Recently in Basketball Category
I'm about 30 pounds overweight.
Ok, I'm about 40 pounds over what the BMI will tell you is ideal for a 6 foot male. But, seriously, screw that. I'd be happy at 188 lbs, and the BMI has all sorts of problems with it. I know that "Big boned" is an excuse, but I also know that even when I did weigh 185, I had broad shoulders and I looked skinny.
The main problem for the last year or two has just been my attitude towards food. It's all classic, straight-out-of-the-textbooks addictive behavior. I eat more shitty food "in secret", i.e. when my wife isn't around to complain about it (as an aside, I don't respond well to her complaints about my eating habits, and the fact that she happens to be completely right doesn't seem to matter much. I doubt this is just the irritability that is also classic behavior in a junkie, but rather my own irrational hatred of when people point out that I am being stupid). I feel guilty about certain meals. I get sugar lows.
I keep making half-hearted attempts to start eating better (I won't call it dieting), but there are several problems with my previous attempts:
More updates to come. If I slack off, I suck.
And for futher inspiration, see another ballers attempt to increase his vertical.
Ok, I'm about 40 pounds over what the BMI will tell you is ideal for a 6 foot male. But, seriously, screw that. I'd be happy at 188 lbs, and the BMI has all sorts of problems with it. I know that "Big boned" is an excuse, but I also know that even when I did weigh 185, I had broad shoulders and I looked skinny.
The main problem for the last year or two has just been my attitude towards food. It's all classic, straight-out-of-the-textbooks addictive behavior. I eat more shitty food "in secret", i.e. when my wife isn't around to complain about it (as an aside, I don't respond well to her complaints about my eating habits, and the fact that she happens to be completely right doesn't seem to matter much. I doubt this is just the irritability that is also classic behavior in a junkie, but rather my own irrational hatred of when people point out that I am being stupid). I feel guilty about certain meals. I get sugar lows.
I keep making half-hearted attempts to start eating better (I won't call it dieting), but there are several problems with my previous attempts:
- They have been undocumented and unpublic, so I have no fear of failure/embarrassment/etc to keep me 'honest'
- number 1) is also a common part of addictive personality behavior patterns, in that it is indicative of a failure to admit that there's something wrong
- my goals have always been just "to lose weight"
- I intend to document it on the blog. If I don't, you will all just have one more little bit of proof that I am full of shit.
- Documenting this is proof that 2) is not a problem here.
- My goal isn't (just, anyway) to lose weight. I want to be less worried about my health (I'm old enough to start worrying about my heart, etc). I want my back to hurt less. I want to be able to jump again -- these days when I play ball, I go up for layups and usually end up having to heave the ball high and far because I am about a foot further away from the hoop than my brain expects me to be, and it isn't just from getting old. I want to be free of headaches. I want to sleep better. I want to not breathe as hard while running up and down the court. I want to not feel guilty after eating. I want to have more energy. I want the elastic bands at the top of my underwear to stay straight instead of being bent in half by the flab in my belly. Wow, just typing all these makes me feel more motivated.
- No refined sugar. I mean this in a zen way. I'm not going to boycott stuff that has sugar because that is 80% of the supermarket. I mean no products whose main ingredient is refined sugar. Starburst, chocolate, ice cream, etc.
- No fried foods. Chips, Fries, fried fish, etc, etc.
- No white bread (includes pizza which is basically a lotta white bread)
- No donuts, cake, etc, made from white bread, even if they aren't already disqualified because of the whole sugar thing
- More chicken, lamp, fish, and less beef. In fact, as little beef as possible although giving up steak entirely is probably wishful thinking.
- Getting a bit of fruit for breakfast in the morning
- Drinking more water and less soda (probabably the hardest part of this list as I'm addicted to diet pepsi)
- cooking more, eating out less
More updates to come. If I slack off, I suck.
And for futher inspiration, see another ballers attempt to increase his vertical.
From Truehoop's first cup today:
What the hell? I wonder Magic Johnson (or Dennis Johnson, or Kevin Johnson) agrees. Or Jerry West. Or Gary Payton. Or Isiah Thomas.
So you really believe that because Kobe has won 3 titles that he's got a "killer instinct"? Where, prey freaking tell, has that instinct been then, since, oh, I don't know, <b>2002</b>!? A year, by the way, where he got to play with Shaq in his prime.
Kobe Bryant is good. Really good. But all this "best player in the game" bullshit is getting annoying, not because of any truth behind the statement, but because the arguments for it always seem to boil down to something like "I mean, look, you can see it in his EYES, man!"
