a la Al Pacino in Heat (2:40)?

Now, Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert didn't exactly act completely mature when he went off about James' "disloyalty," in his open letter to Cavaliers fans. But I do get the sense that he put himself into a better light with a lot of Cleveland basketball fans. And while I think Gilbert is a little bit delusional when he guarantees that Cleveland will win a title before Miami, it's certainly nice to have an owner show that kind of passion. I'd be proud to be a Cavs fan today.

Moving on to answer number two...

LeBron James is a coward.

As I mentioned above, James went to Miami, which regardless of MVP trophies, is Dwayne Wade's team. Wade already has a championship, and Wade figures to be right there with James when it comes to assigning credit for any future championships that the Heat might win. So at most, James will be one of two elite players on an elite team (I don't see Bosh as much more than an All-Star, kind of like Ron Artest or Lamar Odom for the Lakers). And if the team doesn't win, Wade will take nearly as much blame as James.

Cleveland, the only team that anyone thought had a chance to jump in after the Miami rumor gained steam, is also a destination of lessened pressure. While Cleveland fans are rabid, and eager to find a championship team they can embrace, their patience for their native son might have known no bounds. He would have likely benefited from the same hometown mentality that Joe Mauer will get for the Twins, or Cal Ripken for the Orioles (though Ripken did win a championship in his second season). True, the annals of NBA history are defined by champions, but the pressure to win in Cleveland would have been smaller for James.

Look at the other four teams who passionately courted James: the Chicago Bulls, the Los Angeles Clippers, and the Knicks and Nets, both of whom will claim New York City as their home soon. Those are three cities with histories of success in sports, and the three biggest media markets in the United States. For comparison, Cleveland and Miami rank 16th and 17th, respectively.

Had James gone to the Clippers, he'd have committed himself to a career-long comparison between himself and Kobe Bryant, a comparison he'd almost surely never win. If James chose to sign with the Bulls, he'd live in the shadow of Michael Jordan, the greatest player of our generation. And had he chosen the Knicks or Nets, he'd be the focal point of basketball in the nation's biggest city, particularly with the Knicks.

And that's exactly why he should've gone to one of those teams. I read a post on Facebook last night that I'll paraphrase here:

We should be happy with LeBron's decision. We're always saying that we wish athletes would just care about winning, and not worry about money or fame or anything else. I say good for him for having his priorities straight.

It was when I read this that I realized that a desire to win isn't what I look for in athletes, at least not on a general level. I didn't like it when Gary Payton and Karl Malone went to the Lakers to try to ride Shaquille O'Neal and Bryant a title. I don't care for athletes who try to latch onto other players to get titles. I like players who say, "I'm the guy other people should be latching onto." James had the opportunity to go to other teams and actually be a king. He had the chance to make his own history, to take his own run at being the best player of all time. Instead, he hitched his wagon to Dwayne Wade's star (and vice versa; they're two of the top five players in basketball).

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a personal interest in James going to New York. I've liked the Knicks since I was young, and I'd have liked to see them return to glory; James was essentially a free pass to 50 wins, and a healthy Amare Stoudemire makes them a force in the East. But I have to think the NBA would've loved for James to go to the Knicks as well. They're perhaps the most religiously followed team in the NBA, the most widely supported, through good times and (as has been the case recently) bad. Having the Knicks become relevant again would be a boon for basketball. Had LeBron James led the Knicks to an NBA championship, he'd have cemented his place in history. Just one championship. In Miami, he'll need four or five.

I'm not a Cavaliers fan. As the Wizards are my home team, the Cavs were something of a nemesis in the middle of the 2000's, bouncing Washington out of the playoffs three straight seasons. But I feel for Cavs fans like my partner Joe Mandi. I don't think I'd say that this is worse than Art Modell stealing the Browns away to Baltimore, but it's worse than any on-field disappointment the city has ever endured. I can't make myself root for the Cavaliers, but you'd better believe I'll be rooting against the Heat.

