dlpin

Not only that, but he is a classless bum. Absolutely refuses to play against tough competition unless he really has to. He asked to move back to the US because he didnt want to have to earn a starting spot in Europe, and he said from the get go last year that he would refuse to play in copa america against the likes of Brazil and Argentina. He only wanted to play in the gold cup and against CONCACAF sides. And then he goes and makes a complete ass of himself by provoking fans of such powerhouse nations as Barbados, Guatemala and so on. Like in the MLS, where he is in the team with the highest payroll who just managed to get one game above .500 after two years of trying, and he still thinks enough of himself to do stuff like raise his fingers and do "slashing the throat" sign when he scores against teams like real salt lake and etc.

Just saw a Nike commercial and was reminded of who is the most overrated person in sports: Landon Donovan. Yeah, I bet many of you are saying "who?" Its the guy who looks more like an accountant that is in several of these new nike commercials, alongside people who are legitimately among the best in their sports. http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=w4TbxS_CdWE Landon Donovan is portrayed with them, even though he is a big time choker who preferred to play his entire career in the MLS instead of trying his chances against superior talent. And making 1 million a year (second highest league salary), he consistently trash talks as he plays against semi pro players who often make as little as 12k a year.

Well, as a Celtics fan I obviously wants the celtics to win it all. But realistically I think the Lakers are, right now, far and away the favorites to win the title. I do think the celtics have superior talent on the court, specially with Allen getting out of the funk he was in. But Doc Rivers is an awful coach, and Phil Jackson is simply the best there is right now. Heck, even flip saunders is proving too much for him. Game 2 against the Pistons I was almost screaming at the TV: game tied, Pistons adjust their defense and start crowding the lane and denying KG and PP, daring the rest of the team to beat them. How does Doc adjust? He goes with a line up that includes tony allen (fewest minutes played in the playoffs), rondo (J was off, was passing at every opportunity), Perkins. The Pistons d leaves them alone, smothers PP and KG and the celtics only score 4 points in the second half of the second quarter, and a tied game turns into a 7 point deficit at the half. He did something similar against the cavs in game 6, playing them well for three quarters and then putting out a horrendous line up with players who had not played a minute in the game, and then watched as the cavs pulled away...

Majored in economics and getting my Phd on economic sociology

here's the paper: http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/NBARace.pdf other interesting findings are that black players average almost half a point less per 48 minutes when the refs are white

Quote: Quote: Flopping has gotten out of control, and that's mainly what makes it so difficult. In no other sport is flopping that big an issue soccer is the original flopper's sport. I love the theatrics. A guy loses the ball and collapses, writhing in pain. They bring a stretcher out, the whole nine yards, then he gets up and plays the rest of the game as if nothing ever happened. A lot of the foreign players are the masters of this "art" in the NBA, and now everyone does it. While soccer certainly has a lot of problems with flopping, at least officials there recognize the problem and have made recomendations that floppers be warned with a yellow card. In the NBA, players flop without any fear of negative repercussions.

Quote: That report wasn't nearly as significant as the headlines made it out to be. First of all, as Hawksfanatic pointed out, "significant" in statistical terms is different from "significant" in every day language. When something is significant in statistics, it means that there is enough information to be fairly confident (usually 95% confident) that a value is different from a certain hypothesis. In this case, there is enough information to feel confident that the impact of race on officiating is different than 0 (if it was 0 there would be no bias). In any case, Hollinger was being disingenuous here. The study analized not only the number of fouls, but also overall results for the teams. Lebron might have picked up on average just 11 fouls in a season, but a basketball game is made up of 10 players, five on each team, and 48 minutes of play. So it doesnt matter how many fouls Lebron got in his favor, but how many were affected in a game. 0.16 fouls going differently per 48 minutes means 1.6 a game, over 120 a season per team. Furthermore, their study also analizes how many games would have gone differently, and found that 1.8% of games per season have their outcomes changed because of own race bias. Of course, it is hard to determine who beneffited from this, and who didnt, but in any case, just as a reminder, the distance between the lakers and the suns was 2 games. But secondly, and most important, this study analized just the matters of race. And that is far from being the only influence on officiating (and it still affected 1.8% of games!). Add to that non-analized but quite plausible effects of home crowds, star treatment, experience and long standing relationships in the league and all of the sudden claiming that 10% of games have their outcomes altered by refs mistakes does not seem so far fetched. I was disgusted by the league and by most sports networks in their treatment of this research. The sort of personal attacks they resorted to against a young professor and grad student was just classless. No wonder when other specialists verified what the researchers had to say ESPN and other networks dropped the issue in a second. Just like tnt and espn usually avoid replays of controversial calls. Just like now no one even dares raise the "seattle" and "fraud" questions when talking to nba officials. Heck, ESPN columns already were talking about "the disappointment in OKC" when the sonics dropped to 4.