Tim Kawakami of the San Jose Mercury News: "Mitch Richmond knows: The single greatest common thread between Jordan and Bryant is their ability and hunger to destroy every opponent in their paths. Belittle Bryant's cold arrogance all you want. Call him selfish. Rail about his sense of entitlement. But you can't deny that Kobe and Jordan are the only two guards who have played the game like this. 'Both guys, when they've got you in a cage, they're going to keep you in there,' Richmond said this week. 'They're going to kill you and keep killing you until you're dead.'"O RLY? The "only two guards in the game" who were ever ridiculously cut-throat competitive?
What the hell? I wonder Magic Johnson (or Dennis Johnson, or Kevin Johnson) agrees. Or Jerry West. Or Gary Payton. Or Isiah Thomas.
So you really believe that because Kobe has won 3 titles that he's got a "killer instinct"? Where, prey freaking tell, has that instinct been then, since, oh, I don't know, <b>2002</b>!? A year, by the way, where he got to play with Shaq in his prime.
Kobe Bryant is good. Really good. But all this "best player in the game" bullshit is getting annoying, not because of any truth behind the statement, but because the arguments for it always seem to boil down to something like "I mean, look, you can see it in his EYES, man!"
Sigh. People really need to do some Econ 101.
So, lately there has been a lot of stink that apparently OJ Mayo took money in the form of bribes from sports agents for the priviledge of representing him in the NBA draft. Many people are aghast. And my reaction is:
Are you people completely daft?
Seriously, I'm not sure where you guys grew up, but in the world *I* live in, when you have a talent/skill/product that other people want really badly, then you charge money for it. Economics 101, baby. There's literally nothing immoral about this. I'm reminded very much of George Lucas' distribution deals when he made Star Wars: Episode 1. Standard industry practice is for film distributors to take a percentage of the film's ticket sales in return for distributing the film. This is a deal that most directors and distributors take because they don't always know how successful there film will be, so they worry about overpaying if they pay a flat fee for distribution.
But George, however, knew quite well that the first Star Wars movie in 20 years was a guaranteed hit that would basically sell a trillion movie tickets. He told the distributors, "You can take $1 million or you can fuck off. That's the deal."
OJ Mayo is saying "I know you usually get sweet royalties from guys who are hoping they crack the lottery. But I know what I'm worth. So give me $500k or fuck off. That's the deal."
Economics ONE OH ONE, baby.
Why shouldn't athletes be allowed to charge whatever they want for the privilege of representing them? Because Sports Agents don't want them to? WHAT? I don't want to pay for my coffee at Starbucks either. I think it's an outrage that they charge money for it. Welcome to the real world. I found it very amusing that David Falk is quoted as saying:
He could go the other way and say "Well, I'm not willing to pay the usual X% agent fees, I will only pay .5X %." And you know what? Agents will line up to take the contract anyway. As much as David Falk doesn't want to compete on price (what member or an oligopoly does!?), you can't break the laws of supply and demand.
So, lately there has been a lot of stink that apparently OJ Mayo took money in the form of bribes from sports agents for the priviledge of representing him in the NBA draft. Many people are aghast. And my reaction is:
Are you people completely daft?
Seriously, I'm not sure where you guys grew up, but in the world *I* live in, when you have a talent/skill/product that other people want really badly, then you charge money for it. Economics 101, baby. There's literally nothing immoral about this. I'm reminded very much of George Lucas' distribution deals when he made Star Wars: Episode 1. Standard industry practice is for film distributors to take a percentage of the film's ticket sales in return for distributing the film. This is a deal that most directors and distributors take because they don't always know how successful there film will be, so they worry about overpaying if they pay a flat fee for distribution.
But George, however, knew quite well that the first Star Wars movie in 20 years was a guaranteed hit that would basically sell a trillion movie tickets. He told the distributors, "You can take $1 million or you can fuck off. That's the deal."
OJ Mayo is saying "I know you usually get sweet royalties from guys who are hoping they crack the lottery. But I know what I'm worth. So give me $500k or fuck off. That's the deal."
Economics ONE OH ONE, baby.
Why shouldn't athletes be allowed to charge whatever they want for the privilege of representing them? Because Sports Agents don't want them to? WHAT? I don't want to pay for my coffee at Starbucks either. I think it's an outrage that they charge money for it. Welcome to the real world. I found it very amusing that David Falk is quoted as saying:
It's not competition based on merit. It's competition based on improper inducements. I think it's an abomination.No, Dave, it's competition based on PRICE. You may think it's an abomination. Well, of course you do, just like American Airlines CEO Robert Crandall, who famously got caught trying to fix airline prices with his competitors.