Lebron to Miami: A First Response

As most of the readers of this blog know, I'm a pretty avid Cleveland fan. Having grown up in Northeast Ohio, my childhood and early adult years were filled with terrible sports teams. I remember vividly being excited for the 1986 Cleveland Indians team...a team that went on to lose 100 games. In the few and far times when Cleveland sports teams have not been terrible, the teams offered hope enough only to cause the Cleveland fans the most pain possible: The Drive, The Fumble, The Shot, the 1997 World Series that saw the Indians one out away from a coveted title and the Browns leaving town. In more recent history, the 2007 Indians took a 3-2 advantage into game 6 of the ALCS against Boston before falling flat, the 2002 Browns were one Dennis Northcutt drop away from burying the hated Steelers on the road in a Wild Card matchup and the Cavs were a missed Flip Murray rebound away from sending the former NBA champion Pistons home for the summer. Somehow Lebron leaving is worse than all of these.

Let me set one thing straight before going forward: I don't blame Lebron for leaving. He's got to look out for himself and do what's right for Lebron. I get that.

What I do hate is the disappointment. The disappointment to know that one of the three major Cleveland teams will probably not compete for a championship for a long, long time. The disappointment to know that the Cavs may actually never recover from Lebron leaving (it's not inconceivable that the Cavs could have so little interest in economically strapped Northeast Ohio that they could leave for greener pastures). The disappointment to know that it's looking more and more likely that an entire generation of die hard Cleveland fans may die without knowing the feeling of seeing a team that represents them walk away as champions. The disappointment to get close time and time again, only to fall short every time.

Anyway, like the title says, this is just my first response. I've got more to say, more logical arguments, but I'm really just too bummed to get them straight in my head.

Back to Bullets? Not So Fast.

Ted Leonsis recently took formal control of the Washington Wizards, a move that excited many around town, myself included. I've watched the Washington Capitals benefit from the stability of Leonsis' leadership, and his willingness to put his team in the hands of hockey people. He's got two longtime basketball people in place with the Wizards in head coach Flip Saunders and general manager Ernie Grunfeld, and Leonsis has already indicated that he'll be sticking with both of them moving forward.

Leonsis has always been one of the most accessible owners in sports, and his accessibility has provided basketball fans with the opportunity to give input on their favorite team. The issue that most fans have brought to his attention is their desire to return to the old team name and colors, the Bullets. I've hinted at this as well, specifically the use of red in the uniforms to try to generate some synergy with the Capitals. The "Rock the Red" campaign for the Caps has been hugely successful, and making the transition from "hockey fan" to "basketball fan" smoother, even by just a little bit, is always a good thing.

But I don't see the team going back to the Bullets, and in fact I'd oppose such a change. I'll explain.

"Bullets" is the name that longtime Washington basketball fans associate with the town's team. And I can appreciate the history that comes along with the name. But the reason the name was changed was because of the association with gun violence that it had, and because then-owner Abe Pollin did not want his team to have any association with the epidemic of crime that was enveloping Washington, DC. Many sports fans in town thought it was unnecessary, but it was at least a noble gesture by a giant in this city.

Do we really think that Leonsis would be willing to say, "Abe Pollin was wrong. This guy, who helped build the NBA and was a custodian of this city, didn't know what he was talking about. Let's undo what he did." I just don't see it.

Moreover, I think Leonsis has a better mentality than that. Living in the past, particularly with the Wizards/Bullets who haven't been to the NBA finals in 30 years and who've won 2 championships in their 50+ year existence, doesn't offer all that much to get excited about. The idea here should be moving forward.

The name shouldn't be the Wizards, but it shouldn't be the Bullets either. There are tens of thousands of potential names; there's no reason we can't find one that isn't Bullets that still helps us feel better about our team, and gives us an opportunity to change the team colors (which I'm still in favor of). I look forward to a name change. Just not back to the Bullets.

That name ran its course. Straight into the ground.

A Whole Mess of #1 Picks

Tonight, the Washington Nationals have the #1 overall pick in the MLB Amateur Draft for the second consecutive year. Last year, they drafted super-prospect Stephen Strasburg, and this year a similarly hyped prospect, Bryce Harper, will likely go number one.

But that's just the beginning of the story when it comes to local #1 picks. The Wizards also have the #1 overall pick in this year's draft, and will likely be drafting Kentucky's John Wall. And the Capitals are led by a #1 overall pick themselves, Alexander Ovechkin. I have to think this is a rare situation in sports, to find four recent #1 overall picks playing in the same city.

And it's exciting. For all the hubbub surrounding the Redskins, I'm more excited about the Capitals than I've been about the 'Skins in a while. I've liked how Ted Leonsis runs his team, and I look forward to him putting his mark on the Wizards. Word around town is that they're looking at changing the uniforms (thank heavens), and specifically re-incorporating red to match the Capitals. I think the whole town should embrace the red, white, and blue color scheme, but people around here are irrationally attached to the burgundy and gold. I'm not sure why...it's not like they've given us anything to cheer about in fifteen years.