that would be true if errors were random. Unfortunately, they are not. Stars and home teams get the favorable calls most of the time. If it was just a matter of being hard to tell what really happened, the errors would go both ways. As we are now hearing from Donaghy, part of all of this is intentional: relationships and so on. And that is plain to see: some refs react to Rasheed by letting him get away with way too much, while others are way too strict, all based on reputation and relationships. And part of this is subconscious: no one wants to be booed, or to be the one drawing national headlines for clashing with a star. Had Joey Crawford done what he did to Tim Duncan to a random 12th player, he would never had been suspended, and refs know that: mess up against a star= league and media attention.

At this point I am convinced that Lebron will never win anything in Cleveland, and will only be successful elsewhere. First of all I think Lebron needs an attitude change. Ever since he started making the playoffs 2 years ago there are always news of how he is unhappy with how he is not getting any help, how management should go after this or that guy and so on. This is problematic for a couple of reasons: - first, I think he needs to take more responsibility. It can't be one day "a lebron james team" and the next "we need more help," especially when he hasnt developed a post up game or a consistent jumper 5 years into the league. - Second, and most important, this whole "I need help now" attitude, especially coupled with all the expectations that he might leave cleveland if he doesnt get it, is preventing cleveland from really building for consistent success. He is 23 years old, cleveland should be matching him with other youngsters with potential in order to build a dynasty, not trading away for old players in an attempt to win now. Imagine if cleveland had obtained Jason Kidd as he clearly wanted. Or just look at the trade that was actually made, getting them 3 players who are overpaid and over 30 and overpaid. It is one thing for Boston to mortgage its future to bring in all stars to help Paul Pierce at the tail end of his peak years. Its another to get old fast to appease a 23 year old, leaving the team too good to get anything in the draft, too over the cap to sign anyone meaningful, but not good enough to win the championship.

First of all, the "significant" part was referring to outside the lines. What has he done there? In any case, "being" on the team is not really a significant feat. And I would love to see confirmation that he hit "the most" game winners. His wiki lists 8 game winning shots in the playoffs. Impressive, but 8 game winners in a career as a back up is really very little. So to recap: nothing outside the lines, very little inside of it.

the thing is, all those players and coaches that are there based on something OTHER than on court skill had something else going for them. Drazen Petrovich, for example: never mind that he was an all star and that he had won pretty much everything in Europe and for his country. Simply being "THE GUY" who made the NBA popular in eastern europe, opening the doors for dozens of players to come over, making basketball huge in the former yugoslavia and marking the start of the international wave of players into the NBA make him much more deserving of the hall of fame than Horry. The point being, if you are not a perenial all star, you better have done something significant for the game of basketball outside the lines. Horry is not a perennial all start and did not do anything significant outside the lines. He hit clutch shots, but so did Paxson, BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr and Don Nelson. Heck, Cedric Maxwell was more "clutch" than Horry, and no one ever mentions him as worthy (did it for fewer championships, but he was clutch for entire games or series at a time, like 81 or 84). Horry is clutch, valuable, etc. But That is too little on court, and off court he never did anything of distinction, so this is a definitive NO. Besides, right now he will be remembered as much for those shots as for "hack a shaq," "hack a nash" and "hack a west."