He could go the other way and say "Well, I'm not willing to pay the usual X% agent fees, I will only pay .5X %." And you know what? Agents will line up to take the contract anyway. As much as David Falk doesn't want to compete on price (what member or an oligopoly does!?), you can't break the laws of supply and demand.
Thank you, but personally, considering his victim was on the floor and he decided that risking CP3's personal health wasn't really a problem, the guy deserves 5 or 10. This is the classic "isn't attempted murder just as bad as murder?" philosophical discussion. The only reason Paul didn't break a rib is that Bowen missed.
I hate that guy, and, no, NOT in the way that you always hate that guy in the gym unless he plays on your team. In fact, I've always been an adamant believer that the Spurs win in spite of Bowen. The guy's horrible offensively (I think we can all agree). So, to make up for it, he's supposed to be an awesome defender. Yet he rebounds at a very poor rate for a small forward, creates more turnovers than most small forwards, and commits more fouls than most small forwards. It's hard for me to imagine that his defensive "prowess" (which mostly amounts to just getting in as many cheap shots as possible) makes up for it. Sure, you'd gladly take zero production from one of your players if you could nullify the other team's best player. Two problems with that. 1) Bowen usually guards the other teams highest scorer, which isn't usually the other team's best player (see here for the distinction. Learn to look beyond scoring totals). 2) Bowen doesn't "nullify" these players anyway. He just makes them play a little worse. But he doesn't bring them down to his level of suckiness.
Anyway, I actually would have enjoyed being a fly-on-the-wall for the "WTF How the hell did you guys fuck that one up?!?" speech that the referees probably got from Stu Jackson and company more than this. And I don't envy those refs their next game.
I hate that guy, and, no, NOT in the way that you always hate that guy in the gym unless he plays on your team. In fact, I've always been an adamant believer that the Spurs win in spite of Bowen. The guy's horrible offensively (I think we can all agree). So, to make up for it, he's supposed to be an awesome defender. Yet he rebounds at a very poor rate for a small forward, creates more turnovers than most small forwards, and commits more fouls than most small forwards. It's hard for me to imagine that his defensive "prowess" (which mostly amounts to just getting in as many cheap shots as possible) makes up for it. Sure, you'd gladly take zero production from one of your players if you could nullify the other team's best player. Two problems with that. 1) Bowen usually guards the other teams highest scorer, which isn't usually the other team's best player (see here for the distinction. Learn to look beyond scoring totals). 2) Bowen doesn't "nullify" these players anyway. He just makes them play a little worse. But he doesn't bring them down to his level of suckiness.
Anyway, I actually would have enjoyed being a fly-on-the-wall for the "WTF How the hell did you guys fuck that one up?!?" speech that the referees probably got from Stu Jackson and company more than this. And I don't envy those refs their next game.
Watch Bruce Bowen kick Chris Paul.
Then, Chris Paul gets called for the foul!
I'll spare you the Tim Donaghy jokes, and seriously, if the NBA front office is paying ANY attention here, a big, whoop-ass fine is heading Bruce Bowen's way right now, and those refs get a serious "WTF?!" speech from Stu Jackson.
But what really is surprising is Byron Scott not getting T'ed up here. If I'm the coach, I get T'ed up here on purpose. Then I call a time-out. Let the refs take a look at their idiocy on the in-stadium replay for a few minutes. How many times do you think they watch Bruce Bowen actively, purposefully kick CP3 while he's on the ground before they come to the realization that they might have screwed the pooch on that one, and float the Hornets a few make-up calls?
And again, after the fiasco of Nash getting pile-drived last year, and the spurs not really getting punished for it, Bruce Bowen's 500 game starting streak had better be ending soon if the NBA wants to keep any illusion alive that it's refereeing does not suck.
Hat tip to True Hoop.
Then, Chris Paul gets called for the foul!
I'll spare you the Tim Donaghy jokes, and seriously, if the NBA front office is paying ANY attention here, a big, whoop-ass fine is heading Bruce Bowen's way right now, and those refs get a serious "WTF?!" speech from Stu Jackson.
But what really is surprising is Byron Scott not getting T'ed up here. If I'm the coach, I get T'ed up here on purpose. Then I call a time-out. Let the refs take a look at their idiocy on the in-stadium replay for a few minutes. How many times do you think they watch Bruce Bowen actively, purposefully kick CP3 while he's on the ground before they come to the realization that they might have screwed the pooch on that one, and float the Hornets a few make-up calls?
