Clinton's Truth

Hello at last my Non-Lost Readers,

I wanted to take some time, a lot of time really, to address a few of the other interesting things going on in the world that have nothing to do with the TV show that has engendered a stranglehold on my attention. So, I'll address Hillary Clinton (at great length), Aaron Burr (at decent length), and the basketball playoffs (at good length), in that order.

I want to start by talking about the enigma that is Hillary Clinton. I have long been a Hillary-hater (for lack of a more appropriate term) for various reasons better explained in prior posts. But, here, I find myself, in a strange position upon consideration of her tenacity, in the face of presumably being doomed to fail in her presidential plight. There are two juxtaposed forces in my mind: the undeniable and impressive will to win of the flailing senator juxtaposed with my better judgment. I actually understand the Hillary-lovers in their admiration for her attachment to the candidacy with vigor that borders on lunacy (and the Republicans who wish to continue the Democratic in-fighting).

Of course, there is an open question about whether the continued campaigning harms the prospective candidate because the length of the campaign increases voter registration and the candidate get the additional "free" national exposure. But, overall, I would guess the continued campaign has to be net-negative, by removing certainty from an otherwise clear-cut Democratic presidential year with a Republican president suffering from historic lows in presidential polls and along with low morale for the national Republican Party. Add that to the fact that McCain could likely not bring together the same base group that Bush assembled to scrounge up his two victories and one would have to imagine the Democratic nominee as a dominant favorite. But, the extended delegate fight has allowed a lengthy debate about Obama's "electability" that would otherwise be a non-issue once he receives the nomination. The question will transform from "can the country actually elect a bi-racial man with an Islamic sounding name for president?" to "will the country elect a bi-racial man with an Islamic sounding name for president?" The change in the tense of the question is dramatic because while racists and xenophobes would not vote for him either way, there will no longer be the veiled specter of potential American racism. It changes the whole debate and the Republicans cannot make the, at times, not so subtle appeal to (American racists as well as) the people with the supposition that the rest of the country will not vote for him because "they", or "those people" are racists. That is the argument Hillary has tried to hammer home to her party to no avail.

So, it is questionable whether the lengthy campaign has helped any particular candidate, but it has brought added attention to politics. Most people seem to think the added attention to such an influential sphere of modern life is unquestionably positive. I tend to disagree because although attracting added informed attention to politics is a worthwhile endeavor, adding any attention such as attack ad attention or potentially embarrassing scandal-ridden attention, or "Paris Hilton-ing" politics is not in and of itself a value to society and may in fact be detrimental to the country. While character is an important part of presidential politics and choosing a candidate, a candidate's fame or noteworthiness has rapidly increased in its importance in the A.D.D. generation, even as noteworthiness is melded with notoriety.

So, to evaluate the efficacy and admirability of Hillary Clinton's strategery, I looked to sports analogies and games comparisons. Particularly, I looked to the end game of two competitive head to head match-ups: chess and basketball. I note that I have seen the basketball comparison in a Sunday morning news show discussion, but, I of course, will take the point and beat it to absurdity.

Politics is often viewed as a high-minded competition, and although there are appeals to the baser natures of various constituencies, there is a kinship that the politicians who serve together in Washington share. So, seemingly, the end game of chess would be an apt comparison to the endgame of the delegate process. In chess, even when the two players do not get along personally, the player about to lose tends to resign quickly when her imminent defeat has become apparent. This chivalric maneuver is a gesture of respect to the opponent and is an effort to minimize the torment of a slow painful game-death and create a more sudden-death. And chess essentially awards the "gimme" to the opposing player who is anywhere around the hole. While politics is not a physical contact sport, one would assume that chess would be the ideal comparison, but it is not. In politics, there are additional psychological implications of a beat-down that reverberate into the next election cycle or what the press has referred to over the course of the Obama-Clinton battles as "momentum". While Obama emerged as the near certain victor and nominee mathematically, he still contends with the idea of momentum, and Hillary continues to push the envelope of the idea's importance (a dramatic shift from earlier in the campaign). I have never heard of the concept of psychological momentum in chess (perhaps because I don't follow chess like I follow sports or perhaps because when there is momentum, it is more a product of mental factors than psychological ones.)

