Basketball Greats

I enjoy lists. I enjoy basketball. I enjoy greatness. So, for a long time, I have been trying to evaluate and rank the greatest NBA players ever. It's difficult because there is no single metric that will give a consistent or accurate result. I appreciate victories and championships, but basketball is a team sport and basing your rankings solely on championships will lead to outlandish conclusions like Horry was better than Jordan or Pippen was equal to Jordan or Karl Malone was worse than Steve Kerr... a lot worse. So, winning can't be the only factor. We can look at cumulative stats, but this weighs far too heavily on health and longevity, rather than tying a career to success or dominance. We can look at standard metrics like per game stats, but that does not factor in a lifetime of playing great basketball and does not bear sufficient resemblance to impact on the Court (especially on defense). So, we often look to advanced metrics, and some are proving valuable, like ESPN's Real Plus Minus (or Player Efficiency Rating) or Value Over Replacement Player. But there are no advanced metrics that are close to giving us a cross-generational ranking of the greatest players of all time. Even in advanced metrics, there are subjective elements (e.g. which data you choose to enter or how much you to choose to weigh that data), which makes it increasingly important to verify conclusions using identifiable markers (or great individual basketball players); in the post-merger era, if the list does not include Jordan, LeBron, Magic, Bird, or Shaq in the top 10, the stat probably requires adjustment. I found a very simple system that works, even though it probably shouldn't. So, I'll give you my rankings with a simple chart, then I'll explain the chart, hypothesize why the list works (generally), describe my impressions of what it means to be this great, and then I'll delve a bit into the predictive power of the list, and who among active players may rise onto the list. So, without further ado:

Players          Finals MVPs     MVPs     Totals     FYI: Titles/Finals

1. Jordan                6                   5            11              (6/6)
2. Kareem**          2                   6             8               (6/10)
3. LeBron               3                  4             7                (3/7)
4. Magic                 3                  3             6                (5/9)
5. Russell**           0+                5             5                (11/12)
6. Duncan               3                  2             5                (5/6)
7. Bird                    2                  3              5               (3/5)
8. Chamberlain**     1                 4              5                (2/6)
9. Shaq                    3                 1              4                (4/6)
10. Moses               1                  3              4                (1/2)
11. Dr. J**              0                3.5*         3.5         (1/3) & (ABA 2/2)
12. Kobe                 2                  1              3                (5/7)
13. Hakeem            2                  1              3                 (2/3)

*- Julius Erving had 2.5 ABA MVPs & 2 ABA Playoffs MVPs
+ Award Named After Bill Russell
** Substantially pre-merger awards

For players having post-merger success adequate to enter the list, here are their career totals:

(1) Michael Jordan- 11
(2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar- 8
(3) LeBron James- 7
(4) Magic Johnson- 6
(5) Tim Duncan- 5
(6) Larry Bird- 5
(7) Shaquille O'Neal- 4
(8) Moses Malone- 4
(9) Kobe Bryant- 3
(10) Hakeem Olajuwon- 3

Let me start the analysis by explaining the basic system. Add Finals MVPs (which are a pretty good marker for greatness by themselves, particularly post-merger, as they account for contributions to ultimate basketball success) to MVPs (which is a good marker for season-long dominance). A player must have a total value of 3 such achievements to qualify for the list. Then give the tie-breaker to the greater number of Finals MVPs. There are three adjustments that I made to the list pertaining to pre-merger issues (the merger of the ABA and the NBA that occurred in 1976). (1) Willis Reed is omitted for a mild overvaluation of his 3 achievements, which leaves him just below the minimum threshold, (2) Julius Erving ("Dr. J") has essentially half of his ABA accomplishments accounted for in addition to his NBA accomplishments, and (3) Bill Russell has an automatic life-long tie breaker for the NBA Finals MVP being named after him.

The pre-merger adjustments make the list more palatable because... (a) the Finals MVP was not awarded until Russell stopped winning trophies. So, access to the award totals was more limited; (b) the NBA Finals MVP award was named after Russell for his career playoff success; (c) the level of competition was lower in part because of: less attention to basketball, less money for basketball players, less sophisticated approaches to the game (often meaning less focus on defense and more focus on pace); (d) there were less teams, sometimes as few as 10, which partially offsets the lower competition (but not fully), but it also means winning a championship often involved winning two rounds of competition, rather than four; (e) for about ten years, much of the league's talent was drained by the new ABA league somewhat affecting Kareem's and Wilt Chamberlain's accomplishments and largely affecting Reed's and Erving's achievements. All of these factors, in my estimation, roughly neutralize each other with respect to Russell who is fully credited for his 5 awards (in which the voting players may have partially accounted for his playoff excellence) provided he gets the tie-breaker for having the Finals MVP award named after him.

The next issue is whether to mildly discount Wilt's and Kareem's awards for largely receiving those awards during the time of the ABA. Wilt is already on the lower end of 5 awards (only 1 Finals MVP), so for the time being, it does not make sense to reduce his achievements... and if there was a Finals MVP Award, Russell may not have won the regular season award so often. Abdul Jabbar is also already on the lower end of 8 (only 2 Finals MVPs), so if we reduced his total to 7.5, it would not impact LeBron's (or most others') ability to pass him. So, while we acknowledge that Kareem probably should have a mild reduction, for now, we can leave him on the list as is. The more complicated questions are what to do with Dr. J's and Willis Reed's awards (who happened to receive a Finals MVP Award quite literally for showing up to Game 7) who were drastically impacted by the existence of two competing leagues. If you devalue Reed's NBA accomplishments just a bit to offset the mildly reduced talent, he ends up somewhere near 3, like 2.8 which is NOT 3. This means Reed unfortunately does not meet the criteria necessary to make this list. Undoubtedly, he was a great player who accomplished a great deal (won 2 Finals MVPs, 1 MVP, and his Knicks won 2/3 of Finals appearances in the NBA during the time of the ABA), which helps his case among the other great players historically. But this list is reserved for the historically exceptional players, identified by a milestone, which is the value of 3 of these awards (again- while Reed technically has 3, the value of those 3 is slightly lower). Dr. J's accomplishments are even more difficult to discern as, in a weaker league, the ABA, he won 3 MVPs (1 of which was a tie, so 2.5 MVPs) and 2 Playoff MVPs during years when his team won the ABA title, but that award is not even referred to as a Finals MVP. So, the most fair method of accounting for his ABA achievements is essentially counting 1 of the 2 metrics. Luckily, it matters little which metric is counted because his 2.5 MVPs are worth approximately 2 Finals MVPs. He also won 1 MVP in the NBA, so he ends up with the value of 3.5 MVPs (or 1 MVP and 2 Finals MVP equivalents with other awards as tie breakers). So, that's how we end up with the 3 modifications to the list.

It's easy to create a terrific list of the greatest players ever. It's much harder to do it based on objective calculations or criteria. So, yes the list is subjective. But, it is tallied entirely objectively post-merger, and otherwise largely objectively. And it happens to be pretty easy to calculate, especially going forward. Each year, the relevant voters make subjective analyses about who is the best player... or who was the best player in the Finals. Not only are these awards subjective, but in my opinion (and probably the opinion of most observers), they are very frequently wrong. Steve Nash likely didn't deserve two MVPs, nor did D. Rose necessarily deserve one. Pierce or Parker may not have deserved their respective Finals MVP. Further, because of the randomness involved (excess award noise), a single award (or even two of them) says almost nothing about your place among the greatest players of all time. Andre Iguodala is a lifelong very good player who played really well in one finals series and may have been one great game 7 away from winning a second Finals MVP. However, at some point, the accumulation of these awards does reflect some level of sustained legendary greatness. Moreover, it's fascinating how the voters mix the inaccuracies of generically over-rewarding talent with voter fatigue to almost neutralize the negative impacts of each. For example, Bird, Magic, and Duncan were each, in all likelihood, the greatest players on their respective teams during the bulk of their careers and worthy of being in the pantheon of greatest players of all time, but each was on a team with incredibly talented players and/or incredibly talented coaches that were occasionally as valuable as they were. And giving these elite players unfettered credit for their many many championships seems unfair in comparison to the import of crediting Jordan or LeBron (who were also on some incredibly talented teams), whose team's fates were exceptionally linked to their individual dominance. The voters seem to have subconsciously or instinctively recognized this valuable distinction, as Jordan and LeBron got all of their team's Finals MVPs (thus far), while Bird got 2/3 of his available Finals MVPs and Duncan and Magic got 3/5 of their available Finals MVPs.

I have heard objections about my adjustments to the list, objections about an individual not making the list, like Jerry West (dynamic playoff performer), Oscar Robertson (per game stats), Karl Malone (cumulative stats), Kevin Garnett (defensive dominance), and even Dirk Nowitzki (offensive efficiency), and objections to a few of the players on the list, or their placement on it... all with varying degrees of persuasiveness. And personally, I might tweak the list such as swap Kobe and Moses Malone, but I'm willing to accept that my own beliefs and thoughts may be less valuable than having and employing a functional definitive roughly accurate system. And this is the only objective calculation that I have ever seen that accounts for our collective nearly-objective criteria (along with my admittedly subjective criteria) for greatness. So, whether the list should or should not work, in my estimation, it does happen to work. And for obvious reasons, the list is delightfully spread almost equally across the eras.

Okay, so generally my understanding of "best players" is based upon the players we would choose, if we wanted to start a team to win the most championships (or put us in a position to win the most championships), using the amount of time played by that player (factoring in injuries, rest, etc.), the player's dominance during their actual career, and the timelessness of that player, (i.e. if the player was drafted with the equipment, training techniques, coaching, player caliber, and rules/officiating of some arbitrarily chosen era, he would still be relatively dominant). The most important hypothetical metrics involved are titles (and wins) over standard or average replacement player (and this is complicated by the uniqueness of position players, regular season value vs. playoff value, historical time frames, etc.). So, a player's individual brilliance over a peak period of time and quality longevity both add significant value to a team. Ideally, you have a player like Kareem who is a unique talent, incredibly dominant for a time, but who also keeps you in the running for decades, thereby adding a great deal of value (and potential wins and titles) over his career. Jordan was better by most estimations (because of Jordan's sheer dominance, which is adequately reflected by the list), but Kareem's extended amazing play makes his career a great mix of the various factors of NBA greatness. So, Kareem has remarkable numbers of awards, championships, cumulative totals, per game averages, and advanced metrics in both the regular season and the playoffs. It's fitting that Kareem spans the pre-merger and post-merger eras and is so high on the list... and that in order to pass him, LeBron will need to extend his greatness further and longer.

The future is unclear. LeBron could win another MVP or more likely another Finals MVP to pass Kareem on the list... or not. Further, while Curry is currently closer to making the list than Durant, I would not argue that Curry has had a better career. But... if Curry earns another MVP or a Finals MVP from winning a second championship, I would certainly argue he outpaced Durant and entered the discussion for the greatest players of all time (having a career similar to Isiah Thomas's, but with greater regular season dominance). And if Durant, who is in his prime, could have a great year and win both awards in one year, he would deservedly vault onto this list. Or maybe, voter fatigue sets in, and Curry wins no more MVPs, and neither Durant nor Curry win any more championships, and they end up merely having really terrific careers. Either way works, as either player might, by the end of their careers, merit landing in the top 20 players of all time, but not necessarily the top 15. I'm at least open to letting their individual/team accomplishments and award-winning achievements make that determination... for now.