And again, after the fiasco of Nash getting pile-drived last year, and the spurs not really getting punished for it, Bruce Bowen's 500 game starting streak had better be ending soon if the NBA wants to keep any illusion alive that it's refereeing does not suck.
Hat tip to True Hoop.
Hat tip to David Berri on this one.
I'm pretty sure Pop is proud of his defense when he holds opponents to 30% from the 3point line, and you want to put a guy out there who averages 30%?
Really!?
And this is better than the best point guard in the game HOW?
Avery should know that, very much unlike Jerry Stackhouse, Jason Kidd is actually aware of the fact that he isn't one of the team's better shooters. Jerry is the very worst kind of bad player: the kind who thinks he's a really good player.
And I have to give some extra credit for confirming the 4th principle of economics to Mark Cuban. It appears that he was really upset about giving up Jerry Stackhouse, so when he had the opportunity to re-do the deal using Keith Van Horn, he decided to keep Jerry. At the risk of repeating myself: Jerry Stackhouse is NOT good. Again, look beyond the scoring totals. And getting rid of Stack was at least half of what made this such a great trade!
Seriously, this isn't rocket science. Every single one of you that plays in regular pick-up games knows this. You know the guy. He's the alpha dog of the gym. Takes all the shots. Hogs the ball a lot. Always wants the ball to go through him. Thinks he's the best player in the gym. At least half the gym thinks he is, too.
But you know in your heart that if you took 12 shots per pick-up game, you'd get 5 of your team's 11 too. Hell, if YOU took 12 shots a game, you'd get 8 of your team's 11. In fact, whenever you get that many shots, you do usually get 8 points. Trouble is, you don't get the ball that much. And you aren't as good at "creating your shot" as that guy. Someday I am going to write a whole blog post on how bullshit the whole "creating your own shot" myth is (hint: how often does the creator create a good shot? Really? There are tons of guys in the NBA who can create their own shot, but only about a half dozen of them regularly create good ones.). So you only shoot 4 shots a game. And everybody respects this guy as one of the best players. But seriously, if you're ever captain, who do you pick: the 6'7" muscled guy who grabs all the boards and plays really good D, or this guy who's really good at creating his own shot? And which team wins more often?
So it looks like Dallas has given up Desagna Diop, Jerr Stackhouse, Devin Harris, Maurice Ager and two picks for Jason Kidd, Antoine Wright and Malik Allen.
Provided that Wright and Allen never see the floor, this is a great trade for Dallas, and a decent one for New Jersey. Not only is Kidd a much better point guard than Harris (Harris is above average, but not Kidd. Seriously.) but this means that Jerry Stackhouse and his negative win score are gone. That's 24 minutes a game, or what amounts to -.2 wins over a half-season (or .2 losses, if you prefer that). Yes, Stackhouse is bad. Look beyond scoring totals.
Of course Wright and Allen are worse (MUCH worse) than Stackhouse, but unlikely to see the floor in Dallas, which has guys like Dirk Nowitski and Josh Howard to play forward, thank-you-very-much.
For the Nets, they get two above-average players, they get rid of two VERY below average players, they get rid of a ton of money in Kidd's contract. Seems like a good deal even if the first round picks aren't likely to be franchise players. Unless, of course, they are foolish enough to play Stack > 30 minutes a game and/or re-sign him after 2009.
This article makes an interesting case: That Jackie Robinson was better at basketball than at baseball. In fact, he may have been the best baller of his time.
I remember in 2000 that ESPN did one of those "the best athletes of the 20th century" lists, and Jackie was number 2. I remember thinking at the time that there must be some political aspects involved in that decision. But this information sort of puts his athleticism in a new light. Four-letter sportsman at UCLA? First pro basketball player to dunk regularly? Set the collegiate broadjump record? I mean, Bo Jackson in his prime had nothing on this guy. Talk about multi-faceted.
Hat tip to Truehoop.
I remember in 2000 that ESPN did one of those "the best athletes of the 20th century" lists, and Jackie was number 2. I remember thinking at the time that there must be some political aspects involved in that decision. But this information sort of puts his athleticism in a new light. Four-letter sportsman at UCLA? First pro basketball player to dunk regularly? Set the collegiate broadjump record? I mean, Bo Jackson in his prime had nothing on this guy. Talk about multi-faceted.
Hat tip to Truehoop.
Indy Cornrows was at the game last night, and so was I. I was born and raised in Minnesota, but the real reason I was a Timberwolf fan was Kevin Garnett. Here's a guy who played the game the "right" way. Hustles, gets teammates involved, scores, rebounds. And, of course, the reward he got is oodles and oodles of disrespect and criticism. Cornrows was very impressed at how intense KG is. No one around the league seems to know this, unless you were a wolves fan.
He got criticized because he never "took over the game in the fourth quarter" and/or "carried his team". I always hated this. I remember a game we played in JV where we were down 10-0 after 2 minutes and lost by one point. I missed a free throw with 20 seconds left and felt like I lost the game. Coach told the team "Hey, you dug yourselves a ten-point hole. Don't go raggin' on Minton for whiffing one free throw." Didn't make me feel better, and it didn't stop anyone from hating me anyway, but whatever. You've got some guy getting you 22/12/5 every night and your bitching that his points, rebounds and assists don't count unless they're in the fourth quarter then you just don't get it.
And let's talk about this for a minute. How does Allen Iverson get the rep as a "competitor" and "tough" and all these other macho accolades, when all the Answer has ever really done on any team that did not include Dikembe Mutombo is lose or play .500 ball (The 76ers were 426-444 from 96-97 through 06-07 in the lowly Eastern conference, while Kevin "apparently I cannot carry my team" Garnett went 475-395 in the west, where he played vs. Duncan, Nowitzki, Shaq, and Karl Malone each 4 times a year)*? This is a man who ridicules practice. Yet the everyone thinks of him as being a "fiery, intense competitor". Because he can "takeover a game"? Because he can "carry his team"? Oh, please.
And, please, don't get me started, again, on how KG wasn't lucky enough to play 2 seasons with David Robinson, and several seasons with Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker, and yet everybody gets to tell him that Tim Duncan would never have missed the playoffs in Minnesota, oh heavens, no. Sam Cassell and Wally Szerbiak. 11 years in Minnesota, and those are his two all-star companions. Who here wouldn't laugh in Kevin McHale's face if he went to San Antonio and said "I'll trade you BOTH Sam AND Wally for Manu?"
Hate to break it to the fan boys. It wasn't KG's fault that Minny never left the first round. Rather, KG was the reason that the wolves somehow, MIRACULOUSLY, made it to the playoffs at all. Seriously, This guy carried guys like Anthony Peeler, Troy Hudson, Gary Trent, and Michael Olowakandi to the playoffs. Didn't carry his team!? Which team were YOU guys watching!?
He got criticized because he never "took over the game in the fourth quarter" and/or "carried his team". I always hated this. I remember a game we played in JV where we were down 10-0 after 2 minutes and lost by one point. I missed a free throw with 20 seconds left and felt like I lost the game. Coach told the team "Hey, you dug yourselves a ten-point hole. Don't go raggin' on Minton for whiffing one free throw." Didn't make me feel better, and it didn't stop anyone from hating me anyway, but whatever. You've got some guy getting you 22/12/5 every night and your bitching that his points, rebounds and assists don't count unless they're in the fourth quarter then you just don't get it.
And let's talk about this for a minute. How does Allen Iverson get the rep as a "competitor" and "tough" and all these other macho accolades, when all the Answer has ever really done on any team that did not include Dikembe Mutombo is lose or play .500 ball (The 76ers were 426-444 from 96-97 through 06-07 in the lowly Eastern conference, while Kevin "apparently I cannot carry my team" Garnett went 475-395 in the west, where he played vs. Duncan, Nowitzki, Shaq, and Karl Malone each 4 times a year)*? This is a man who ridicules practice. Yet the everyone thinks of him as being a "fiery, intense competitor". Because he can "takeover a game"? Because he can "carry his team"? Oh, please.
And, please, don't get me started, again, on how KG wasn't lucky enough to play 2 seasons with David Robinson, and several seasons with Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker, and yet everybody gets to tell him that Tim Duncan would never have missed the playoffs in Minnesota, oh heavens, no. Sam Cassell and Wally Szerbiak. 11 years in Minnesota, and those are his two all-star companions. Who here wouldn't laugh in Kevin McHale's face if he went to San Antonio and said "I'll trade you BOTH Sam AND Wally for Manu?"