So, instead, I look to a basketball playoff series (not the individual psychological momentum known as the "zone" or a "slump"), a conference finals, to determine how basketball teams react to a likely impending loss. So, for the purposes of the comparison, we assume this race is a best of 7 series and we are in game 6 with Obama ahead in games and in the lead by a healthy margin late in the 4th quarter. (I would call game 7 the superdelegate game if it makes it that far.) Many teams acknowledge defeat early because of the same reasons discussed in the chess analogy, but those teams aren't Hillary Clinton. She looks down upon such chivalric ideals with contempt and scorn as a sign of weakness. Instead, she opts to try to foul her way back into the game. She commits foul after foul to slow the game down, stop time, and force her opponent to make free throws and not make mental blunders. Often times, in situations like this, mental weaknesses (and the inability to close out the game) are exposed to the victorious party's future opponents, but the current loser has no interest in the next series. She is totally focused on trying to get back into this game despite all odds. Apparently, most of America and even most of the Democratic Party agrees that such a strategy is optimal (despite the issue similarities between the two candidates). She, according to the polls, should stay in the game and stay in the series until she loses her 4th game. She commits fouls even as she lightens the rhetoric of the previously hard and abrasive fouls.

A very strong foul is the Florida non-vote. Assuming Florida's current unfair vote tallies are not counted or that a future vote is not imposed, Florida, a critical swing state had no part in nominating a candidate in a tightly contested race and Clinton's repeated exposure of this weakness is akin to badgering an opponent's persistent ankle injury. I'm sure McCain could manipulate the weakness, but not as effectively as Clinton can in damaging the credibility of the process over the next few weeks. Why is this so important? Because momentum is a factor and while Obama was riding a high for a long time, she has taken the wind out of his sails and brought him into a knockout bout (I was proud of that very mixed metaphor). Of course, the key is that few people seem to get dirty or hurt sailing, but in boxing, or in basketball, people get hurt all the time.

While mathematically, this does not look like a seven game series, she's going to extend game six as long as she can regardless of what it does to Obama's reputation or her reputation in the long term. But, I gather, considering, people out there are referring to her as a gritty competitor with tenacity rather than a dirty fighter with audacity, her reputation is less of an issue than Obama's is.

The length of the race, the desperation of the candidates, the pandering to so many groups and demographics, and exhaustion has led both of these people to raise the very fascinating strategy of telling the truth (as they perceive it), and reopened the McCain style debate of honesty's place in the lexicon and matrix political strategies. Seizing on the straight talk of McCain, both Hillary and Obama have utilized this method to ineffective ends over the past several months.

In the aftermath of the Rev. Wright scandals, where Hillary was delivering body blows and elbows to the face of Obama all over the country, Obama emerged scathed, but relatively unscarred because of a powerful, inspirational, seemingly intellectually honest, and almost comprehensive speech delivered by Obama about the state of race relations in the United States. But, that's not what I mean by truth telling.

Instead, what I mean, is that, in a closed speech to San Franciscans, Obama referred to the indigent and struggling Americans populace as bitter and he tied God and guns to economic desperation. I'm not up to date on the most recent sociological studies, but it's my understanding that rich people go to church and own guns too and that the pursuit of religion is not a response to a person's destituteness, but rather a response to a search for answers to (often all the) deeply philosophical questions about the universe and one's place in that universe. I would also think that Obama, a proudly religious man, who actually became devout after becoming wealthy, would agree with that assessment. If he wanted to say anything along the lines of what he actually said, he could have said the politically more appropriate thing (and quite possibly the more true point) that the financial despair has allowed the Republicans to politicize and capitalize on the issues of God and guns, rather than espousing the notion that these people are clinging to these things out of desperation. So, Obama made the vast leap academicians might make in a research paper to try to garner scholarly interest and get a research grant. However, while hitting a homerun in the S.F. crowd, he made a few enemies along the way and cemented his image as the ivory tower candidate. So, is this what I meant by truth telling; speaking perceived truths that are potentially harmful? Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for asking.

But, then of course, came Hillary's response to the race issue, which is essentially, that America is not ready to elect a Black candidate. In her brief dialogue on the issue, she acknowledged the potential truth that a portion, possibly a substantial portion of her constituency would not vote for Obama, and implied that racism was a critical factor in the decision. The undertone goes further into electability as, since Democrats, the allegedly racially tolerant party has such a large number of racists, imagine how many racists will cast an anti-Black vote among independents and Republicans. Is there truth to the notion that America might elect anyone but the Black candidate? I have no reason to not believe her contention, considering, to the best of my understanding: racism is a world-wide problem, our country is vast and sparse with lots of capacity for ignorance and intolerance in cities, suburbs, and rural areas in all the regions, and of course our nation has long tragic history of racism influencing political decisions and vice versa. But that does not make Hillary look any better. If anything, her answer to the racists is to pander to them and cater to them by giving them a White Democratic option. Is that what's best for the Democratic party? I'm not in a position to say. Is that some unholy possible truth telling that damages both candidates? I would imagine so.

Another theme that Hillary has played upon regularly is the potential misogyny in the media's portrayal of her. Has there been sexism in the depiction of her persona? In truth, I would imagine so. But, there are several points to raise. The same general election argument she implied with regard to racism in the Democratic party (being a potentially much larger problem in the general election discussed above) would likely hold true for sexism as well, wouldn't it? Next, it is important to address the notion that Hillary would not be in position to be president if she was not a woman (or Obama would not be in position to be president if he were not a Black man). Of course, both of these candidates have remarkable stories and Hillary has a strong political acumen and great will (and Obama has a vast intellect with a great speaking voice and a strong stage presence). But, would the American public really vote for a person for president whose sole executive experiences were failures and whose only other political experience was being a non-descript senator for a few years? The answer is, of course, it depends. But, I don't see how having a former president for a spouse didn't help her be in the dominant position she was in, which would of course, play upon the fact that she is a woman and she married presidentially. So, the complaints about Obama's Blackness being a boon to his election hopes, while her womanhood is a detriment to her chances seems counterintuitive. Additionally, while she often fights the stereotypes that women are forced upon women, she makes no apologies for using tactics such as literally crying about how hard it is to run a campaign and thereby feeding the stereotype of the frail woman when it suits her political goals (in that case demonstrating vulnerability to an otherwise streamlined veneer). So, again, this potential truth-telling was a tactic that Hillary may feel to be true and as I mentioned may indeed be true, but is ultimately bad for her campaign as she whines about the press coverage of her, she feeds the image and draws attention to her own duplicity.

Most recently, Hillary has delivered a damaging blow to both campaigns by stating that the potentiality of assassination is a valid justification for her continued pursuit of the nomination. We will assume for the purposes of argument, that Hillary has no plans to involve herself in any attack-planning and we focus on the potential truth of and the potential damage done by the statement. The comparisons to Bobby Kennedy are present, as both are inspirational figures speaking out about dramatic and controversial changes in the American political landscape. Beyond the Kennedy comparison, Obama is a bi-racial man (or a Black man, depending on who is doing the categorizing) who is a candidate with a legitimate chance at the presidency (and probably the likely favorite at this point). With all the race issues in our nation, how is this possibility not legitimate... that the man is a veritable lightning rod of potential animosity, whether it be from racists who wish to prevent his presidency or nutjobs who now, not only have the same old reasons to harm the powerful (such as impressing Jodie Foster), but also have the new reason of ending the life of possibly the most important political figure of our time (from a contemporary and historical perspective). What nut jobs are thinking about this historical perspective? Well, honestly, I don't know anyone in these categories, but the fact that he is rife and sought after target seems like sound logic to me and I could only hope and imagine that the Secret Service is being particularly protective of him.

So, Hillary's recent statement, may be the most true, of all of these perceived truths I just mentioned, and yet many pundits have labeled it the death knell for her candidacy. Why? In part, because politics and truth have a complex relationship. It's touch and go, people. In part, because, while it may be true, it's a very unpleasant and ignoble (and desperate) justification to continue such a bitter nomination process. So, with all her hail-mary attempts at winning the game, she couldn't accomplish the goal. And now, her purpose in staying the race is the very morbid possibility of his death. It's a distasteful thing to say, and to bring the comparison to light so soon after Ted Kennedy's near death experience was not thoughtful. (I myself am withholding many comments about Ted Kennedy in light of his condition and acknowledging the truths that he has been a strong and passionate advocate for his constituents for years and will go down as one of the most influential senators in American history.) Moreover, the Kennedy family, American royalty, is much more akin to the Bush and Clinton brand names than that of Obama.

Turning to Obama's lack of experience for the presidency: many have suggested including himself, that to alleviate these fears, that he employ an all star team of Democrats to unite the party in this time of need. Obama pointed to Lincoln's hiring of his rivals as a potential model for this idea. Of course he made the allusion to Lincoln, a junior senator from Illinois with no combat experience that led the country successfully through a devastating war. But, the notion is clear, that he might perhaps turn to Hillary as V.P. and Richardson as Sec. of State and Biden as Sec. of Defense and Edwards as Attorney General, and so on. Five years ago, the Democrats did not have an all star line-up, but now they do. That level of cachet bodes well for their future, but all star casts rarely make a quality movie, a team filled with all star players rarely make a quality team, and all star politicians... well there's only one microphone and several hundred egos among those people I just mentioned. But since elections are popularity contests, having more of the cool kids running on your ticket can be helpful (though endorsements are generally useless).

In my estimation, McCain and Obama are two well-meaning individuals with different visions for the future and both represent dramatic changes from the current presidency at home and abroad. (An enormous change for McCain, aside from policy issues is that McCain is running on the premise of opening up dialogue with the American public and Congress about the future of our country, while the current presidency has been marred by fiercely maintained secrecy.) I'd be satisfied with either candidate as our president, and though I have a favorite in the race, (I've been an avid unabashed McCain supporter for over 10 years), much to the chagrin of many of my known associates, I have no intention of fleeing the country should my candidate lose.

Even though I believe these are two well-meaning individuals, I have a strong feeling this race is going to be intensely personal, visceral, and vitriolic. McCain doesn't like Obama from some immigration bill they discussed at length that led to fireworks. Taking into account Obama's relative youth and popularity, I would imagine McCain perceives Obama as a person who has not earned his stripes, even in comparison to Hillary (who McCain strangely does like personally). Furthermore, neither McCain nor Obama has shown any inclination to pull punches or to hold back for the purposes of leading a united country. This is going to the mats.

Even assuming one of them tries to stay civil, it will not work because of a larger view of the Tragedy of the Commons. Allow me to explain. The tragedy or tyranny of the commons is a simple idea: where there are several shepherds (no relation to Jack Shepard, I promise) with grazing area of their own and a public grazing area, they will tend to use the public grazing area before using their own land to maximize their grazing. The same principle applies at the dinner table, where, if you want a lot of mashed potatoes, you should put some on your own plate, but then eat from community bowl. The problem is that the good guy who is trying to live off his own land and not take from the community unless he absolutely has to, gets less.

Well, the same is true in politics. Obviously, each side has a base of people who are going to vote for them on the issues. But, when it comes to swing voters, they look at character as well. There is an argument to be made that a candidate who rises above the fray has the real character, but apparently, we live on earth, where that is not the type of character we are looking for in our leaders (and it has always been this way). But, once one side's character is attacked, they start losing the community demographic as well (as the community notion of character). To earn the respect of the candidate, and not lose independent ground, the other must retaliate by also eating from the commons. You know who loses in this situation? The community, which is everyone. It's a tragedy. But, it's human nature. And if you read Animal Farm, it's apparently, animal nature as well.

Speaking of nasty political duels, I want to switch topics to the most famous political duel in American history. Recently, I was watching the John Adams mini-series, and I thought it was fantastic. One side plot/character to the miniseries was Alexander Hamilton (played by Rufus Sewell of Dark City, the poor pre-cursor to the Matrix) and his political machinations. The mini-series challenged my conventional wisdom on history's positive portrayal of this man. As an American history fan (and history major, perhaps even a buff of history), I have always thought of Alexander Hamilton as a great and powerful man, whose nationalist ideals shaped modern America, from the government to the economy. What I didn't realize, was that this strong leader, who was Washington's second in command for much of the Revolutionary War and Washington's political life, who was a self-made titan, who was a prolific renaissance man/entrepreneur, was also a huge a-hole.

The program made me look into the truth of Hamilton and Aaron Burr and recognize that Burr, while a problematic figure in his own right, was not quite the Benedict Arnold or even the crazy loon I previously thought he was. Sure, he might have committed some mild treason, but name a founding father or a Bluthe family member who hasn't. According to my sources, Burr's treason was exacerbated by trusting the wrong general, who was actually committing a grand treason, and then who eventually turned state's evidence to try take down the alleged arch-villain in Aaron Burr who had to live his life friendless in exile (despite a Supreme Court acquittal.) Why? Mostly because he killed the great mind of Hamilton in this duel. The terms of the duel were unclear and people seem unsure whether they were dueling for show or for keeps, but Burr won the duel.

How did it start, you ask? Well, apparently, future president James Monroe and future vice president Burr outed an affair Hamilton was having. Hamilton, of course, being a jerk, blamed the people who outed the affair rather than himself for having the affair. Hamilton successfully dedicated his considerable resources to defeating Burr's post VP NY gubernatorial election. Burr, who was a charismatic and respectable figure (an aristocratic snob), and who conducted himself in a gentlemanly fashion, basically gave Hamilton months to retract the negative things he and his newspaper smeared Burr with to no avail. Hamilton, who had a son who died in a duel only months before, knew the dangers of a duel and accepted possible death rather than retract his own jerkiness. Centuries have provided Hamilton with many vindications and policy victories, but apparently his biggest coup was rather instantaneous, as in death, he became the good guy in the scenario. In death, he got a name (Robert Poulsen?) and he became the man of honor. Burr was exiled and then, in time, became his mild treasonous self. And he is now widely perceived by the general public as one of the craziest vice presidents we've ever had, while Hamilton is more of the best actor never to have received an Oscar (or best player without an MVP). So, they gave him ten bucks.
Most of this knowledge is from wikipedia, so take it with a grain of deliciously scandalous salt.

But, as I switch to a topic on which I could write the wikipedia page, basketball, I am sure to lose some readers. So, feel free to tune out.

My picks for the playoffs this year were San Antonio beating Detroit in the finals (a replay of the finale from three years ago), which would be a nightmare for the NBA and ABC. But despite, the 2-1 tallies and the road victory requirements, I am sticking to my picks.

So far, I have already been correct about every series except for one (the Hornets-Dallas series). But, my vision for the future, my prophecy, and the balance of good and evil in the world may be tilted as the vaunted Lakers are on pace to crush the Spurs physically and mentally, leading the series 2-1. Sure, the Spurs are whiny floppers, and have Robert Horry, who has become a modern day Kurt Rambis-type thug. But, the team leader is Tim Duncan, who is a soft-spoken, wry-witted, team-first type player, person, and captain. That's gotta make him the good guy over the Kobe Bryant-led Lakers, who aside from incredulities of previous years, has made open criticisms of the lack of skill of his teammates within the past year. Kobe, who I have contended in the past has just about every skill Jordan ever had (though overall a substantially worse player for various reasons including the incredible field goal percentage disparity and team leadership issues,) has become less unselfish, and this year was the deserving MVP (and the second best player in basketball behind LeBron). Yet, he remains a flawful (I prefer it to flawed) human being and a generally me-first type player.

What has quelled his relatively unbridled fury (in the form of Hillary-esque whiny criticisms) from last summer? The realization that the assembled team is actually an excellent group of players. Odom is an all star caliber talent, and although, not a prolific scorer (and is terrified of clutch moments) is a presence, a rebounder, and an excellent facilitator. Bynum who emerged again for half a season to demonstrate a lot of potential and produced a low post-presence on both ends of the floor. Of course, when he went down, they traded some of their scrubs and a draft pick to steal Gasol, a prolific big man scorer. Complement those all-stars with the clutch shooting and toughness of Derek Fisher, the savvy of Luke Walton (a Shane Battier type player), two excellent outside shooters in Vujacic and Farmar, and a number of agile back-up big men, and the team has the makings of a strong playoff performer.

They are facing Tim Duncan, the best player over the past 10 years a little past his prime, but still a formidable post player because of fundamentally sound moves, smart passing, and the will to dominate a game, who is also the anchor on their potent defensive unit, where he is a leader calling out open spots and players, great at individual, and team defense. The problem is not Duncan. The problem is the other players. Tony Parker is streaky, in large part because he cannot hit outside shots with any regularity. When he gets to the rim, he is one of the best finishers in the game with an impressive array of floaters and layups. This outside shot infirmity would be acceptable and defensible if he was a player along the lines of Jason Kidd, whose responsibilities fall outside of the realm of scoring, but Parker is not a facilitator, and has never been much of a passer. So, if they can keep Parker out of the lane, they totally neutralize him. Easier said than done because of Parker's lightning speed, but if they can neutralize such an important offensive force on San Antonio, a team that often struggles for baskets, it becomes likely that the Lakers have an edge. To compare Parker to other players, I would use either Chris Paul without the passing or Dwayne Wade without the strength. Oh, and he lacks either of their intensity or leadership, but he has a really hot wife and more championships than the two others combined.

And then, we come to Manu Ginobli, who, many people believe is a top flight player, earning PER stats akin to Kobe Bryant (according to a Hollinger article from a month ago is the virtual equivalent to Kobe on the floor) and according to various sources is one of the most clutch players in basketball, and even made some sport's writer's All NBA ballot (best player at his position). I have long held the position that he is an excellent player, but he would be a borderline all star at best in the packed West. Sure, he has plenty of games like Game 3 of the series, but he has plenty of games where he disappears like games 1 and 2. They need him or Parker to complement Duncan, and he's more able to fully complement Duncan because of his wide array of skills. But more on him, after I rant about a tangential issue.

The PER stats (Player Efficiency Rating of John Hollinger's creation, the ESPN stats guru) are based on "efficiency", not "effectiveness", which would be the more appropriate measure of who is better for their team. Because, if a guy plays 20 minutes a game, and is very efficient during those 20 minutes, he is helping the team, but only providing 20 minutes worth of help, not a game's worth of help. A game is the lowest common denominator between a time span and a relevant impact on team success statistic, and providing per minute or per second or per 40 minute evaluations are valuable as Hollinger puts it, for the purposes of efficiency, but not for the more important statistic of a player's effectiveness for the team. Ginobli ended up playing plenty of minutes (about as many as Duncan), but not as much as the quality stars at his position often do. You could make arguments about more minutes translating into better efficiency or more overall stats, but those arguments are illusory because they are not of any actual impact. But, there is no question, that when he is on, he is extremely beneficial to the team.

There are lots of reasons that I disparage the PER stats even for efficiency purposes, mostly, the lack of defensive statistical data. Steals and blocks are often bad indicators of a player's effectiveness or efficiency at defense as Battier (who puts his hand in front of your eyes, not on the ball to make you miss and not block your shot or steal the ball, and also plays the angles and help defenders extremely well) and Bowen (who is extremely physical) are excellent defensive players that don't show up in the stats sheets. I have always believed rebounds are not defensive data, but more special teams data in part because of some rebounds are offensive, in part because of the majority of the hustle required for defensive rebounding is conducted after an offensive sequence has concluded, and in part because I like dividing stuff up into logical groups, which in basketball falls into the 2-2-1 variety, (e.g. blocks and rebounds are big-man stats, steals and assists are little-man stats and points are size-neutral or e.g. on offense, there is generally a point guard, two swing men, and two post players and on defense there is generally a center, two forwards and two guards).

Okay, back to Ginobli, he's quick, he's angular, he's got a decent outside shot, he finishes well at the basket, he passes well, and he's clutch. On defense, he has quick hands and quick feet, but he takes a lot of chances and his man can usually beat him off the dribble if he has skills. So what? Lots of top caliber players have flaws, look at Nash and 'Melo, they don't play defense. Look at LeBron, Howard, they only play D when they want. Look at Chris Paul, he doesn't have an outside shot. But, from what I have seen, I would want those guys as my best offensive player, carrying my team for me. Those other guys could do it for a season and they could do it for a series. Manu, for whatever reason can do that for a given game, but he's more of a John Starks type player, who if you're relying too much on him carrying your team, will run into road blocks. Luckily, the team has never relied on him too much, they play him roughly 30 minutes a night, keeping him rested and allow Duncan to be the consistent best player and Parker to intermittently shoulder the offense when Manu is not playing great ball.

The Spurs are helped out by a veteran team in Bowen, who lost a step, but remains every bit as physical on the defensive end and has a respectable spot up 3 point shot. Finley and Barry lead mishmash of 3 point shooters. And they have a few serviceable big men to relieve Duncan.

I have found Udoke to be a very weak link on the offensive end in particular, but worse yet, a defensive specialist that has no ability to stop Kobe from doing anything he wants.

If I were the Spurs, I would go to the Kobe ball denial on defense, and Duncan in the post on offense. Duncan will generally make the right decision about shooting or passing to the open shooter. On defense, once Kobe does get the ball, I would try playing some LeBron-ball against him, using some double teams and hard fouls when he drives the lane. He won't be intimidated from driving because he's mentally tough and is willing to throw his body into harm's way, but he'll start altering his shot to expect contact, and it might tire him out more than the jacked LeBron who barely feels the contact.

I have much less to say about Boston and Detroit. I picked Detroit because I figured Sheed could minimize KG, Tayshaun's length could minimize Pierce's truth, and Hamilton would outduel an aged Ray Allen. I accounted for a formidable Boston defense, but assumed that Detroit's myriad of above-average offensive options would prevent Boston's defense from stopping Detroit. I might be wrong, but prognostication is not an exact science, it's a pseudo-science or a "social science" like history. Like the history of Duncan or Shaq being in the finals every year for the last 9 years or Burr actually not being the bad guy in the Hamilton duel, or Hillary's chances of being president.

Take solace, people. Take lots of solace in stuff,
The Creaking Papa Bear, ME