Record vs. Rivals: A Tennis Stat Through the Ages

Roger Federer is the most accomplished male tennis player of all time, absolutely dominating tennis for over six years (making the finals in 22 of 27 Grand Slams, winning 16 of them), and extending his excellence for approximately 13 years. Federer has won the most Grand Slam titles by a relatively wide margin. He was in the most Grand Slam finals by an even wider margin. He was in the most Grand Slam semi-finals. Federer also won on every tennis surface and in every major tournament, completing the career Grand Slam. Federer held the #1 rank for the longest period of time. He has won the most ATP championship tournaments and has even won a Davis Cup championship now. (He has not won an Olympic gold medal, merely silver, but that is nit-picking.) Federer has won tournaments around the world, among the most in history, playing for over fifteen years and yet he still maintains one of the highest winning percentages of all time and one of the highest winning percentages against top-10 opponents ever. His game is basically flawless; he mastered everything from the serve, the return, the forehand, the backhand, the baseline, and the net, with good speed, strength, agility, and stamina. His play seems fluid and regal as if he was born to be the greatest tennis player of all time (or more accurately the greatest male tennis player of the open era). And yet there is a legitimate reason to keep that figurative title from him, and it's a rather compelling reason: Rafael Nadal.

Nadal, who was a clay court specialist, with fewer wins (major and otherwise) than Federer, who largely saved himself for the majors, did not have a flawless game, and started succeeding later and appears to be finishing success earlier, and did not win as much in between, and won most of his major tournaments on one surface, still beat Federer regularly. It is not unusual, nor is it particularly telling that one person has an edge over another person in any given match-up. If Joe Nobody were to beat Federer with regularity, and just merely takes advantage of a match-up disparity (or he somehow figured Federer out), it would not be generally informative, even in such an individual sport. But since Nadal happens to be the second winning-est player of all time, playing in the same era as Federer and beating him most of the time, it does call into question whether Federer is the best player of his own time, let alone of all time.

So, to what extent does Nadal dominate Federer? Well, let's start with the overall record: 23-10 Nadal. Federer is 2-1 on grass; Nadal is 9-6 on hard courts; and Nadal is 13-2 on clay (meaning on non-clay, Nadal is 10-8 against Federer. Now, let's get to Grand Slams: Nadal is 9-2 against Federer in Grand Slams: Federer is 2-1 at Wimbledon, Nadal is 5-0 at the French, and Nadal is 3-0 at the Australian Open (meaning 4-2 on non-clay). Meaning, even on non-clay, Nadal has the better of the tournament match-ups. But, maybe Nadal was beating up on Federer as Federer was moving away from his prime? Maybe prime Nadal was crushing older Federer? There's some of that... but looking just at Grand Slams, the last time Federer beat Nadal at a Grand Slam was Wimbledon in 2007, meaning Federer was about 26 years old and Nadal was about 21. It's hard to discount Federer a year later as past his prime, even if Nadal was approaching his. In 2008, with Federer about 27 and Nadal about 22, Nadal was 4-0 against Federer, beating Federer at Wimbledon as well as the French Open. In 2009, they were 1-1 with Nadal winning their one Grand Slam match-up in Australia.

But, what about that 2007 victory, doesn't that indicate that prime Federer would beat prime Nadal at least at Wimbledon? Well, it's a stretch to believe that 21 year old Nadal who had never won a non-clay tournament was at his peak. But maybe Federer's peak had faded? When exactly was Federer's peak? That's a tough question. First, his personal peak (meaning his greatest tennis) may differ from his accomplishment peak, but certainly in 2004- he won 3 Grand Slams, in 2005, he won 2 Grand Slams, in 2006, he made it to all 4 Grand Slam Finals winning 3 (possibly his peak year), in 2007, he mirrored that accomplishment (possibly his peak year), in 2008, he made it to 3 finals, losing two of them to Nadal. So maybe he was done? But Nadal was then somewhat hurt the following year, and Federer proceeded to make it to all 4 finals again, winning two (and losing one to Nadal). Nadal's peak year did not come for another two years after that, as Federer was still excellent, but no longer maintaining his legendarily consistent Grand Slam performances (so not at his personal accomplishment peak). But, during the 2 years their personal accomplishment peaks coincided, Nadal was fairly dominant against Federer on all surfaces (winning in 3 different Grand Slam finals.)

Perhaps more importantly, which competitors were most dominant against their contemporary elite rivals? This is particularly important because the value of each championship may be somewhat lesser or greater depending on the level of competition. How do we procedurally make such a determination? An early hurdle in such an endeavor is that not only do the greats play in different eras, but even the ones that do play in the same era do not necessarily have overlapping prime years. For example, Connors is substantially older than McEnroe, so in 1985, while Connors was still talented enough to get by good tennis players, he may have diminished more than McEnroe's prime-level game. Thus, if Connors was no longer the mighty Connors we once knew, a McEnroe victory would not be particularly demonstrative of McEnroe's superiority. But age should not define primes because Nadal and Djokovic are the same age (one year apart), but Nadal ripened as a player much earlier than Djokovic did, so comparing their records in 2006 would be of very limited value. And conversely, it appears that Djokovic's prime is going to extend past Nadal's, which means we may not want to compare Djokovic's future years to Nadal's future years either.

First, we devise a method to determine the elite players of all time that is at least largely objective and preferably convenient (even if it is arbitrary). The top 10 ranked players are not historically elite level players. We could create a standard whereby "elite players" won a certain number of Grand Slam tournaments victories, making the victory total sufficiently low to avoid really tiny sample sizes (that would mean 2-3 Grand Slam victories). But, even if we did that, we would would still have to determine a prime for those elite players (who may have won one tournament in 1991 and then another in 1997). The greatest players of all time would have extended periods of accomplishment, particularly Grand Slam achievements (which are critical events, sufficiently plentiful, and well documented). So, if Djokovic won one rogue Grand Slam tournament in 2008 or if Murray did so in 2015, it does not necessarily count as his prime. If the standard for excellence is created with some consideration, this standard could serve both to eliminate the individuals who are not elite all-time greats, and to determine the years in which those greats were in their prime.

An effective method of establishing the "Prime" of each great tennis player works as follows: the player makes it to the finals in 3 Grand Slam tournaments within a two year period (at least 3 finals in 8 Grand Slam tournaments). While winning Grand Slams is a greater accomplishment, getting to the finals with regularity would indicate the player is beating low level competition and high level competition repeatedly over a given period of time. If that player loses to a rival in his prime or someone playing superb tennis, that does not mean they are not in their prime. But, over a two year period, if that historically great player continues to play at a high level, presumably his seeding should improve and he should have increased opportunities to make it to the finals. If he never made it to the finals 3 times in a two year period, then I assert that he is not a historically elite player in his prime. (Obviously, I note that Grand Slam achievement is not the only method of determining a prime. And I note that this method has flaws, e.g., an individual may be playing incredible tennis, possibly winning many peripheral tournaments for 2+ straight years, winning two titles, losing to 3-5 titans in semi-finals (or quarterfinals) of Grand Slams and/or was hurting/injured in 1-2 of those tournaments, and this player would not be considered an all time great in their prime, even though they may have been a top player at the time (see Kriek). [Personally, I think it's informative that a person cannot sustain excellence long enough to make 3 finals in two years. You can also effectively argue that Wawrinka has been better the last two years than Federer has - with two Grand Slam victories, rather than Federer's 3 Grand Slam Finals losses, but can you argue that based upon those two victories Wawrinka is an all time great? If he retires tomorrow, which I hope he does not, he would be a guy who had two hot years when he was one of the best players in tennis, rather than an all time great. I feel somewhat bad omitting Kuerten because he never had a "prime", Kuerten who won 3 French Open titles, making him the the third most accomplished French Open player of the Open era and the only winner of 3 Grand Slams in the open era left all the list.) Similarly, a player could have played far superior tennis in an earlier stage of his career, and yet got a few breaks and played lesser opponents and made the finals and lost 3 times in two years. (Michael Chang, my favorite tennis player, won his one Grand Slam in his teens, well before his "Prime".] But, no criteria would be without fault, and any criteria would be arbitrary. I think this one's logic has merit and it can be relatively easily universally applied objectively.)

This Prime determination method mostly eliminates the very good players and leaves the legends. Notably, between 1974-2015, there were only 19 such players so far. For those individual players, I would also include as a "Supplemental Prime", any period within 5 tournaments in which these players won two Grand Slam tournaments. This is an All Time great player who is dominating a time, or an event ("a hot streak"). (It is notable that placing these arbitrary standards upon peaks is not only useful for the stat, but also for evaluating the competitiveness of particular eras of tennis. But, that is an issue for another time.)

Working in roughly chronological order (note that Agassi, Connors, and Federer had multiple peaks, Edberg and Becker had early hot streaks, and as mentioned, Chang did not win his one Grand Slam during his Prime- he won when he was a teenager- 5 years before his prime):

Primes of the Elite Men's Tennis Players of the Open Era

Connors- 1974-1978, 1982-1984

Borg- 1975-1981

Vilas- 1977-1979

McEnroe- 1979-1985

Wilander- 1982-1988

Lendl- 1982-1991

Becker- 1985-1986, 1988-1991

Edberg- 1985-1986, 1988-1993

Cash- 1987-1988

Agassi- 1990-1992, 1994-1995, 1999-2001

Courier- 1991-1993

Sampras- 1992-2001

Chang- 1995-1996

Ferrero- 2002-2003

Roddick- 2003-2005

Federer- 2003-2011, 2014-2015

Nadal- 2005-2014

Djokovic- 2010-2016

Murray- 2011-2013; 2015-2016

There are 19 players on the list so far with a mean 6+ years of Prime during the 42 years in question. Notable players that did not make this list, but might make someone else's list:

Wawrinka (3-0 in Grand Slam Finals so far),

Kuerten (3-0 in Grand Slam Finals),

Rafter (2-2 in Grand Slam Finals),

Hewitt (2-2 in Grand Slam Finals),

Safin (2-2 in Grand Slam Finals),

Kafelnikov (2-1 in Grand Slam Finals),

Kriek (2-0 in Grand Slam Finals),

Ivanisevich (1-3 in Grand Slam Finals),

Stich (1-2 in Grand Slam Finals), and

Gerulaitis (1-2 in Grand Slam Finals).

So these Primes (1) established the elite historical players and simultaneously (2) established when those players were at their peaks. The next step is to establish their records against each of the other players during the Prime of the other elite players.

 Head to Head during Joint Primes in Majors

Borg v. Connors 1975-1978 GS: 3-2 Connors, T: 5-4 Connors: Overall 15-8 Borg, GS 5-3 Borg

Borg v. Vilas 1977-1979, GS: 1-0 Borg, T: ?: Overall 17-5 Borg, GS 3-0 Borg

Borg v. McEnroe 1979-1981, G: 3-1 McEnroe, T: 7-6 Borg: Overall 7-7, GS 3-1 McEnroe

Connors v. McEnroe 1982-1984, G: 3-1 McEnroe, T: 11-3 McEnroe: Overall 20-14 McEnroe, GS 6-3 McEnroe

Connors v. Wilander 1982-1984, G: 0-0, T: 2-0 Wilander: Overall 5-0 Wilander, GS 0-0

Connors v. Lendl 1982-1984, G: Connors 3-0, T: 6-5 Lendl: Overall 22-13 Lendl, GS 4-3 Lendl

Connors v. Vilas 1977-1978, G: 1-0 Vilas, T: ?: Overall 3-3, GS 2-1 Connors

McEnroe v. Wilander 1982-1985, G:, 3-1 Wilander, T: 4-4: Overall 7-6 McEnroe, GS 3-2 Wilander

McEnroe v. Lendl 1982-1985, G: 3-2 Lendl, T: 11-9 McEnroe: Overall 21-15 Lendl, GS 7-3 Lendl

McEnroe v. Edberg 1985, G: 0-0, T: 1-0 McEnroe: Overall 7-6 McEnroe, GS 2-1 Edberg

McEnroe v. Becker 1985, G: 0-0, T: 1-0 McEnroe: Overall 7-2 Becker, GS 1-0 McEnroe

Cash v. Wilander 1987-1988, G: 1-1, T: 2-1 Wilander: Overall 5-3 Cash, GS 4-1 Cash

Cash v. Lendl 1987-1988, G: 3-0 Cash, T: 3-1 Cash: Overall 5-3 Lendl, GS 3-3

Cash v. Edberg 1988, G: 0-0, T: 0-0: Overall 8-2 Edberg, GS 3-0 Edberg

Cash v. Becker 1988, G: 1-0 Becker, T: 1-0 Becker: Overall 3-1 Becker, GS 1-0 Becker

Lendl v. Wilander 1982-1988, G: 5-4 Lendl, T: 11-6 Lendl: Overall 15-7 Lendl, GS 5-4 Lendl

Lendl v. Edberg 1985-1986, 1988-1991, G: 3-3, T: 11-10 Lendl: Overall 14-13 Edberg, GS 5-4 Edberg

Lendl v. Becker 1985-1986, 1988-1991, G: Becker 5-0, T: 10-7 Becker: Overall 11-10 Lendl, GS 5-1 Becker

Lendl v. Agassi 1990-1991, G: 0-0, T: 0-0: Overall 6-2 Lendl, GS 2-0 Lendl

Lendl v. Courier 1991, G: 0-0, T: 1-0 Lendl: Overall 4-0 Lendl, GS 1-0 Lendl

Wilander v. Edberg 1985-1986, 1988, G: 1-1, T: 6-3 Wilander: Overall 11-9 Wilander, GS 3-2 Wilander

Wilander v. Becker 1985-1986, 1988, G: 1-0 Wilander, T: 5-1 Becker: Overall 7-3 Becker, GS 3-0 Wilander

Edberg v. Becker 1985-1986, 1988-1991, G: 3-1 Edberg, T: 15-6 Becker: Overall 25-10 Becker, GS 3-1 Edberg

Edberg v. Agassi 1990-1992, G: 0-0, T: 3-2 Agassi: Overall 6-3 Agassi, GS 1-0 Agassi

Edberg v. Courier 1991-1993, G: 4-2 Courier, T: 4-2 Courier: Overall 6-4 Courier, GS 4-2 Courier

Becker v. Agassi 1990-1991, G: 2-0 Agassi, T: 4-1 Agassi: Overall 10-4 Agassi, GS 4-1 Agassi

Becker v. Courier 1991, G: 0-0, T: 1-0 Becker: Overall 6-1 Becker, GS 0-0

Agassi v. Courier 1991-1992, G: 3-0 Courier, T: 5-0 Courier: Overall Courier 7-5, GS 4-2 Courier

Agassi v. Chang 1995, G: 0-0, T: 2-1 Agassi: Overall 15-7 Agassi, GS 3-2 Agassi

Sampras v. Edberg 1992-1993, G: 2-0 Edberg, T: 3-3: Overall 8-6 Sampras, GS 2-0 Edberg

Sampras v. Agassi 1992, 1994-1995, 1999-2001, G: 3-3, T: 10-10: Overall 20-14, GS 6-3 Sampras

Sampras v. Courier 1992, G: 1-0 Sampras, T: 2-1 Sampras: Overall 16-4 Sampras, GS 6-2 Sampras

Sampras v. Chang 1995-1996, G: 2-0 Sampras, T: 4-1 Sampras: Overall 12-8 Sampras, GS 4-1 Sampras

Federer v. Nadal 2005-2011, G: 8-2 Nadal, T: 16-9 Nadal: Overall 23-10 Nadal, GS 9-2 Nadal

Federer v. Djokovic 2010-2011, G: 3-4 Djokovic, T: 5-5: Overall 21-21, GS 8-7 Djokovic

Federer v. Murray 2011, G: 0-0, T: 0-0: Overall 13-11 Federer, GS 5-1 Federer

Federer v. Roddick 2003-2005, G: 3-0 Federer, T: 7-1 Federer: Overall 21-3, GS 8-0 Federer

Nadal v. Djokovic 2010-2014, G: 5-3 Nadal, T: 12-9 Djokovic: Overall 23-21 Nadal, GS 9-4 Nadal

Nadal v. Murray 2011-2013, G: 3-0 Nadal, T: 4-2 Nadal: Overall 15-6 Nadal, GS 7-2 Nadal

Nadal v. Roddick 2005, G: 0-0, T: 0-0: Overall 7-3 Nadal, GS 1-1

Djokovic v. Murray 2011-2013, G: 3-2 Djokovic, T: 7-5 Djokovic: Overall 19-8 Djokovic, GS 5-2 Djokovic

Ferrero v. Federer 2003, G: 0-0, T: 2-1 Federer: Overall 10-3 Federer, GS 3-1 Federer

Ferrero v. Roddick 2003, G: 1-0 Roddick, T: 1-0 Roddick: Overall 5-0 Roddick, GS 1-0 Roddick

And FYI: for players with only a Supplemental Prime (2 Grand Slam titles within 5 Grand Slams)- only a hot streak:

Hewitt v. Sampras 2001, G: 1-0 Hewitt, T: 2-0 Hewitt: Overall 5-4 Hewitt, GS 1-1

Hewitt v. Agassi 2001, G: 0-0, T: 1-1: Overall 5-4 Hewitt, GS 1-0 Agassi

Rafter v. Sampras 1997-1998, G: 1-0 Rafter, T: 5-2 Sampras: Overall 12-4 Sampras, GS 2-1 Sampras

Bruguera v. Courier 1993, G: 1-1, T: ?: Overall 4-2 Courier, GS 2-1 Bruguera

Bruguera v. Agassi 1994, G: 0-0, T: ?: Overall 7-2 Agassi, GS 0-0

Brugera v. Edberg 1993, G: 0-0, T: ?: Overall 6-2 Edberg, GS 1-0 Bruguera

Bruguera v. Sampras 1993-1994, G: 1-0 Bruguera, T: ?: Overall 2-2, GS 1-1

Kriek v. Borg 1981, G: 0-0, T: 0-0: Overall 2-1 Borg, GS 1-0 Borg

Kriek v. McEnroe 1981-1982, G: 2-0 McEnroe, T: 4-1 McEnroe: Overall 12-5 McEnroe, GS 2-0 McEnroe

Kriek v. Lendl 1982, G: 0-0, T: 2-0 Lendl: Overall 10-0 Lendl, GS 3-0 Lendl

Kriek v. Wilander 1982, G: 0-0, T: 0-0: Overall 5-0 Wilander, GS 3-0

Kriek v. Connors 1982, G: 0-0, T: 1-0 Connors: Overall 7-2, GS 1-0

Kuerten v. Sampras 2000-2001, G: 0-0, T: 1-1: Overall 2-1 Sampras, GS 0-0

Kuerten v. Agassi 2000-2001, G: 0-0, T: 2-2: Overall 7-4 Agassi, GS 1-0 Agassi

I included additional data in the charts for context of the competition between each two players to be somewhat more thorough and to recognize the disparity at other points in these players' careers. (A fun side note is that while Sampras was evidently more accomplished than Agassi and got the better of Agassi over the course of their careers, when they were both at their peaks (Agassi's Prime was sporadic), Agassi legitimately challenged Sampras, winning 3 of 6 Grand Slam matches.) Please excuse any errors in reporting or calculation; I did the best I could when I compiled the data; this is not my primary profession, and I did it mostly under difficult circumstances. Finally, whereas some of the modern numbers are subject to change including Federer's, Nadal's, or Djokovic's, if either makes one more finals in the near future, these are the current tallies in the records vs. rivals or the RVR.

 RVR

Nadal: 16-5

Djokovic: 12-8

Courier: 7-3

Edberg: 11-9

Wilander: 10-8

Cash: 4-2

McEnroe: 9-8

Becker: 7-6

Connors: 7-6

Sampras: 6-5

Vilas: 1-1

Agassi: 5-6

Ferrero: 0-1

Borg: 4-6

Roddick: 1-3

Chang: 0-2

Murray: 2-5

Federer: 6-14

Lendl: 11-20

 Interestingly, most of these historically elite players pretty much leveled out against their peers (within 2 games of .500) with a few notable exceptions. Lendl played his rivals a lot (far more than any other player), which may speak to his consistence beating the lesser players and/or to the sheer volume of historically competitive players in his extended and hyper-competitive era(s), and Lendl regularly got his behind kicked by these elite players (even though he won many battles). A few players had similarly difficult times with elite competition. A few other players had nice runs against their historic rivals. But perhaps the most noteworthy stat is Nadal's. At 16-5, he has by far the best record against his rivals in their peaks. Nadal's dominance is most demonstrable on clay, but he had very good records against these greatest players ever in their peaks on other surfaces too. And while Nadal's record versus Federer was 8-2 during this period, it was 8-3 against everyone else, meaning he just eviscerated the best players ever. And outside of Lendl, Nadal had the most of these matches so far, meaning he has the second highest sample size. This may mean Nadal raised his game dramatically when faced with the best opponents. Or perhaps more accurately (considering Nadal's winning percentage was one of the best at well over 80% of his matches in general and his winning percentage against historically great players in their primes was over 75%), Nadal beat the best players ever almost as often, if not as easily, as he beat standard professional tennis players, which is extraordinary. Nadal beat Federer, Djokovic and company like they were 3rd round opponents, winning 14 championships along the way. And as for Federer, if you subtract his record versus Nadal, he was an acceptable 4-6 versus his rivals in their prime. If you include Nadal (as you should), Federer was 6-10 against his rivals in their mutual primes.

Given Federer's decent record against other historically great competitors, we probably should not read too much of this deficiency into Federer. Rather, the stat is a statement of the excellence and dominance of Nadal, even among the greatest players of all time in their primes. For that reason, referring to Federer as the greatest men's tennis player of the open era, even with his myriad accomplishments and acclaim, is called into question. Nadal who won only 3 less Grand Slams, but absolutely crushed Federer (and everyone else) in their primes, may be the best player of the Federer era. But, as for who is actually best (factoring in total Grand Slams, record versus rivals, array of important wins, wins on all types of surfaces, number of weeks at the number one spot, total tournament wins, winning percentage, winning percentage against top 10 opponents, caliber of competition, etc.), it still might be Federer, right? I'll leave that decision to you... or to me in another more subjective blog post.

FNL Thanksgiving

Click on the title if you're interested in an FNL recap. If you're interested, feel free to read it and comment.
The episode is entitled "Thanksgiving." I wonder what it's about.

Laboring Friday

http://www.casualhoya.com/2010/7/31/1598100/friday-night-lights-laboring-recap

This is my weekly recap of Friday Night Lights. If you like it, tell your friends. If you don't like, keep it to yourself, you big jerk.

I hope if you click on the title, it will take you to the website.

Friday Night

http://www.casualhoya.com/2010/7/24/1585571/friday-night-lights-injury-list

I found this thing I wrote earlier today, just sitting there on the Internet. It wasn't doing anything, so if you're not doing anything... maybe you can hang out with it for awhile.

It's a recap of the Friday Night Lights episode "Injury List" that aired on NBC on Friday, July 23, 2010 at 8:00 p.m. EST. Hope you enjoy.

Cheers,
ME

Dream Team?

Dear reader,

I am surprised by LeBron's choice to go to Miami. I previously explained my take on his different options. After hearing his Decision, even after ESPN's warning, my first thought was how horrible this ordeal was for the city of Cleveland. My next thought was that LeBron was foregoing a potential legacy as a top 5 player of all time in exchange to play a super-charged Scottie Pippen to Dwayne Wade's lesser Michael Jordan. I went through the stages of grieving even though nobody died, nobody was gone forever and heck, I'm not even a Cavs fan. I can only imagine what Cleveland was going through. The only thing I lost was-some degree of respect for a young man I greatly appreciated. But now, with some time to process most of my feelings on the matter, I sought an outlet to relay some of my racing thoughts.

In Defense of LeBron James:
Let's start with the fact that LeBron raised millions of dollars for charity. Sure, he created a spectacle that was the height of hubris, but he channeled that spectacle for a good cause. Let's not forget this act of charity, even in the darkest corners of our minds.

Further, despite the fury directed towards LeBron, he committed no crime. He was accused of committing no crime. Nothing he did was against the law, nor was it against some societal norm. There was no accusation that he cheated on his wife like many other athletes have, even if Cleveland fans feel cheated. He violated no contract; his contract expired and he decided to take a different job. Gosh-darned it, he didn't even lie about any of it. At no point did he make any commitment to his fans that he would play the rest of his career in Cleveland. At most, he said he would like to or love to finish his career in Cleveland, but he always qualified those statements with his primary goal of winning championships... but we'll get to that soon enough.

He forfeited money to play in Miami. A rough estimate is that LeBron could have made a salary of $125 million to sign with Cleveland than any other team. To sign anywhere else, the maximum salary he could make is $30 million less (with one less year.) That's $30 million in guaranteed money. By playing in Miami, alongside Wade and Bosh, he has to take even more of a pay cut, at least another $5 million off the amount they could pay him... $35 million less guaranteed salary than he could make in Cleveland. As I mentioned in my previous post, there are caveats to these salary estimates.

1) LeBron will likely play more than 5 years at a very high level and thus that 6th (extra) year he will likely be paid by some team, an amount around $20 million, which would offset his $35 million lost potential income. 2) Florida does not have income tax, which would save LeBron close to $7 million over the course of the deal. (I'm not counting income tax over the course of future contracts because (a) he may leave Florida after the contract expires and (b) because there is a great chance if he decided to stay in Cleveland, he would leave Cleveland after the 6 year-contract was up, particularly because he might be hungry for titles.) 3) A new collective bargaining agreement will be harsher on players, including lower increases in the maximum salary he could earn as well as a lower salary cap, making it harder for him to earn money in the future. So, that sixth year and beyond, he will likely earn less money over the course of future contracts. 4) That 6th year will be the base amount for his next contract, which will be over $2 million lower than he could have had if he resigned with Cleveland. That means every year of his future contracts, his salary can only increase by a fixed percentage from one year to the next, and he's losing out on more than $2 million per year. So, after this contract, if he signs for 5 more years, he probably loses another $10-12 million on his next contract alone because of signing with the Heat now. (i.e. if the maximum he could get paid on a year by year basis increases something like Yr. 1: $17M- Yr. 2: $18M- Yr. 3: $19M- Yr. 4: $20M- Yr. 5: $21- Yr. 6: $22M in Cleveland vs. Yr. 1: $15M- Yr. 2: $16M- Yr. 3: $17M- Yr. 4: $18M- Yr. 5: $19M in Miami. Then if he signs with Miami, his next contract will start at $20M in his 6th year and proceed $2M lower each year from then on. Additionally, because these numbers operate on percentage growth not $1M per year increases, the amount in prospective losses, increases marginally every year.

So, by my non-scientific estimate, based on the facts and figures and patchwork, if he plays less than 5 years, he lost $28 million in extra salary income. If he plays more than 5 years, he gets paid for that 6th year now, so that offsets most of his losses. But after that 6th year, the longer his career, the more he lost/loses in prospective income (just by signing this current lesser deal with the Heat.) Hence, assuming he plays for 10 years, which is fairly conservative, then my guess is he loses about $15 million. You may be saying, that's nothing, but tens of millions of dollars is not nothing. $10 million could buy him or his family something important to them or it could go to charity or it could be used to hire more people to assist him and give people jobs OR as savvy business people know, every dollar is a potential investment into something much more lucrative.

[Update: New reports indicate that both Cleveland and Toronto made the smart business decision and agreed to sign and trade deals to get trade exceptions for themselves, but also permitted LeBron, Bosh (and Wade) more money under the Collective Bargaining Agreement Rules. They are accepting a 6-year $110 million dollar salary. This means that the 6th year issue is no longer in play. So, LeBron is turning down $15 million in guaranteed money, though $7 million would be paid for Ohio State taxes, for a total net loss of $8 million guaranteed money. The calculation of losses from future contracts continues to be a loss of over $2 million per year for the reasons stated above. Thus, if he is still playing at a very high level at age 31 and signs one single 5 year contract. (Again taxes on that contract do not come into play because we do not know where he will sign or where he would have signed had he been playing for Cleveland.) The signing of this contract would lose him over $10 million off the maximum salary he could earn in that next future contract. So, other than his loss of guaranteed money, the rest of the calculations of his losses remain the same; over the course of his career, he is likely to lose over $15 million by signing this contract with the Heat.]

Some of you are saying, he can make this up in endorsements by going to Miami. Maybe... if he had gone to New York, the biggest market or if he had gone to New Jersey in the presence of an international billionaire and rap mogul who could advertise the heck out of him with unlimited resources... maybe if he had gone to Chicago, he could have won a few championships on a good team and marketed himself as the leader of a championship team. He would bring Jordanesque excitement to a major market (Jordan's market, which made Jordan the most financially successful player ever) and earn more than in Cleveland because the team, unlike Cleveland, was good and could brand him as a champion.

What about Miami? Presumably, he has an even better chance to win in Miami than Chicago, but as Russian billionaire Nets owner pointed out in his notes, playing alongside a superstar of Wade's caliber would tarnish LeBron's brand. I agree with Prokhorov, but I'll start with my limited counter-argument. My favorite economic theory is the principle of minimum differentiation. It's the reason Starbucks always puts a Starbucks right next to another Starbucks. Dunkin Donuts does the same thing. McDonald's and Burger King are often located very near each other. Why? Because when these similar brands and companies are located near each other, that spot becomes the place to go for McDonald's. You want Chinese food? Go to Chinatown. You put similar powerful brands next to each other and that becomes the place to go for that specific commodity. Hence, Miami will be that for basketball, along with L.A. and a few other places. The idea is that if you put a really good player like Gasol next to a great player like Kobe, both players get more out of it. And think of jersey sales. Similarly, consumers buy the jerseys of winners in part because the NBA markets them more. Imagine how much the basketball world will revolve around Miami if these entertaining players win championships together.

Despite my disfigured version of my favorite economic theory, I still think Prokhorov is right. If they don't win titles, they don't market LeBron alone. And more likely, when they do win championships, THEY DON'T MARKET LEBRON ALONE. So, if Chicago won the title with LeBron on the team, they market LeBron's shoes and his gatorade and his sandwiches. If Miami wins, the message is diluted, buy LeBron's shoes and Wade's gatorade and Bosh's sandwiches.

But, my point here is... LeBron knowingly "sacrificed" money in favor of an increased likelihood of winning championships, definitely from salary and almost definitely from endorsements.

But, that's not the only thing he gave up. In order to play with Dwayne Wade, he had to give up part of his ego. Sure, he made a spectacle of himself the last few days and distinguished himself from Wade and Bosh by placing himself in the spotlight over the two of them, but that's the last time he's going to be doing that for awhile. His Decision, like his play on the court, was unselfish.

1) Wade is a Miami hero, who brought the team a title already. 2) He was a Finals MVP. 3) Then Wade decided to return out of a sense of loyalty. 3) He also demonstrated his leadership by bringing LeBron with him. 4) It's very likely Wade will be the leading scorer on the team, as a former scoring champion and factoring LeBron's somewhat superior skills as a passer. 5) As a person with championship experience (and who is slightly older,) Wade will likely by the team leader in the huddles because he has successfully acted in that role before. 6) Wade will very likely get more of the clutch shots because while LeBron is good at those shots, Wade is better. 7) And this is all assuming no one gets injured or perhaps almost as bad, that no one gets jealous.

LeBron is not a fool, despite your current opinion of him. He recognizes at least most of these things above and he's doing the best to spin it in a way that makes it sound humbling without harming his brand as a powerful individual force. But, he must know that some people perceive that he has accepted the role of Scottie Pippen in this scenario. So, however formidable his ego may be, as evidenced by The Decision, he is foregoing some of that ego for championships.

Maybe most importantly though, LeBron likes to play basketball, as evidenced by his exuberance, his powder throwing and his dancing on the court. Moreover, he loves to play basketball alongside great players. It must feel like something special for a great player to play with another great player. In the recent Magic Johnson-Larry Bird HBO documentary, the two of them discussed how in their youth, they played together one time and they remembered that game until today. The two of them barely talked, but watching the two or three clips of them on the court together exchanging incredible passes, probably made basketball seem, not like a job, but like a fun game. The bottom line is, LeBron loves playing with these guys and he likes these guys personally. (I always thought he was closer to Chris Paul and Carmelo Anthony, but he made a decision to play ball with these friends.) LeBron did not owe his career to Cleveland and leaving Cleveland was a smart basketball move. He is also going to a party town with nice weather to play basketball with his close friends and probably win many championships. How do you fault someone for that?

As for non-LeBron matters... this is a basketball experiment as well as a phenomenon. The two best basketball players on the same team (Wade may well be third best, but the point is just about the same.) How good can they be? You can make a case that the two best basketball players were on the Celtics or Lakers in the 50's or 60's, but I'd argue against it, without knowing enough about it. You could argue for Kareem and Magic, but by the time Magic was the best player, Kareem was past his prime and just a very good to great player. You could argue Shaq-Kobe, but that would be foolhardy because you would be forgetting how great Duncan was (and a handful of other people) before Kobe became a top 5 level player. They also have Bosh who is a top 10 player and it seems like they will soon have Mike Miller a very good player (excellent shooter.) So, it's not exactly crap around these two. But, it's built like Jordan-Pippen... with Wade not as good as Jordan and LeBron better than Pippen. Either of them could play point-guard, and either of them can guard a couple of different positions. So, they are very flexible as well as being great talents. They both claim to value team efforts and demonstrate it by averaging a large number of assists for non-point guards. So, the predictions for a team like this will vary from winning 5 straight championships to winning 0 championships because there will be so much junk around them and/or there is only one ball etc. (My guess is 3 championships over the 5 year contract.)

They have created a mega-team where there was not one before. People loved the 80's Celtics or Lakers. People loved or hated the 90's Bulls or the Shaq Lakers. It garners interest in the NBA. The fact that LeBron left the Cavs further helps the business everywhere but Cleveland (though it's devastating in Cleveland.) Maybe the Lakers-Heat will be a rivalry or Orlando-Heat will be a rivalry or... well you get the picture. The Decision created a lot of grudges, but also brought a lot of attention. People that don't care about basketball were riveted by this decision, for no discernible reason other than this was good television. The fact that it seemed like such a big deal made it a very big deal. That's art for you.

The MVP vote is up for grabs. LeBron and Wade will probably cancel each other out in the voting. Front-runners include Dwight Howard, Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony. If LeBron stayed in Cleveland, kept winning 60+ games without any other stars on his team, it would be utterly unfair to hand the trophy to anyone else. Now, it's a game again.

The experience has demonstrated Wade's awesome leadership skills. He had already won a championship with Shaq past his prime, the relics of Gary Payton and Antoine Walker and several role players, but now he pulled some major voodoo to lead the best player in the world to his team and accept Wade's dominion. People may credit Riley, but really Wade made this seem like a fun idea for LeBron.

To conclude this argument in defense of LeBron, I'd like to compare LeBron to the elder statesmen to whom he is often compared, Kobe Bryant. The following are not knocks on Kobe, but correcting the record, which has been unfairly stacked against LeBron. Dan Gilbert's insane tirade said that LeBron quit on his team against the Celtics. Kobe, the ultimate competitor would NEVER quit on his team. Wrong. Kobe quit on his team in an elimination game against the Suns only a few years ago because he was tired of criticisms that he was shooting too much. He decided to show his critics and his teammates just how valuable he was on offense by not participating AT ALL on offense. They lost a winnable series.

Kobe stuck out through some hard times and was rewarded for his faith in the team-owners and teammates and remained loyal to the Lakers. Wrong. In June 2007, Kobe demanded a trade and suggested a burgeoning Bulls team as the primary location for the trade. He reiterated the trade demand and met with Jerry Buss to facilitate the trade. Kobe bad-mouthed his teammates behind their backs, which further threatened his relationship with the Lakers. Buss knew he would not get value, so Kobe had to wait until his contract expired before he would leave. By that time, the Lakers were better because of LA's resources (including weather and glamor that Cleveland lacks) and front-office competence (that Cleveland lacks) and Kobe decided to stay. By the way, 2007 was about 3 years after Kobe's ego (as well as Shaq's ego) was the reason they were not competing for a title in 2007 because Kobe did not want Shaq on the team (and vice versa.)

Kobe, a staunch personality, would not accept being second fiddle to anyone. Sure, that's true now and for the last 8 years... but Kobe happily accepted the three titles he won as second fiddle to the best player on the planet at that time. Now, he tries not to make a big deal about it other than saying, he has 5 rings, he never includes a caveat that he was the second best player on the first three titles. Almost half the commentators in the world, mostly ignorant commentators, compare Kobe's career favorably to Shaq's career because he has 1 more ring than Shaq. So, by that same logic, if LeBron won 6 rings as a superstar on Wade's team, wouldn't that put him above Kobe? For those morons, it would. More sensible people would consider titles as a factor, but also consider a person's career as a whole to determine a player's historical legacy.

I'm barely going to mention any of the other extra-curricular activities that have garnered Kobe negative attention over the years. The allegations of rape, the admission of infidelity, telling police about Shaq's sexual predilections to get out of jail, publicly deriding his teammates, etc. Nothing suggests that LeBron has gotten involved in any of that, and hopefully has and will continue to steer clear.

(I am not sure why people forget allegations so serious, particularly as quickly as they have with Ben Roethlisburger. Just because it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, does not mean he did not commit the atrocious act. Roethlisburger's allegations seems even worse because it came with a limited admission that he needs to be more careful about his partying. This is no admission of guilt, but it certainly leaves me suspicious of what he considers partying... (e.g. the attempted rape scene by a football player early in The Last Boyscout. Is that what he meant? That's downright evil.) I'm not saying he did it because I have no idea, but the Kobe allegation led to fan torment for years, while Roethlisburger's main problem right now is proving to his teammates he's committed to football and avoiding riding a motorcycle. The reason it lasted so long against Kobe may be because of race, but- isn't the appropriate response... that the derision should last longer against Roethlisburger and not shorter against Kobe?

But the point is, as a person, as a teammate, and by any other measure, LeBron compares favorably to Kobe, especially when Kobe was at this stage in his career (except for the 3 championships he had, and which LeBron is working on.) LeBron did not owe Cleveland a basketball life sentence. He played 7 magnificent transcendent years there, where he dazzled with individual entertainment feats and by carrying an otherwise unworthy team to the brink of a championship year after year. Instead of being thankful for those years and hopeful that LeBron returns 5 years from now, a few championships richer with championship mettle to take his home town team to the top, they react with fury. They burn his jersey in effigy and the owner, for whom LeBron has earned a great deal of money, lambastes LeBron in crayon to the Cavs audience like a petulant child. If I were LeBron, I would not return. If I were a free agent, I would not want to go to a place where I'm not likely to win championships and when I leave, I am likely to be unappreciated and scorned.

I'm not saying Cleveland did not have a right to be angry. It's a free country and you don't need my permission. Moreover, Cleveland has valid reasons to be upset, but... Cleveland lost the moral high ground and if it's between Cleveland and LeBron, I am on Team LeBron-because if I were LeBron, I would not want to play in a place that hated me so willingly. But, I'm a part of the rest of the country, that believes that even though LeBron is setting a great example by sharing the spotlight and the money, blah blah blah, ultimately, he was wrong.

In Attack of LeBron James:
Let's start with the Cavs organization. He may have had problems with them from Dan Gilbert to Mike Brown to the players, but he played for them for several years and he owed it to them to call them in advance and tell them as soon as he knew he was not returning. Over the course of LeBron's reign, the Cavs tried. In various misguided efforts, they brought "help" for LeBron and tried in bumbling fashion, over and over again, to improve the team. It's not like he owed it to them legally or contractually. He owed it to them as a matter of common courtesy and as a mutually beneficial business-partner for several years. He should have called them up and told them, 'Sorry fellas, you guys are great, but I'm not coming back.'

Second, the Cavs fans. The same thing applies. Even though, he is from Ohio, he did not owe Cleveland his career. He brought a minor business boom to the town for a few years and that boom leaves with him. People will lose jobs, businesses will fold, but it's not his fault... and this would happen whenever he left, whether it was now, 6 years from now or when he retired. LeBron, native son or not, is under no obligation at all to maintain these businesses. He has also done a lot for these communities in the forms of charitable works, contributions and garnering attention, but... despite all that, he could have given them a heads up. If he wanted to continue with the Decision debacle, he should have issued a press-release in advance, so that the Cavs fans could have heard something addressed directly to them. Something like... "While I love the city and the people of Cleveland, my future lies elsewhere. I have not determined where yet, but I had to make the extremely tough decision about whether or not to leave my home, my family's home and my town before I could decide where I will go. Cleveland is great and I hope to someday return, but I feel the urge to win and I don't think I can accomplish that here now. Hopefully, for all our sakes, I can come back here in a few years, with a few championships and a lot more experience and then bring some titles home." Something like that... and I was just spit-balling. The fans would have been pissed about him leaving and they still would have been upset about the attention he was getting for The Decision, but at least, they would not be forced to watch the show and/or could have watched it out of curiosity rather than a remote hope to be quashed.

I do not think LeBron wronged anyone else. He made promises to nobody and nobody made a more attractive offer to him than Miami. So, nobody else should be "angry" at him. But two other things were rather irksome... the overblown spectacle he made of himself with the Decision and the disappointing lack of confidence he had in his own basketball ability.

The spectacle was ludicrous. Why didn't he just have a press conference? Why didn't he release a statement? Why didn't he put it on his new twitter account like the admirable Kevin Durant, who spent the day cheering on Oklahoma City's rookies in a summer league game? He did not have to do any of those things, but this was staged like a bad reality show and it was frustrating. The whole hour was dedicated as a LeBron-love-fest hosted by slobbering ESPN... his immense talents, the great reasons why he would go to Miami, etc. Sports journalism is a joke, but I guess in comparison with political journalism, it's right on par.

I don't blame him for the nicknames of King James or the Chosen One; those monikers were created by others and he uses them for fun as well as marketing. But, he said he was going to South Beach, not to Miami. He's going to the Heat to party and he's promoting the party and self-promoting himself at the party. Before this debacle, his popularity was very high throughout the country and the Decision increased attention to his brand, but to do that, he made himself detested in Cleveland... and he appeared like the prototypical basketball egoist.

But, he's not exactly an egoist, because if he was, he would believe in his ability to lead a team to a championship. Maybe he knew he couldn't win in Cleveland, which I believe, but he could have built a team around himself in New York or New Jersey. He could have walked in and lead a team to a championship in Chicago. But in Miami, he admitted defeat. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. That's what he did.

People will say Magic played with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and no one thought less of him. But, Magic was drafted by the Lakers. He did not choose the Lakers because Abdul Jabbar was there. At the later stages of their careers, it's common for players to sacrifice egos like Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to go to Paul Pierce's team as they are more desperate to win a championship. But, to do that at the age of 25, when the expectations from that 25 year old are legendary amounts to a practical admission that he cannot live up to expectations. He's admitting defeat, admitting failure without having reached his peak yet. Again, I only partially believe this defeat theory because I also believe as I mentioned above, that he enjoys playing with his friends, but I still partially believe his admission of defeat.

(Barkley came out with a statement saying that if he was 25, he would want to be "the guy." Barkley is a terrible example for LeBron because we know what happened with Barkley. He was "the guy" and he lost... over and over again. He got to the finals once, and he lost. LeBron matched that by age 22. Now, LeBron wants to win. Later in his career, Barkley tried pairing with a team that had just won two championships, Olajuwon's Rockets (with Drexler who was on the second championship...) but he failed. That tells us, that if your top priority is not winning championships until you are older, then you may, and are actually likely to, fail. I don't entirely disagree with Barkley's point, but Barkley's career is the counter-example.)

It's admirable that LeBron wants to win above all else, but he's going with the easy way out. He doesn't want to try to beat the best, he wants to join the best. Maybe, they can get more superstars. Maybe the whole team can be an all-star team. Is it exciting? Is it competitive? Does it allow each of them to shine? I don't know, but I would have preferred some awesome duo rivalries: Kobe-Gasol, Wade-Bosh, LeBron-Amar'e, Durant- Westbrook?, Melo-? Howard-? Chris Paul-? DeRon Williams-? etc... Very exciting match-ups, but now, most of these teams must scramble to compete.

The Dream Team:
The Dream Team changed basketball. Watching so many great players playing beautifully, increased the attention of the NBA around the world. Basketball throughout the world improved. We see that at international competitions, we see that with an increased international presence in the NBA and we see that with continued interest (merchandising) around the world. We've known all this for many years. People talk about how Magic-Bird saved the NBA and Michael Jordan with his individual style (skill) and marketing changed the NBA. Well, they were all on one team. And they changed basketball in more than one way.

The Dream Team did something else. It started a precedent that great players join future "Dream Teams." These often great players play together, train together and become friends. Magic and Bird were fierce rivals until the Dream Team. LeBron and Wade became much better players after watching Kobe's intensity during the practices and games. But, more importantly, it's probably so fun playing with great players who are exactly where they are supposed to be... or who are good enough to cover for minor mistakes. Playing with people who are that good makes basketball easy and fun. How do you go from playing on Team USA to playing on a bad Cleveland team or a bad Toronto team? Why would you want to? So, you bring your friends from the Dream Team, play with the best driver in Wade, a top-notch post presence in Bosh and a top shooter in Mike Miller. You played with all of these guys on Team USA, you trust them and you like them.

Good for Basketball, Bad for LeBron:
All in all, these super teams are good for basketball. As I keep mentioning, these mega-teams garner massive amounts of attention beyond casual basketball fans. Some will tune in to appreciate the greatness of the two best players in basketball who are as unselfish as they are athletic, while others will tune in to root against this practically unfair pairing. Moreover, other teams will have to find ways to respond by creating their own interesting mega-teams.

As for LeBron, people often have short memories about these types of debacles. Cleveland will probably stay angry at him forever. Even though feelings will linger, as long as he changes the subject of the discussion, everyone else will forgive (and probably forget) the massive spectacle he made of himself. How do you change the subject? Win championships. It works for just about everyone. Some people will hate him for a long time, but championships are forgiving. Basically, if LeBron does not want to be hated, he has just about no room for failure. It's a tough situation to be in, but he placed himself in that situation.

Am I going to be rooting for Miami? Probably not. Am I going to be rooting for LeBron? Probably not anymore. But, am I going to be fascinated? Most definitely.

Hope you are too,
ME

Free Agents

Happy July 4th kids,

I hope you have been enjoying the most entertaining off-season in the history of sports (as far as I can tell) and are thanking two specific players. These two basketball superstars have indicated their willingness to leave their teams. In basketball, more than any other team sport, an individual is able to influence a team's success. Not that one person can win a championship, he can't... but one person makes an enormous impact. Two great players surrounded by several solid players are very capable of winning a championship. Three very good players surrounded by good players can win a championship. There are occasional years when a defense will be totally dominant with a competent offense allowing teams to win (like the Detroit Pistons in 2004, Duncan's 2000 trio, Olajuwon's 1st championship or the Bad Boys 2 championships.) But most of the time, teams have 2-3 great players and complementary players (Malone-Erving, Bird-McHale-Parish, Magic-Abdul Jabbar-Worthy, Jordan-Pippen, Olajuwon-Drexler, Duncan-Robinson, Shaq-Kobe, Wade-Shaq, Pierce-Garnett-Allen, Kobe-Gasol.)

It's clear there is no formula for championships, but it's also clear that having a cast of two to three great players and a solid supporting cast places a team in the best situation to win. So, if I was a general manager, I would move heaven and earth to land LeBron. A few stragglers were so disappointed by LeBron's Game 5 performance against the Celtics where it appeared he was not even trying that they are down on King James... but many great players have games like this. Kobe has had games like this in the past including one where he was tired of being criticized for shooting too much and decided to show his value by not participating in the offense, in an elimination play-off game against Phoenix a few years ago. He's human. So, is LeBron. Thus, moving heaven and earth seems like a small price to pay for such a young talent.

I'd argue that LeBron is the best player in basketball and Wade is the 2nd or third best player in basketball, but for the purposes of my discussion the exact placement is irrelevant as long as everyone is willing to concede that LeBron and Wade are 2 of the 5 best players in basketball. LeBron has 30 teams to choose from, 5 of which are in realistic contention: Cleveland, Chicago, New Jersey, Miami, New York. If all the basketball teams were exactly the same, he would certainly opt to play either in his home state of Ohio or the massive market of New York, but basketball-wise not all things are equal.

I think when a basketball player of LeBron's magnitude is considering a basketball destination, there are 3 primary concerns percolating through his mind. (1) What is best for him and the people he cares about (which is often just the player himself,) but players often consider where they can get the most money, big cities vs. suburbs, comfort level with a location, whether his family is settled, whether he likes or dislikes people in an organization, the weather... etc.? (2) where can he win the most championships, which relates to players, owners and coaching and (3) where can he best serve his legacy, whether he is beloved by his fans or hated by his fans and whether he is appreciated as a leader of a team and perhaps most importantly whether LeBron who has the talent to be regarded as a top 5 player of all time is regarded as such? (For example, if LeBron plays the rest of his career on Cleveland and never gets help and never wins a championship, and would go down in history as the best player to never win a championship and as merely a super-charged Dominique Wilkins. If he wins on a team with Wade and for some reason Wade is considered better historically, which is not likely but plausible, then he would go down as a super-charged Scottie Pippen. Neither of those scenarios would give his legacy the full appreciation of his natural ability, so optimally, he would win championships on a team with one or more other stars, which would make him more like Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson... as Magic played many of his years with Kareem Abdul Jabbar slightly past his dominant prime.)

Okay, let's start with money... because when anyone considers a job offer, that is usually at the top of the wish-list. Because of the collective bargaining agreement between the league owners and the players union, Cleveland can provide him with the highest salary, but not by as much as you think. There is an estimate that LeBron can be paid roughly $30 million more by Cleveland than any other team, but that is not accurate. There are two aspects to Cleveland's advantage (a) Cleveland can pay him a higher year to year percentage increase in salary. Over 5 years, this amounts to roughly $5 million. (b) Cleveland can sign him for an extra year, and if he is earning the maximum increase every year, than that last year would amount to something akin to $25 million.

The caveat to part (b) is that LeBron is young enough that he is likely to continue playing 5 years from now and he is good enough that he is likely to receive the maximum at that time under whatever contract he signs then... so he would be likely earn over $20 million that year anyway. Thus, the only major advantage of the $25 million is that it's guaranteed money, even though he is likely to earn most of that money anyway. The caveats to part (a) are that his salary increases in his next contract will use his current contract as a base and the year-to-year percentage increase will start from there, so if he leaves Cleveland, he will make less money in subsequent contracts. Additionally, the next collective bargaining agreement is likely to be harsher on player's salaries, so every year he has with this contract is a boon as opposed to his next contract. Basically, if he plays less than or equal to 5 years, then by signing with Cleveland he earned an extra $30 million, but if he plays more than 5 years at a high level, it's more likely that by signing with Cleveland now, he earns an extra $10-15 million over the duration of his career because his year-to-year salary increases would be larger if he signs with Cleveland now. I think the strategy of asking the best player in basketball to take less money than the maximum he can be paid shows hubris on the part of the Knicks or any organization that asked this on behalf of LeBron. People do not tend to give up free money. If he is willing to forego some of a max salary, like Tim Duncan did, that's considerate of him, but money is money whether it is his 2nd million or his 391st million. That extra million could go towards a charity of his choosing or a slightly nicer house or among the uber wealthy, each million is capable of earning many more millions. So, LeBron may choose to earn less than the max, but for an organization trying to earn billions of dollars off of him, to attempt to shame him into taking less than the maximum allotted salary is at best hypocritical.

But basketball players make a substantial portion of their income from endorsements, particularly a player as entertaining and charismatic as LeBron. According to Forbes magazine, if he came to New York, he would make a substantial amount more than he would if he went to any other location. However, the highest earning basketball players are the ones that the NBA endorses all year round, are superstars that win championships (and are supremely entertaining.) Michael Jordan was in the 3rd biggest market, but he earned the most money... even more than anyone from New York or Los Angeles because titles (and pizazz) garner attention. Being the superstar on a championship team is more valuable than being a superstar on a flailing failing New York Knicks. The Nets offer a counter-point that playing for a man who has international credentials would earn him more international money has some validity, but championships=international money, so championships come over expected endorsement money.

So, where does LeBron have the best opportunity to win championships? I would guess his best opportunity to win championships would be to play with Wade+Bosh and a collection of veterans and rookies who would want to play for a team with that core. The only recent comparison to a team like that is the Lakers 2000 three-peat. Shaq was the best player in basketball then and one could possibly argue that Kobe was a top 5 player maybe in the last year of that three peat, but their third best player was no where near as good a player as Bosh. Of course, LeBron-Wade-Bosh does not guarantee a championship, especially since the rest of the team would likely be spare parts (unlike those Lakers teams,) but that trio is certainly a championship caliber team. (Bosh could be replaced with Stoudemire with similar affect.)

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the three of them played together for 10 years and won seven championships together. (1) If it's in Miami, Wade is already the hero that brought them a championship and will be the hero that brought LeBron to Miami. (2) Wade will probably have one extra championship at the end of their respective careers. (3) It is very possible because of LeBron's unselfish play that Wade is the high scorer on the team at least some, if not most, of the 10 year time span, (4) during the end of games, it is very plausible that Wade will be the guy who takes many, if not most, of the last minute clutch shots. (5) Wade is the elder statesman with championship experience, while LeBron would be an added piece to the puzzle. All of these are arguments that would make it possible for Wade supporters, LeBron haters and to a much lesser extent, neutral fans to claim that Wade was the better player on the team and hence, LeBron was a super-charged Scottie Pippen to Wade's Jordan. I probably wouldn't agree with that, but does LeBron want even his best case scenario to be thus marred? If I had LeBron's talent, I wouldn't.

If I were LeBron, I would want to play alongside Carmelo Anthony, or Melo, as he is known because while Wade is better, and even Chris Paul is probably better, Melo complements LeBron's skill set better. Melo is a guy who, like Wade, could relieve some of the pressure off LeBron by driving and creating his own offense. But, he could also hit outside shots, which Wade is not very good at, so they could not leave him alone... which would mean that the floor would be spaced for LeBron's drives (if LeBron and Wade were on the same team, opposing teams should expend most of their energy guarding the basket and leave LeBron and Wade to shoot relatively uncontested outside jump shots.) James, Melo and Bosh might not be as talented as the Wade combo, but it might work better. So, if I were James, I would watch to see if any of the teams traded for Melo.

But, of the current teams as they now stand, Chicago is the best basketball situation, where he has a solid chance to win a championship without being overshadowed by another player. Wade's interest in Chicago has complicated the Chicago situation because Derrick Rose, Wade and LeBron all play the same way and all require the ball to drive. Further, I am not sure LeBron wants Chicago enough to screw over his friend Wade's chance to play near his children. Thus, if I were LeBron, the other situation I would consider (barring trades) is signing in New Jersey, provided they can woo Bosh or Stoudemire as well. Harris drives, Lee is an athletic shooter and Lopez is a center who has solid defense and a strong offense. Those are decent complementary players provided they have LeBron and another star to propel all of them to another level.

If the Knicks sign Stoudemire or Bosh and trade for Melo or Chris Paul, they would enter the conversation as well, but currently the Knicks do not have much to work with, other than Lee who would probably be the subject of a trade if he doesn't leave in free agency and Gallinari, who is very young and may or may not turn out to be a quality player (and also may be the subject of a trade.) As constructed, Cleveland is better than that.

But, legacy is not all about basketball. LeBron has an affinity for Cleveland. They also have been trying (poorly) to give him complementary players, but have been sparing no expense in their misguided efforts. They finally got rid of their limited coach and hired the best coach available who is also the best coach of this group of LeBron-eligible teams (aside from Riley, who is rumored to take over the coaching job in Miami if LeBron comes to town.) Cleveland may hate him if he leaves. He may hate himself if he leaves. He might rather be Dirk Nowitzki, a great player who elevates his team to championship caliber level rather than Pau Gasol, a great player whose legacy is failure on one team followed by success on another. Not to mention, Cleveland could pay more, as discussed above. AND... if he can take Cleveland and turn this bunch of scraps into champions, which is not likely but not impossible, then he would immediately belong among the greats of all time... even if he just won 1 or 2 titles.

So, honestly, if I were LeBron in the current situation, I would stay in Cleveland or go to Chicago. Similarly, Wade is trapped by loyalty to his team and a family situation in Chicago. That sounds like a much tougher situation, even though the pressure on him is not nearly as great (because he is not regarded as a basketball city savior like LeBron AND he already has a championship.) If I were Bosh, I would follow LeBron unless he stays in Cleveland, then I would follow Wade, unless neither is possible, in which case... I guess I would entertain the Houston idea, favored by some analysts, which relies on Yao and Bosh crowding the lane or Bosh to replace Ming's chronic injury issues. Stoudemire is a little more complicated than Bosh because, if I were him, I would follow LeBron or Wade... whoever Bosh does not follow. But, Stoudemire has always craved first billing after spending his entire career overshadowed by Nash. So, Stat apparently wants to sign with the Knicks and then recruit quality teammates in an effort to demonstrate leadership (e.g. Melo and Tony Parker to New York to play alongside him.) But, a guy who plays little defense like Stoudemire is not an ideal candidate for team leadership.

But, back to LeBron... before the end of the season, I thought he would stay with Cleveland. I actually thought if he won a championship, he would have a clear conscience to leave after bringing a long-awaited championship to Cleveland. If he lost in the finals, he would have motivation to stay at least another year or two to accept a conquerable challenge... but the way the Cavs lost made me think he had to leave, for basketball reasons. He had to leave because the other players on the team were bad. Mo Williams did virtually nothing on offense and made Rajon Rondo, a good player, look like a wizard with Mo's donut defense. Jamison, similarly shrunk from the moment and Shaq showed his age. In short, if James wants a title with this team, he would have to do it himself. I was under the naive view that LeBron was so good that he could do it himself, but he can't and it will take me another year to forget that fact again. So, I thought LeBron was out of the Cleve... but now, having seen how torn he is, and the complexities of the Chicago situation, which I would have otherwise considered Plan A, Cleveland does not seem so bad... or more accurately, leaving Cleveland seems kinda wrong.

What about the other guys? Boozer might end up in Miami or on 1 of these LeBron suitors, but he's not that big enough of a difference maker to make a difference. David Lee is in the same boat except he is even worse on defense. Ray Allen, JJ Reddick or some other shooter are powerful additions that could spread the floor for LeBron, Wade or Rose, possibly in a trade for a quality player like Deng.

Now, a few words on the greatest players of all time. The way I have always judged the greatest players of all time, knowing what you know about a player's skill level, effort level, longevity and ability to lead championships, contribute to championships, which player(s) would you choose first. (It's not just championships, as I'd much rather have Nash's career than Kerr's career on my team, but championships factor in because I'd rather have Isaiah Thomas than John Stockton, though not by much.) I think it's foolhardy to choose anyone but Jordan first. Then, there is probably some combination of Magic Johnson, Abdul Jabbar, Bird, Chamberlain and Russell in the next tier of players. Then, there is another tier of players with Olajuwon, Duncan, Robertson, Oneal, West and now Kobe. I have previously argued that Kobe doesn't belong in the same category with Jordan, but if he keeps winning, he may belong in the same category with Magic. He had a good finals series, despite having poor fourth quarters and a sub-par Game 7, but his team picked up the slack and he won his 5th championship and 2nd Finals MVP. But, to his defense, Boston has an excellent defense. If he wins 1 more finals MVPs with another championship or 2, his case against Magic increases, though he wouldn't match him unless his peak extends several years longer and/or he continues winning championships. So, Kobe is about the 10th best player in basketball history... even now, but I don't imagine him jumping much even if he wins another championship because as great as he is, his next championship would only be his 3rd as the best player on his team.

(Let's say Kobe and Shaq retire now with Kobe having an extra championship ring and an equal number of MVP trophies. Trying to take their careers independently, Kobe was a top 5 player for about 8-10 years, probably for about 2 of those years between Duncan and LeBron, he was the best player in basketball. Pair him with a very good cast and he could win you many championships (paired with a not good cast and he could miss the playoffs.) Shaq had 3 years when he was utterly dominant and paired with a good cast, he could win championships. He also had about 7 other years when he was a top 5 player. If I want any championships, I certainly pick Shaq... and if I want multiple championships, I certainly pick Shaq. But, assuming that the life span of my team, the quality of my team will vacillate, if I have a very good team for many of those years, Kobe could be the best player on that team that wins many championships. So, this is where Kobe's potential longevity might give Kobe the edge in the end over Shaq. If he has 2 more years as a top 5 player and than 3-4 more years as a very good player, then I could legitimately see a team building around Kobe's extended greatness over Shaq's fleeting dominance. It would probably take more than 1 additional championship to vault him over Shaq though, in my mind. This is particularly true because of Shaq's dominance in some finals series, while Kobe has yet to demonstrate such dominance. Either way, this championship put Kobe into (or perhaps just below) the top 10 greatest players ever, but 1 more probably won't make a huge dent, though 2 more... just might.)

What of LeBron? If LeBron retires now, he would not have a championship, but he would have been the best player in basketball for 2-3 years now and a great player for 4 other years, so he's already more than a regular hall of famer. Many more years of this without a championship and he keeps jumping to the top of the heap... but, all of the top 10 players I mentioned won at least one championship. Similarly, if LeBron won a single championship, particularly with a sub-par team, I think he jumps onto or adds to that list of top 10 players. The problem is that a player of LeBron's skill-level is not aiming to match the lower end of this list, he should end his career near the top of list. Some have suggested that he plays with Wade for a few years, tries to accumulate championships and then return to Cleveland to try to rebuild. It's not ridiculous, but if he wants to stay in Cleveland, he should do so and if he is concerned about winning, he could find a team with enough parts to win. But at age 25, I am not sure he should enter panic mode and lower his expectations to being Scottie Pippen 2.0 just yet. But, he's a great player and I'm not worried about him wherever he ends up.

On another note, congratulations to all the teams I was rooting for in the World Cup. You all failed me, starting with the United States, then Argentina, Argentina's Messi, Ghana, Brazil, etc... I guess, I'm now rooting for whoever emerges from Uruguay-Holland match, though reluctantly and begrudgingly.

Congratulations to Nadal for getting his 8th Grand Slam title. I have the same qualm with him as I do with Federer, he won his championships in an era of limited competition. The Connors-Borg-McEnroe era leaked into the Becker-Edberg-Lendl era. That was followed by the Sampras-Agassi era, except that Becker, Edberg and Lendl were still around and had to be overcome by their younger counterparts. Then, there were people like Courier who came along and played with dominance for awhile. By the time Federer was winning titles, Sampras was done and Agassi was... done. So, he had to beat lesser competition like Hewitt until Nadal came along. Nadal and Federer are dominant and consistent, but their strongest competition is Andy Roddick, who at best is a... Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Djokovic has not come into his own and may yet become better than a Jim Courier, but as of yet, not so much. Federer reminds me a lot of Lendl, a better version of Lendl, but I still contend that Sampras was better than that. And from what I understand, Nadal is not quite as good as Borg was, but he's young, so we'll see.

We'll see. I guess that's the theme of this blog post. I talk a lot of smack, but in the end, I barely have guesses, let alone predictions. But-I'll guess anyway. My guess: Nadal finishes with 13 grand slam titles to Federer's 17. Holland uses it's semi-home field (I'm not sure if Boers are loved, hated or irrelevant) to win it all over Spain with Germany taking 3rd. LeBron stays in Cleveland. Wade stays in Miami and brings Chris Bosh. Stoudemire goes to New York and gets Parker as a start to a NY team, but ultimately a lame off-season for them. Boozer goes to Chicago and they acquire a shooter as well. New Jersey trades for somebody to stay relevant. But, I have no inside information and a very limited understanding of the wants of these players. So, my thoughts are uneducated guesses merely to record my notions for posterity and to measure my prophetic ability. Thus, spoke Zarathustra.

Hope you enjoyed this nonsense,
ME

NBA 2010

On the eve of basketball playoffs, it's time to make predictions and take stock of the season. So, below, feel free to peruse some inane NBA discussion or skip it and wait for my next rant.

Before I get into the finals, I want to discuss the fall of some of the best players (and then some of my favorite players.)

LeBron James- is the best basketball player in the world. Kobe Bryant is better in some ways including: Kobe is a more well-rounded scorer, he's more maniacally competitive and despite what the statistics might say, he is a better closer. However, LeBron's height, strength, speed and willingness to share the ball make him a better player. I have little doubt that if LeBron were on the current Lakers in place of Kobe, the Lakers would be in the same position right now (and they would be favored in the finals.) If Kobe were on the current Cavs, I believe that Cavs team would have a worse regular season record and would have lost in the first or second round.

The LeBrons had a great regular season for the second year in a row, so expectations from LeBron's Cavs were at an all time high. But... the coaching for the Cavs was bad because even though Mike Brown is a good defensive coach, he has yet to manage an effective offensive scheme. Moreover, the acquisition of Jamison was over-hyped. When Kobe's Lakers got Pau Gasol for nothing, the Lakers got the best player on a bad team. When the LeBrons got Jamison for nothing, they got arguably the third best player from a terrible team. I like Jamison for his quick release post-up shot, but... he's a liability on defense and more importantly terribly overrated as a long-range shooter. And he shoots from long range a LOT of the time. Essentially, he's a much more likable version of Antoine Walker. It did not help that Jamison declined in the playoffs. Similarly Mo Williams, who is touted as an all star, is a streaky (but good) outside shooter with little other discernible basketball ability. It didn't help that he had maybe 1 decent game in the Celtics series and was eaten alive by Rondo. Moreover, Shaq and Ilgauskas are basketball-old, Varejao is a very limited player, Hickson is just not that good yet and whomever the LeBrons started at shooting guard, Parker or West, was ostensibly a bench player.

These are all excuses I am making because I like LeBron, but they are very convincing excuses. And the only reason they had 60 wins and had ridiculously high expectations is because people, including me, continue to believe that LeBron James is an exception to traditional basketball rules. Michael Jordan broke the mold with his stellar play and even he had Scottie Pippen, an all time great player by his side. Further, LeBron's ability to get his teammates to play together because of his point-forward role, his cavalier demeanor and his glee at playing basketball is only part of great basketball chemistry. Part of team chemistry is that sharing a love of the game, but the far more important part of it, is seizing the moment because of a shared will to win. LeBron has not consistently shown that yet. I suspect that if LeBron can manage to win a first championship, a big if, then he will add this final addition to his arsenal (a post-game would be helpful, but is not necessary.)

(Speaking of Michael Jordan, people are starting the Kobe-Jordan comparisons again and still they are ludicrous. Let's start with Kobe's positives: he's a prolific scorer, a ferocious defender, has developed into a solid, though not, affable team leader, he has multiple scoring titles, an MVP, many other years high in the running for MVP, he has seven championship appearances and by the end of this year, he will have either four or FIVE championship rings. It seems to stack up very well against anyone including Jordan, EXCEPT that Jordan has six championships and on EACH of them he was the team's best player, while Bryant was only the best player for ONE championship so far (along with the two championship series losses.) Kobe is a great scorer, but Jordan's LIFETIME field goal percentage teetered around 50% (Kobe had 1 season that high) and that is only because Jordan's percentage dropped to Kobe levels in the two years he returned to basketball for the Wizards after his second retirement in his late 30's. Jordan's substantially higher shooting percentage occurred in an era that permitted hand-checking and very rough fouls at the basket.

Kobe was probably the best player in basketball for a few assorted years of his career, not including a patch when O'neal was better, another patch when Duncan was better and a recent patch when LeBron was better. Jordan was the best player in basketball for most of his career, probably even in the late 80's when he took on great teams pretty much on his own: including the Celtics, a team filled with legends and the Pistons, a team uniquely constructed to physically beat Jordan into submission. As for the '90s, any argument that a player was better for any given year (or got an MVP award) was merely conciliatory. Whether it was Drexler, Malone, Robinson, Barkley, Olajuwon or Payton, no player was better any year that Jordan played for a whole year. Then, there's the playoffs, where Jordan somehow managed to improve dramatically. Kobe historically, has remained around the same in the playoffs as he is in the season, with highs and lows (more highs recently than lows.)

All of these factors are discounting team leadership, which is difficult if not impossible to quantify, but an area that Kobe took over 10 years to develop. Kobe's team in what should have been the prime of his career missed the playoffs in a year Kobe was fully healthy. I can't imagine Jordan doing the same. Furthermore, while Kobe is one of the best, if not the best player today in closing situations, Jordan was at least as good. Statistically, Kobe is only average with the ball in his hands late in close games, but that belies his excellence. Still Jordan was the same type of player and either way, if I am an opponent, I would still rather Kobe or even Jordan shoot with the game on the line than Reggie Miller or Robert Horry in each of their respective primes. That doesn't make them better than Kobe or Jordan.

I'm not saying Jordan will never ever be surpassed. I'm also not saying that Kobe won't be the guy to do it, but if Kobe does do it, he will have to either improve his game over the next 5-10 years so much that he spends the next several years as the unquestionably most dominant player in basketball or he could pile on statistics and championships so high that the accumulation would make him some hybrid of Russell's championships and Kareem's accumulated statistics. The reason I occasionally argued that LeBron had Jordan potential is because he plays a somewhat different brand of basketball than Kobe and Jordan, and along with his unique combination of height, speed, strength and court vision (as discussed above,) he could circumvent Jordan's shadow rather than hoping to topple it like Kobe has tried to do and, as of yet, has fallen woefully short of doing.

Instead, Kobe is really aiming at a slightly less distant goal of catching Magic Johnson as the best Laker of all time. If he wins this year, he matches the championships and his teams have never been as amazing as those Showtime Lakers. If he wins this one and one more, i think Kobe will have a case against Magic. I'd probably still pick Magic, but if Kobe ends his career with 6 rings, which is possible, that will be a realistic question. Though, as I mentioned above, Kobe plays a similar brand of basketball to Jordan, while LeBron plays more like Magic.)

Thus, we saw LeBron play against the Celtics and basically shut down Pierce, the Celtics most versatile weapon (forcing Rondo and Allen to beat them.) James played several regal games and one cosmic stinker (where he didn't seem to try, but that's not terribly uncommon even among basketball's mega-stars, see Kobe Bryant Phoenix a few years ago.) They lost to a great team. The defeat itself is no great shame, but the shame is in the cumulative post-season results of his first 7 years in the league and more specifically viewing the decline of his team's playoff performance over the past three years.

But, if LeBron plays for another two years either with Cleveland or somewhere else, at his current level of excellence, without winning a title, it will create an interesting situation. He will be a 27-year old with the moniker of the Greatest Player of All Time to Not Have a Championship. It's a terrible moniker, so he should really try to win a championship soon.

So, where should he go? Personally, I have been sad for all the Cleveland fans who have practically been crying in the street for the last month for financial reasons as well as an emotional attachment to a home-grown hero. Though, even if they get Bosh, I'm not sure how much better the Cavs would be with this poorly-constructed team. James is concerned about his legacy, which is why I think going to Miami would be a mistake. If he went to Miami, he might be perceived as Scottie Pippen to an already-titled Wade (if they both went to a neutral location together, it would probably be different because they would be starting relatively fresh.) He might go to Chicago, but even if they get Bosh to add post-play, there is no outside shooter to space the floor and teams could guard them by packing the inside. He might go to New York, but only if Wade came OR if Bosh+Joe Johnson joined him, otherwise there is just not enough talent to legitimately compete for a championship. Ditto for New Jersey who have a talented, but totally ineffective core as of now. Here are some other alternatives though: how about Dallas which is a major city with an owner willing to spend crazy amounts of money to promote LeBron endlessly and where the team has a passing point guard, outside shooting and size. He could play particularly well alongside Dirk Nowitzki who could play inside or out, especially if they import another veteran player to add toughness. How about Orlando though? James could play alongside Dwight Howard and have an all-time great defensive team+if the Magic did not have to mortgage their whole team to get him, they would also have outside shooting and a deep bench. Those are just some ideas. I'm sure he'll be fine either way.

Dwayne Wade- plays more like Jordan than anyone in the game today with his relentless driving to the hoop. I have Wade as the only other player in the James, Kobe discussion for the best player in the game. I got the sense that Wade will stay in Miami, particularly if the Heat pulled a major acquisition or two, such as Bosh or Boozer or both.

(By the way, I really like the idea of the best players having a summit to discuss how to carve out the NBA empire over the next few years. If LeBron, Wade, Johnson, Bosh and Stoudemire pooled their resources and started a team together as co-owners, took minimal salaries and recruited a few role players... it could be the best team of all time or an epic, albeit entertaining disaster.)

The current Miami team needs help, but if they trade away Beasley to get one great player in return, it's almost certainly not enough for this porous team to compete for a championship. Besides I still think Beasley could be a really good third best player on a team.

Dwight Howard- is a defensive force to be reckoned with. Look at the rest of Orlando. Jameer Nelson, Vince Carter and Rashard Lewis are all roughly average defenders and yet the team is one of the two or three best defensive teams in basketball. Some people underrate the power of the blocked shot by pointing out that there is often no change of possession, but a blocked shot is a powerful psychological tool that prevents people from driving the lane and alters future shots. As Howard's offensive game improves and the rest of the team gels, this team's potential continues to grow.

Chris Bosh, A'mare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson and Carlos Boozer are all probably going to change teams. If Wade stays in Miami, one of the big guys will probably meet him there. Another of the big guys will probably go with LeBron, wherever he ends up. While Bosh and Stat are all-stars, neither of them can carry a team, so it would behoove them to go to established teams. The only other team I'd like to see with one of these players is Chris Paul's Hornets if just to see what he can do with the slightly over-rated West and another quality player.

Now, to my favorite players:

Vince Carter- people always ask me why he's my favorite player. Well, the easy answer is as a Knicks fan prior to the team's early post-Ewing implosion, when they got rid of all of my favorite players, I followed my previous favorite player, Charles Oakley to Toronto. Carter was a physical marvel with incredible athleticism and a great outside shot. I was sold though with a rumor I heard that during his rookie year, Carter apparently prayed during the Star-Spangled Banner every game, but not for a win... instead he prayed that everyone would make it through the game without harm. It's not the most competitive prayer, but by all accounts, he is a good guy and I root for good guys. At that point, he was beloved because of his dunking ability, but he got his first bout of major criticisms when in the conference semi-finals, game 7, he decided to attend his college graduation before his finals game, which required travel. It was a momentous event and a grand opportunity to show the importance of education to all his children admirers. I can understand why people could be upset that he valued something over his job, especially a job that so many people are so passionate about, but I cannot understand the vitriol over the decision to be a positive role model.

The next dose of criticism was that he was soft and did not want to get hit driving down the lane (thus limiting the value of amazing athleticism,) and this is true. But this is not new. There are a few brave souls that drove the lane with regularity like Jordan and Kobe and Wade, but for every one of those courageous pioneers that succeeded, there were scores of them that spent their careers with frequent injuries like Mark Price, Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill. It's not a great excuse, but Carter's outside shot was really good, so it was often easy, if not ideal, for him to opt to avoid injury to his brittle body. And even though he did not drive as often as Kobe, McGrady or Pierce, his field goal percentage was always around the same as his competition because his outside shot was so good, and he also managed to get to the free throw line almost as frequently as the others did and had just about as many assists as they did too. With the exception of his last year in Toronto, his poor teams always over-performed and never under-performed.

He spent years dedicating himself to Toronto basketball and the Toronto community including starting a charitable organization there, but when the team failed to support him with additional players, he had a natural reaction. He slacked off. It's lame, but again, it's natural. In fact, it would be unnatural to keep putting your body on the line for an organization that does not support you. So, Carter got traded and his honesty about slacking off made him the most hated man in Toronto. He then spent a few years playing for a mediocre Nets team, which totally fell apart the second he left.

What about Orlando? Are they better off with Turkoglu than Carter? Not this year. Turkoglu was terrible in Toronto, far worse than Carter this year and 1000 times worse than Carter when he was in Toronto. Besides, Turkoglu quit on the Raptors much much worse than Carter ever did, but there has been no stink about that. AND they very narrowly missed the playoffs, meaning if he was just average, they would almost certainly have made the playoffs. Orlando was missing some height advantages that they would have had with Turkoglu, which could have helped them against the Celtics, BUT they barely won a 7 game series against the Celtics last year and Garnett was not even available in that series. Now, despite the record, with the way the Celtics were playing, Orlando was not the favorite, considering Garnett was back, the whole team relatively healthy and they acquired Rasheed Wallace, who had a terrible season, but is an excellent Dwight Howard stopper (who would relieve Perkins, maybe the only other 1 on 1 Howard stoppers in the league.) So, Orlando was not winning this series with Turkoglu or without him. Another fallacy about Carter is that he shrinks from the pressure. He made my case harder by missing two key free throws this year that could have put them closer to winning game 2 of the Celtics series, but historically, he is a better than average clutch player. He is also not reluctant to take the shot and frequently took over games for Orlando during the regular season. Moreover, he has not shrunk from playoffs in the past, including some dominant post-season games in Toronto.

He's older now, so while he's still dangerous, he's more limited and streaky. Despite the decline, he's at least as good as Turkoglu was the prior year. His defense is also better than Turkoglu's defense. So, Orlando made the right move getting Carter and would not have a better result had they kept Turkoglu. But, don't get me wrong, as much as I like Carter, I'm not saying he's a Hall of Famer. However, if he was a major contributor on a championship team, I think that would solidify his case.

Tim Duncan- was the best player in basketball for a long time. He was the best defender in the league for a long time. He is the best power-forward in NBA history. He won 4 championships as the best player on his team, but he has declined. His defense has lost a step. He can still have a dominant performance, but without any regularity. I just don't think the Spurs as constituted are good enough to win a championship with someone other than Duncan as their best player. They could use a major acquisition.

Lakers vs. Celtics- is a classic match-up with lots of bad blood, both historically and between the individuals on those two teams. Russell vs. Chamberlain, Bird vs. Magic and now umm Kobe vs. Celtics... makes it the best rivalry in basketball history and one of the best rivalries in sports history. They both have good chemistry and championship poise; they both play good defense and have multiple offensive weapons.

Both teams have reasons to be confident. The Lakers are the defending champions. The Celtics lost last year, almost entirely because Garnett was out, but he's back now (and have not lost a series with this starting 5.) Lakers have home-court advantage and are undefeated at home this playoffs. The Celtics are the only team with a better road record than home record. The Lakers now have Artest to guard Pierce who crushed them two years ago. Celtics, Rondo has improved. Rondo is mildly hurt. Sheed is playing well. Sheed is hurting. Nate Robinson had a good game. Bynum is playing. Bynum is hurt. Odom is the best 6th man in the series. Boston has a deeper bench. Kobe is 1 of the best players in the game today and the best player in the series + Gasol is one of the best big men in basketball. The Celtics have 4 future hall-of-famers and all of them are still really good on both offense and defense (including a slasher/distributor, a shooter, a slasher/shooter and post-play.) Both teams have 2 closers, Fisher, Pierce, and perhaps the two most clutch players in the game, Kobe and Ray Allen.

What about outside factors? Phil Jackson is Phil Jackson. Doc Rivers has long been an underrated coach. The 3 games in a row is tough for a road team, but less travel helps the older team. At the end of the day, I have no idea. I usually have a good sense of these things and I'm right like 75% of the time. That's not great, but basketball usually has a favorite and/or match-up favorites. But, here the teams are 1-1 in the regular season and neither of them had a particularly difficult road to the finals. So, what else is there? I have no clue. This could be a 5-game blow-out either way or a 7 game squeaker... either way.

Now, onto my biases, while I admire Kobe, I root against him. And while I like Ray Allen, Boston is probably the dirtiest, whiniest team in basketball. So... these are two of my least favorite teams in the NBA. I guess I'm rooting for the Celtics, but my bias is really against both teams.

I'm going to guess Celtics in 6, but that's more of a gut-feeling based on 2008's results.

The World Cup is coming up and I have even fewer predictions in that, though I hear Spain is a force, so I'm blindly guessing they will win (and guessing the Spanish Nadal wins the French Open in a surprising twist.) Though I read somewhere that there is a bizarre Northern vs. Southern hemispherical home-field-esque advantage (maybe because of weather patterns or something,) so I am probably wrong. Though, I also predict Messi will have an awesome cup, or at least I'm hoping he will because I like when people live up to expectations and really dislike when people choke. But, most importantly, I'm going to call that the US makes it to the quarter-finals.

That's all the sports I've got right now,
ME


PS: The only reason I have any interest at all in seeing The Karate Kid is because a song from the trailer is the one that serves as the pump-up song for EA Sports, NBA Live 2006. Even so, I am not going to see it.