Hate to break it to the fan boys. It wasn't KG's fault that Minny never left the first round. Rather, KG was the reason that the wolves somehow, MIRACULOUSLY, made it to the playoffs at all. Seriously, This guy carried guys like Anthony Peeler, Troy Hudson, Gary Trent, and Michael Olowakandi to the playoffs. Didn't carry his team!? Which team were YOU guys watching!?
Haven't been blogging much because I'm working on learning Ruby. I've spent too much time writing about code lately, and not enough doing it, and the rust is getting visible. Last week in an interview I botched a question on binary trees that I used to use myself as an interviewer.
Quick word about Kevin Garnett. Maybe this relates to inefficient markets. Actually, it's about Tim Duncan, too. Classic discussion in the freshmen dorms: who do you pick first on the playground? KG, or Duncan?
The idiots always say "Well, TD of course. He's won a bajillion titles."
The smart guys say that it doesn't fucking matter if the guy going second gets to pick twice in a row and Manu Ginobli (or Tony Parker) are the only other pros left on the playground.
Seriously. I cannot tell you how often I've heard pundits babble on about how TD is a "winner". Bobby Simmons once wrote that TD never would have missed the playoffs with the same supporting cast as KG. Riiiiiiiiight. That's why Ricky Davis and Mark Blount are doing sooooo well now that they're teaming up with "winners" like Shaq, DWade and Pat Riley. Seriously, Wilt fucking Chamberlain could not have made the playoffs with that wolves team last year.
And the insinuation that any team with Kevin Garnett, Manu Ginobli, and Tony Parker would not completely destroy the competition is frankly just embarrassing. He won 60 with Sam and Latrell, and wouldn't with those two!? REALLY?!? I know all you league pundits like to overrate the ridiculously ineffective Bruce Bowen for all his "intangibles", but come on. No, really. Stop it, now.
So Kevin Garnett gets to play with Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, last year's best rookie, Rajon Rondo, and the under-rated James Posey. And the celtics are tearing up the league! WHAT A SHOCK. I WOULD NEVER HAVE GUESSED THIS. NO, REALLY, I AM VERY STUNNED.
"I can't believe it! I never thought he was this good!" gasps the surprised babble. Fans in Boston want to put his jersey in the rafters. "But I thought he wasn't a winner!" they shout. I'm sorry, but you just don't randomly lead the fucking league in rebounding if you aren't a winner. Scoring, sure. Rebounding, no. Just no.
Seriously, everyone who's watched more than 10 Timberwolves games in the last decade is listening to everyone rave about how "shockingly" good KG is and thinking, in that accent you know from Fargo:
"Um, DUH!?"
Quick word about Kevin Garnett. Maybe this relates to inefficient markets. Actually, it's about Tim Duncan, too. Classic discussion in the freshmen dorms: who do you pick first on the playground? KG, or Duncan?
The idiots always say "Well, TD of course. He's won a bajillion titles."
The smart guys say that it doesn't fucking matter if the guy going second gets to pick twice in a row and Manu Ginobli (or Tony Parker) are the only other pros left on the playground.
Seriously. I cannot tell you how often I've heard pundits babble on about how TD is a "winner". Bobby Simmons once wrote that TD never would have missed the playoffs with the same supporting cast as KG. Riiiiiiiiight. That's why Ricky Davis and Mark Blount are doing sooooo well now that they're teaming up with "winners" like Shaq, DWade and Pat Riley. Seriously, Wilt fucking Chamberlain could not have made the playoffs with that wolves team last year.
And the insinuation that any team with Kevin Garnett, Manu Ginobli, and Tony Parker would not completely destroy the competition is frankly just embarrassing. He won 60 with Sam and Latrell, and wouldn't with those two!? REALLY?!? I know all you league pundits like to overrate the ridiculously ineffective Bruce Bowen for all his "intangibles", but come on. No, really. Stop it, now.
So Kevin Garnett gets to play with Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, last year's best rookie, Rajon Rondo, and the under-rated James Posey. And the celtics are tearing up the league! WHAT A SHOCK. I WOULD NEVER HAVE GUESSED THIS. NO, REALLY, I AM VERY STUNNED.
"I can't believe it! I never thought he was this good!" gasps the surprised babble. Fans in Boston want to put his jersey in the rafters. "But I thought he wasn't a winner!" they shout. I'm sorry, but you just don't randomly lead the fucking league in rebounding if you aren't a winner. Scoring, sure. Rebounding, no. Just no.
Seriously, everyone who's watched more than 10 Timberwolves games in the last decade is listening to everyone rave about how "shockingly" good KG is and thinking, in that accent you know from Fargo:
"Um, DUH!?"