Quote: Quote: Michael Cooper, Don Nelson (as a player on the celtics) and Dennis Rodman didnt make the hall of fame, and won several championships, having a much more important role on their teams than Horry had on the Lakers and Spurts. Horry was a started in Houston, but only because it was the seasons the 3 point line was moved in, and houston had decided to play a 4-1, with 4 3 point shooter and Hakeem in the middle. Actually, I think if it wasn't for Rodman's antics, the focus on Magic with the Lakers, and Nellie's coaching career all of those guys would be in the Hall. I can't see how you can look at a guy like Maurice Stokes, Buddy Jeannette, or Arnie Risen and say that they are more worthy than Horry. Pointing at guys who shouldnt be there is hardly an argument for why someone should be there. In any case, even the guys you mention (who I had to look up because I had no idea who they were) were all stars or made an all nba team (or coached a team to victory).

First game of the celtics=cavs series, all the tnt crew could talk about was about how people were wrong to compare Lebron to MJ, that he was in fact like "a Magic Johnson who could score at will". In Boston, of all places, they had a few stories asking Terry Francona, Red Sox manager who was also MJ's manager in the minors, if he thought Lebron was better than MJ. No qualifiers, no "at the same age"- a maor media outlet was having a story about MJ vs Lebron. Heck, just go back to the day after his game against the Pistons, and everywhere you looked talking heads were saying how he made "the leap" to Jordan's level. As far as direct quotes, Im not going to go back and search opinion articles about that (though it would be easy to find stuff just by looking at the cavs celtics previews) Just do a google of "Jordan Lebron" and you will see that while some articles make the "is he the NEXT jordan," which indicate an age comparison, you will find just as many debating who is the best player EVER...

Michael Cooper, Don Nelson (as a player on the celtics) and Dennis Rodman didnt make the hall of fame, and won several championships, having a much more important role on their teams than Horry had on the Lakers and Spurts. Horry was a started in Houston, but only because it was the seasons the 3 point line was moved in, and houston had decided to play a 4-1, with 4 3 point shooter and Hakeem in the middle.

"reaching the finals" was a team effort. And in any case, that is still not true: Magic Johnson was finals mvp at 20, and won a championship playing as center when the best center of all time in my opinion went down with an injury in the finals. And how do you think Lebron would have fared in a team where the other starters were oakly, paxson, orlando wooldridge and Kyle Macy, like jordan had, going against larry bird, mchale, parish, ainge, johnson and walton? Again, Im giving Lebron all the credit he deserves: excellent player, extremely clutch, only reason cavs matter at all, one day may be as good as jordan, and if he develops a consistent jumper and post up game, watch out. But that doesnt change the fact that he is treated, RIGHT NOW, as being at the same level as jordan and johnson at their peaks, which is far from the truth.

The whole "bust" discussion is always a tough one, and more often than not, I think it is a very unfair label. Unfortunately, players often are called busts not because of what they did, but because of what others who were picked behind him did. Just look at the "ultimate" bust, Sam Bowie. There is not a draft when he is not mentioned as a bust. But when you look at his career, he was a solid started for most of it. Unfortunately for him, MJ, Barkley and Stockton were picked after him. Meanwhile, Pervis Ellison was a #1 pick that did much less, but was fortunate enough that no hall of famers were picked after him.

by the way, judge for yourselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXwuZUAZtL0...&playnext=1

Quote: Oh, and Lebron looked pretty solid today in Game 7, in my opinion. Hard to overrate 45 points on a touch under 50% shooting. And he's 23!!! Lebron's NBA resume far outshines Jordan's at this point in their careers, I really don't even think that is questionable. Give him a break. MJ at 23 was also bounced from the playoffs by the celtics, except it was the best celtics team of all time, and he still dropped 63 points on them after missing almost an entire season with bad knees.

