NBA Coaching Thought

Orlando fired Stan Van Gundy, who's considered one of the best coaches in the NBA now.

Also on the market?  Mike D'Antoni.  Mike coaches a specific style- heavy emphasis on the point guards, lots of running and quick scoring, not much attention paid to defense.

Looking over the NBA, I can see D'Antoni fitting perfectly with the Washington Wizards.  They need to rebuild, but have a PG with incredible talent in John Wall.  D'Antoni's teams ahven't made the finals of the NBA, but they've been exciting and done very well when he has the talent.  I can see him being a great fit for Washington.

As for SVG?  He can probably pick from any job opening.  So what's the most talented team that might be looking for an upgrade in the coaching department?  I keep looking at the Los Angeles Clippers, who have two superstars and enough other pieces but couldn't get past the Spurs this year. 

Make your guesses on where they end up.

Moving On

A funny thing happened as I listened to sports radio talk about the Miami Heat losing to the Pacers in game 2...

I didn't feel a damn thing.

Non-Clevelanders need to understand- I don't consider myself a malacious or vindictive person- but for LeBron James, I've made an exception. Ever since "The Decision", where he spat in the face of every Cleveland fan that supported him for seven years, I've despised the guy. I went into a funk when he and the Heat destroyed the Cavs in 2011, seriously thought about not following sports anymore when they waltzed into the playoffs, and resigned myself to the following scenario when they beat the Bulls in the Eastern Conference Finals:

Every single sports announcer in the world: "Well, LeBron James put up 40 points in the deciding game, carrying the Miami Heat to the first of many titles. It's obvious that all he needed to do was leave Cleveland and get rid of that lodestone to achieve the greatness he has been destined for since birth. All hail LeBron!"

And the 'celebration' in Miami, before they even played together? Twisting the knife. Especially when the Cleveland fans heard how much effort he spent trying to get people to come to Miami to join their team- effort he NEVER tried to help get Cleveland over the hump.

Look- I've never been upset when a sports player went for the money. Players only are active for a few years. If Manny Rameriz can earn $20 million more playing for Boston then Cleveland, that's life. The only two times I've been upset were in the NBA- Carlos Boozer, for backing out of a handshake deal to backstab the franchise, and LeBron James- where LeBron took less money to leave his hometown, and went out of his way to embarass the team and city that supported him unconditionally for seven years.

So when Dallas beat Miami in the 2011 NBA Championship? I was happy- but even more so, I was relieved. It wasn't us- it was James. He was the one who had problems. If the Miami Heat were to win the title in 2012 or 2013, the story wouldn't be "James just needed to leave Cleveland to become a champion." It'd be "LeBron James had to overcome his internal demons to become a champion."

So that helped. But I still didn't like the Heat, and dreaded the idea of them winning.

I've made a constant joke about me being a sports curse- I'm a fan of the Cleveland Indians, Cavs, Browns, and Chicago Cubs- to the point that I've said for years I should bet of the teams that I don't like and against the teams I like.

Well, this winter I was in Las Vegas- and put my money where my mouth was. $100 on 6-5 odds of Miami winning the NBA Title in 2012. Either they lose, and I've "weaponized" my sports curse, or they win, and I take comfort in them winning with some filthy lucre. It's a no-lose situation.

But here's the thing: now that I have some skin in the game, now that I actually have a (selfish) reason to root for Miami... I've lost the hatred that I had for them.

I don't know if 'forgive' is the right word- but at this point, Miami is just another team. I'm far more concerned about who the Cavs draft than what Miami does. I'm looking forward to seeing the playoff matchups (especially if the Western Conference Finals is OKC-San Antonio; that should be an epic series) than having conniption fits over the Miami Heat.

And James? I hope he someday does overcome his demons and leads a team to the title...

... the year after the Cavs win their first championship.

PS- The Grizzlies are out, so there went my other bet for the NBA title. It was a 35-1 longshot, but they almost got past the Clippers. The Western Conference is tough.

Presidential Scales- "Interesting", "Admirable", "Effective"

Reading Ann Althouse's blog, she made the following comment about President Barack Obama.

"He is the most interesting character I've seen emerge in my lifetime, perhaps. Simultaneously, he's boring! Which is interesting."

My first thought? Obama's nowhere near as interesting as Bill Clinton.

People have different definitions of who is interesting. My good rule of thumb would be that if you had to talk to that person for two hours- not a lecture but a conversation- would you enjoy hearing what they had to say on a wide variety of topics?  And while I think Obama is interesting, I think Clinton would be fascinating to talk with on a wide variety of topics.

　

My second thought? "Interesting" has no correlation to being an "Effective" President.

I say "Effective" rather than "good" because I'm trying to avoid actual political discussion. I don't agree with Clinton's philosophy, and didn't agree with many of his policies- but I can't deny he was effective in getting his agenda across.

The two aren't related- we've had effective Presdients who have been boring (Eisenhower, Johnson) and interesting Presidents who have been horrible at the job (Hoover). Choosing a President based on how "interesting" you find them is a bad idea, because the two aren't realted.

　

My third thought? "Admirable". A good quality. But not one that correlates with "Interesting" or "Effective".

We all know people that we ourselves find boring, but know they are good people. And we all know people that are fascinating, but we wouldn't trust them with our wallets, our cars, or our kids under circumstances.

On a whim, I started picking out recent Presidents, and ranking them (high, medium, or low) on all three categories:

　

Herbert Hoover: HIGH on the "Interesting" Scale (this is a man who wrote 16 books, from everything from mining to fly fishing to a biography of Woodrow Wilson). HIGH on the "Admirable" scale (in WWI, Hoover saved MILLIONS of lives by getting food to war-torn Belgium). LOW on the "Effective" Scale (one of the worst Presidents in History)

Ronald Reagan: MEDIUM on the "Interesting" Scale (on paper, he should be HIGH- former actor, lifeguard, radio announcer... ), MEDIUM on the "Admirable" scale (nothing stands out as particularly heroic or non-heroic outside of his Presidency), HIGH on the "Effectiveness" Scale (the most significant President since FDR)

Bill Clinton: HIGH on the "Interesting" Scale (of all the Presidents, probably the one you'd most like to have a beer with), LOW on the "Admirable" scale (you wouldn't trust him with your 20 year old daughter), HIGH on the "Effectiveness" Scale (He accomplished quite a bit as President)

So now we get to Barack Obama: Definitely LOW on the "Effectiveness" Scale (once he lost the Senate, he was completely unable to push any part of his agenda). MEDIUM on the "Admirable" scale (which may be a little low- he hasn't been heroic, but he hasn't really had the opportunity to be heroic).

And on the "Interesting" Scale?

This gets back to where we started. He's obviously intelligent, he is much more contemplative than most Presidents. But I also don't think he has the variety of experiences a Clinton or even a Reagan would have had to draw from.

Put me down for MEDIUM- but I'm willing to hear arguments otherwise.

A Moral Quandry

Something I'm considering...

Assuming:

(1) Playing football leads to concussions which leads to the type of dementia and psychological problems, including suicide.

and

(2) that there is no equipment change or rule change that can reduce (1) significantly.

　

　

Then don't I have a moral obligation to stop being a fan of football?