Anyways, get excited kids. Strasburg debuts tomorrow, and we'll have two #1 picks in town by the end of the month. And if you absolutely must focus on the Redskins, Donovan McNabb was a pretty high pick as well.

With the #1 Overall Pick in the 2010 NBA Draft...

It's as if everything that Ted Leonsis touches turns to gold. He's brought the Capitals to national prominence (despite their early playoff exit this year), and now, as ownership of the Wizards is passing to him, Washington catches a break and wins the NBA draft lottery, gaining the #1 pick in this summer's draft.

The Wizards had the #1 pick once before, when they selected Kwame Brown in the 2001 draft. Among the other players taken in the first round of that draft: Tyson Chandler, Pau Gasol, Jason Richardson, Shane Battier, Joe Johnson, Richard Jefferson, Troy Murphy, Zach Randolph, Gerald Wallace, Samuel Dalembert, and Tony Parker. So, not the best job.

This time, however, it looks like the Wizards can't foul it up. Kentucky's John Wall looks like the consensus #1 overall pick, with Ohio State's Evan Turner the only other possibility. The locals, though, are all going for Wall. Less than an hour after the lottery, I saw over a dozen Facebook posts by people excited about the Wizards drafting John Wall. He's clearly the fan favorite, and while I do trust basketball people to know better who should be taken first overall, I think it's worth mentioning that, right after the NCAA season ended a couple years ago, Kevin Durant was the obvious #1 pick, only to be snubbed by Portland in favor of big man Greg Oden. How's that working out?

Take John Wall.

NBA Conference Finals Picks

#2 Orlando Magic vs. #4 Boston Celtics

The Magic have steamrolled through these playoffs so far, sweeping the Bobcats and Hawks in the first and second rounds, respectively. But neither of those teams boasts anywhere near the playoff experience or defensive prowess as the Celtics, and the Magic will have their hands full.

As Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce have aged, Rajon Rondo has come into his own as one of the premier point guards in the NBA. Of course, having Garnett and Pierce around him has certainly given Rondo a great opportunity to succeed, but not every player is able to take advantage of the talent around him (see Raymond Felton).

The Magic, meanwhile, run what essentially amounts a video game team: they send one huge body down low, and surround him with guys who can hit open shots. It's inexplicably worked against professional basketball players and coaches. So do we think that the Magic simply do it better than anyone has ever done it, or do we think that maybe the clock is ticking on this strategy?

My pick is that the clock is ticking. The Celtics must be able to decipher this tack, because we've all been told they're an elite defensive team. The Magic ranked 25th in the NBA in assists during the regular season. Just as notably, they ranked 29th during the regular season and are dead last in these playoffs in free throw percentage. So what you've got is a team that isn't very good at passing the ball, and doesn't convert on free throws. Dwight Howard is an excellent player, but I think if you can body up on him and hold him to, say, 30 points, and force the perimeter players to drive to the basket, you're putting them into low percentage situations. Boston's got the personnel to do that.

Pick: Celtics in six

#1 Los Angeles Lakers vs. #3 Phoenix Suns

It's been more than two weeks since either of these teams lost a game, and both teams swept pretty solid competition in the second round (Lakers over Jazz, Suns over Spurs). So you know the confidence is going to be high on both sides.

The Lakers are of course defending champions, and conventional wisdom says it's foolish to bet against them. Their roster is certainly stacked, with all-world player Kobe Bryant leading the charge. Perhaps most notable, though, is the fact that between Bryant and Ron Artest, they've got two of the better defensive players in the league. Granted, the Suns run a wide open offense, but I'd be pretty surprised if Bryant and Artest didn't put a sizable damper on the Suns' plans.

On the flip side, the one guy that the Lakers may not have an answer for is Steve Nash. Even at 36, Nash is one of the quickest, sharpest players in the league. He deserved both of the MVP trophies he was awarded, and despite every expectation that "this is the year he slows down," he's continued to lead Phoenix into the playoffs. Amar'e Stoudemire has benefited tremendously from Nash's skills and leadership, and any team looking at acquiring Stoudemire this offseason should think long and hard about whether or not they've got a point guard who can enable him to be as productive as he's been with Nash.

In the end, though, I expect the Lakers' talent to be too much for Phoenix to overcome. Having such frontcourt depth that you can have Lamar Odom come off the bench is remarkable, and between him, Andrew Bynum, and Pau Gasol, I have a hard time seeing the Suns being able to match up.

Pick: Lakers in five

So, yes, I'm predicting a rematch of two years ago when the Celtics beat the Lakers for the NBA title. That's the nature of the NBA. It cultivates dynasties. Best of luck to the Suns and Magic on trying to prove me wrong.

When 14-1 Isn't Good Enough

There's been a good deal of debate this week regarding Indianapolis Colts head coach Jim Caldwell's election to bench his starters midway through Sunday's eventual loss to the New York Jets. This is a rare situation where I have a strong opinion about something like this, so I'm going to spout it: Caldwell was an idiot for pulling his guys.

I completely understand his logic about not wanting to risk an injury to one of his best players. Without Peyton Manning, Dwight Freeney, Dallas Clark, or Reggie Wayne, the Colts are probably still fighting for a playoff spot, and they'd be in bad shape in the playoffs if they lost any of those four to injury.

But they did play half of the game, right? Was that half of football intended to just be a scrimmage, trying to stay fresh without worrying about winning? I doubt it. Manning and the Colts were out there trying to win the game right up until the point they were pulled from the game. Everyone on the team has been saying the right things, which suggests that they buy into the coach's ideas on the matter, and that's great. They all think that the move will put them in the best possible position to win the Super Bowl, which Caldwell and GM Bill Polian have reiterated over and over as being the ultimate goal.

Do you know what Manning, Freeney, Clark, and Wayne all have in common, though? They've all already won a Super Bowl. Winning another one would be great, and solidify all of them as among the best at their positions in this generation of players. But the possibility of going 19-0 for a completely undefeated season, a season that would trump the '72 Miami Dolphins as the greatest NFL accomplishment of all time, should have overtaken the desire to "stay healthy."

It's so rare that anyone has an opportunity to be considered among the best all time at anything. The 2007-2008 Celtics went 66-16 and rolled through the playoffs, but people don't even consider them to have been among the top 3 Boston teams of all time. The Yankees only won 103 games in their 2009 World Series winning season, so they're just the best team this season, not a candidate for the best team ever.

Think back to the 2007 NFL season. It was capped off with a great Super Bowl, but a Super Bowl most memorable because it was the Patriots' chance to unseat history. When you remember that game, and that season, you'll remember that the Giants won the Super Bowl, but you'll remember it most because they beat the Patriots to preserve the '72 Dolphins' place in lore. The opportunity to be legendary is so rare that we'll remember vividly even those who came up short.

How dare Caldwell and Polian deprive this team of the opportunity for perfection. How dare they sacrifice history for a perceived improvement of their chances at winning a Super Bowl. For me, no matter how well this team does (and there's a reasonable chance that they win it all), I'll always wonder what might have been.

Abe Pollin

Washington Wizards owner Abe Pollin passed away yesterday afternoon at the age of 85, less than one week after I said that Ted Leonsis was more my kind of owner than Pollin. After reading about Pollin in several articles and hearing him lauded on local sports radio, I now see that I was unfair in my judgment of him, the longest-tenured NBA owner.

There's no question that Pollin loved the Wizards, and cared deeply about his players and his team. To preserve his team, he did something that no one else in the world has ever done: he fired Michael Jordan. Pollin related that Jordan had created an unfavorable atmosphere at the team, and had been as much a detriment to the team off the court as he had helped them on the court. Pollin knew he would take heat for the decision to sever ties with Jordan, but he was willing to take the PR hit for what he believed to be the right decision for his team. Jordan's Hall of Fame induction speech may have given us a glimpse into how right Pollin was.

Abe Pollin's true legacy, though, will be the Verizon Center. Pouring in millions upon millions of dollars of his own money, he chose to build a stadium downtown rather than take financing offers from suburban areas, because he knew it was the right decision for the city, and that the money would follow. The area now boasts brand new office buildings, restaurants, and one of the most advanced sports facilities in the world (just like the Capital Centre before it, which was the first major sports venue in the country to boast luxury boxes and electronic ticketing). Pollin's vision, and his execution thereof, single-handedly revitalized downtown Washington.

I still think Ted Leonsis is a fantastic owner, and perhaps one of the more underrated owners in all of sports. His passion for his team and his accessibility make him a fan favorite, and rightly so. But Abe Pollin's business acumen and loyalty were peerless. We were fortunate to have two wonderful owners in Washington, DC, and the responsibility now falls to Leonsis to carry the torch.

Good luck.

Fantasy Basketball - A New Take

I've played the standard fantasy basketball games, with and without little tweaks, and I've generally found it to be unexciting. I don't know if it's owed to the nature of basketball, where statistics are accumulated in great numbers every game, or if it's because I'm not a huge basketball fan, or some other explanation, but it seems like fantasy basketball is an unnecessary exercise.

So this year, I decided to go beyond the "little tweaks," and create a wholly original basketball league. The frame of the league will be a standard rotisserie head-to-head setup, where each owner plays against just one other owner each week. The teams accumulate statistics, and the team with more of each tracked statistic gains one win; the other team gets one loss. So, if in a league with standard settings team A has more points, rebounds, three-pointers, assists, steals, and blocks, team B has better cumulative field goal and free throw percentages, and they have exactly the same number of turnovers, team A will get 6-2-1 added to their season record, and team B will get 2-6-1 added to theirs. It's a little convoluted, and I'm generally not in favor of this system.

BUT, I've made wholesale changes from the standard scoring system, and I think it might just create a pretty fun fantasy basketball system. We keep the framework, as I said, where it's rotisserie head-to-head. However, we use only one category: points. Percentages don't matter, assists don't matter, turnovers don't matter. The only thing that matters is pure, bulk points. Chris Paul and Marcus Camby get dropped dramatically in this system, and pure scorers like Jamal Crawford and Richard Jefferson get a bump.

Certainly I don't have to explain that this system is simpler; it takes a nine-category system and changes it to a one-category system. It's easier to evaluate talent, because you're not looking at whether or not a player's scoring and rebounds will counteract a poor free throw percentage (Dwight Howard), or sacrificing scoring to pick up a spread of other statistics (Shane Battier). It's straightforward and unsophisticated.

Are there problems with a system like this? Of course. Its simplicity results in far fewer opportunities for strategy. And the default rankings will be somewhat useless when it comes to draft day. But the standard system, which has plenty of strategy integrated, hasn't been entertaining to me. So why the hell not try something else?

There are a couple of positives about this bizarre setup:

• You don't find yourself rooting for strange things, like wanting your opponents' players to score, because you don't want him to get assists.
• It's easy to track when your players are doing well, and easy to root for them when you're watching the games.
• Likewise, it's easy to track/root against your opponents' performances.
• People who show up for the draft have a decided advantage over those who skip out, as you're able to evaluate players solely based on their point production.
  

You want in, you say? Well, I'd be delighted to have you in my crazy league. Here's the information:

League ID: 115478
Password: points

Hoop it up!

What to look forward to from Joe and Joe Sports this fall...

It's September, and football seasons have just kicked off. Baseball's regular season is screaming towards the finish line, and while St. Louis has the NL Central wrapped up, most of the other playoff spots are still up for grabs. College and pro basketball are on the horizon, and the NHL has already started having preseason games. Early autumn is perhaps the most exciting time in sports, and we're happy to say that it will also be an exciting time on Joe and Joe Sports.

If you've been a frequenter of our blog, you know a few things:

• You know that we're better writers than a lot of bloggers. Rather than quick blurbs with PhotoShopped pictures of players' heads on animals' bodies, we try to give you in-depth analysis that reads more like an article than a rant. We won't stop doing that.
• You know that we love baseball. We love the one-on-one competition between pitcher and batter, and we love the over-arching strategies that surround that competition. You can look forward to our postseason picks, both for the MLB playoffs and for the various award-winners in baseball for 2009. And I could maybe see us having another argument or two.
  
• You know we love our home teams. You've probably seen that I've revived the Redskins Report Card feature, and I'll keep that going all season again. Meanwhile, I know my partner in crime has been working on a post about his beloved Cleveland Browns. As different as our two cities might be, we share a fatalist desperation that all true sports fans should feel. I'll let him tell you about his when he's ready.
• You know it's been forever since we had a radio show. We know it, too.
• And lastly, you know that we're conceited, self-absorbed, arrogant bastards. Oh. Well, if you didn't, you do now.

We'll have all of that and a whole lot more as the leaves begin to change. Got any ideas or requests? Email us at joe.joe.sports@gmail.com.