Quote: Actually, Jordan was competing against the 8th seeds in the East and losing at this age. At least Lebron made the NBA finals last year. Reasonable minds can disagree on an age-specific comparison. Jordan was thought to be a stats hog who put up numbers without winning anything at this point in his career. On one hand, if we look at Lebron's age we are certainly impressed with his game. But on the other, he is already in his 5th year in the league. When Jordan was 23, he was in his second year in the league. In any case, the ceiling is what matters, and I dont think Lebron has progressed enough. MJ was always a competitor, always working on his game in the off season, and by his 5th season he was already an MVP (beating Bird and Magic during their best season). Lebron has had the same glaring holes in his game for his entire career, which makes me wonder if he is able or willing to work on them. No post up game and terrible jump shooter. And still, I am sorry, but his first 5 seasons compares favorably to Lebron's. People seem to forget how special Jordan was. He average 28 ppg on 51% shooting as a rookie. And all of this in an era that was much, MUCH, less SG friendly. He scored 28 ppg in a time when there was no hand check rule, no defensive 3 seconds violation rule. Just compare their FT totals: Jordan only shot more than 700 free throws 4 seasons out of his 19 seaons, Lebron has shot more than 700 for the past three seasons. And you are mistaken, but Jordan wasnt competing against the 8th seeds at his age. At 23, Jordan missed almost the entire season, saw his team make the playoffs AS the 8th seed, and scored 63 points against probably the greatest celtics team of all time. MJs teams were bounced in the playoffs in 85 by the bucks (bulls were 7th seed), 86 and 87 by the celtics, 88 in the second round by detroit and 89 in the conference finals by detroit. Much better teams than any that Lebron has beaten. And comparing MJ's shooting % and turn overs per game, he did better than Lebron, which means that the "stats hog" explanation doesnt hold water. Dont get me wrong, he might one day be as good or better than jordan, but he is overrated because RIGHT NOW he is treated as good or better than him.

Quote: He scores by cherry picking and follow ups. and when he ignores his defensive assignment to crash the offenive glass and doesn't get the rebound he will be trailing the play on defense. Have you ever stopped to think why everyone doesn't crash the boards on offense? It is because it leaves you vulnerable in transition defense. Our half court offense is horrible and Childress' inability to score in the half court set is a big reason why. He averaged less than one made jumper per game on the season. That is just pathetic considering he played 29 minutes per game. Not to throw gasoline on the fire, but most of the stats that 82games.com measure favor childress over MW. http://www.82games.com/0708/playoffs/0708ATL.HTM http://www.82games.com/0708/playoffs/0708ATL1.HTM MW had the worst +/-, the next to worst roland ratings, etc, etc. And that is also true of the regular season: http://www.82games.com/0708/0708ATL.HTM http://www.82games.com/0708/0708ATL1.HTM Not that all of this necessarily means anything (as those same stats show Lue better than Bibby), but if stats is where discussion is headed, these things are relevant.

I don't think anyone is discrediting Lebron, or denying he is one of the top players today. But c'mon, you cant watch a cavs game nowadays without people discussing if he is the new Jordan or the new Magic. Being overrated doesnt mean he isnt very, very good.

First of all, I dont think you can compare players of different eras like that. If you want to put Lebron in the 60s, you would have to take into account how he would be with the training/nutrition and so on of that era, and vice versa if you want to bring players from that era to today. Just as you cant compare the listed height of players back then and now, as now they are measured in sneakers and so on. But in any case, we dont have to look so far back: magic, bird and jordan are far and away better than anyone in the game today, and yet youd think this is the league's golden age, not the 80s... Lebron is certainly top 5 in the league today, but has quite a lot to improve to become as good as they say he is.

I strongly disagree that McNabb is overrated. Just look back to his years before his body started breaking down. Just look at his first seasons: eagles was always a contender, even though his widereceivers were torrance small, charles johnson, james trash, todd pinkston, freddie mitchell... The only time McNabb had a #1 receiver was with TO, all others would not even be a #3 on average teams.

Lebron is vastly overrated. Yes, its possible to be top 2 or 3 in the league and overrated. Why? The guy is mentioned in the same breath as Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson! Its not his fault because most active players are overrated. If you look at the media and the talking heads nowadays, you'd think this is the NBA golden age, as most people treat Kobe, Lebron, Duncan and Shaq as 4 of the top 5 players ever, when that is not even remotely the case. The sad thing is that Lebron has bought into the hype and become complacent. 5 years in the league and still the same problems: awful shooting and no post up game. You'd think hed work on those things by now.

From a celtics blog: