Bulls Do The Right Thing By Standing Pat

If Carmelo Anthony felt right patting himself on the back for dealing with a four-month trade saga that he himself created, then I feel I should at least give myself a well-deserved pat on the back for firmly standing by this current Bulls roster. Seemingly everyone wanted a trade before the deadline, even if that meant dealing one of our valuable back-up bigs, Taj Gibson or Omer Asik.
In an attempt to avoid giving up a big, the Bulls reportedly offered Ronnie Brewer, two first round picks and a second rounder for OJ Mayo, but the Grizzlies declined.
So there's that. I was and am OK with this roster without a trade or buyout pick-up. But I'm definitely not mad the Bulls front office went out and tried to make the team better. They didn't make a trade for the sake of making a trade, which is always good. They also didn't get rid of Asik, which, if my opinion mattered, would have been priority number one.
Asik is making 1.7 million this year and is set to make 1.8 million next year. For the amount of money he is making it's not out of line to say he's one of the biggest steals in the league this year. The Rockets realized this and were hoping the Bulls would make the deal out of desperation. Look no further than yesterday's Heat game to understand the impact that Asik is capable of off the bench. Sure, we can look at the box score and see he pulled down 11 rebounds and blocked a shot in only 21 minutes of play. That's impressive enough as it is.
But the box doesn't tell the story with Asik. Similar to Noah, he protects the rim and is able to alter a number of shots. This is particularly valuable against a team like the Heat. LeBron and Wade can get to the rim at will. They did against us and shot 18 combined free throws (a relatively low number for them).
When Noah was out the Bulls struggled to keep the oppositon out of the paint. Boozer and Thomas aren't shot blocking threats, and were most recently exposed in Toronto. Noah in the starting line-up and Asik off the bench will assure there's always a shot blocker down low. The Heat structure their line-up around being able to sit Wade and LeBron at different times, so one can always be on the court. If we're going to beat them in a seven game series, we're going to need someone at all times who can at least make life tough for them down low.
Courtney Lee's ability to hit the occasional three wouldn't be anywhere near as valuable as Asik's defense for the Bulls. Give me good defense over good offense anyday. I'm really happy they didn't pull the trigger on that deal.
Ronnie Brewer also came in and provided a spark. He has very active hands and is usually able to come up with one or two steals a game from pick-pocketing players lazily holding the ball in front of them. Brewer came up with four steals in the Heat game, three of which were crucial towards the Bulls' second half run.
Brewer receives credit for hovering around the baseline very well, but doesn't nearly get recognized for his improved jumper. He's been hitting 15 footers frequently this year, and is now a legitimate threat from that range. A year ago that last sentence seemed inconceivable. But more importantly, Brewer is an energy guy. He gets most of his points when he runs the floor or off easy put backs. Every team needs someone who can play around 20 minutes a game and go all out. Brewer is another guy who is more valuable that his stats indicate.
The trade deadline has come and gone and the original Bulls roster remains intact. The Bulls will likely explore buyout options, but the important thing is they didn't have to give up an asset to get one. This year in the NBA has been characterized by change. So many players have moved around, especially lately, that standing pat almost seems like an invitation to get passed by. The Bulls did the right thing. They have a roster that can compete for a championship right now. There's no use in tuning up a vehicle that doesn't need one.
Now if someone could please remove my hand from my back.

"Frederic Weis," or "The Guy Vince Carter Dunked Over"

Timofey Mozgov's name has come up a lot this week. The Knicks were reluctant to part with the 7'1 Russian center, but eventually caved under the pressure of acquiring Carmelo Anthony just before the trade deadline. Mozgov may develop into a great player one day, but he will always be remembered for that one fateful second in which he tried to stand up to Blake Griffin. Griffin left the floor, curled his left arm around the back of Mozgov's head, and proceeded to direct it towards his groin area. All while throwing down a ferocious slam.
No matter what Mozgov accomplishes in the NBA, that will be his legacy. The first and probably not last person to get Blake Griffin's nuts planted squarely in his face.
Frederic Weis, the 7'2 French center, received a similarly embarrassing fate in the 2000 Olympics (shown above). Fortunately for Weis, this came before the "instant news" era of the Internet and at least saved his name from being remembered infamously. Instead, we got to see the Vince Carter's dunk on every Sportscenter highlight reel of the summer over "some 7'2 French guy."
Interestingly enough, Weis was actually drafted 15th overall in the 1999 draft by the Knicks the summer before the Olympics. He underwent back surgery before getting drafted and credits his injuries as the reason why he never made it to the NBA. The Knicks traded Weis' rights to the Rockets in 2008 for no other than Patrick Ewing, Jr. Who says the Knicks were irrelevant the last decade?
Weis peaked in 1999 with French club Limoges, averaging 13 points and 7 rebounds a game. He was priased for his good hands and footwork, and was thought to be the second coming of Zydrunas Ilgauskus.
Weis had played professionaly for five years with Limoges before being selected by the Knicks, and then opted for a year of basketball in Greece instead of the NBA. He spent the last decade playing basketball professionaly in Spain, and has returned to Limoges to play this year.
Weis isn't much of a factor anymore, playing only 12 minutes a game and averaging a paltry 1.8 points per game. He's 33 years old and likely near the end of his career.
When asked in 2005 if being remembered for the Vince Carter dunk bothered him, he responded, "Why? I didn't do anything. It was just him doing something incredible. I can only imagine...If he jumped over me, he can jump over anybody! If people laugh, I laugh too. At least I can say I once played against him."
Isn't that a great attitude to have? It's not that Weis was bad, Carter was just that good. There's only so many special talents out there, the rest of us are either witnesses, or in the way.
I'm interested in hearing what Mozgov has to say about Griffin's dunk in ten years.

Some Scattered Melo Thoughts

Carmelo Anthony's year-long trade saga had been dubbed "The Melo-Drama," mainly because it needed a flashy title to save it from an otherwise predictable result. That's not to say this horse and pony show didn't have melodramatic tendencies. The way Melo has handled his impending free agency is far less exception than the rule, with Lockout Summer, coming this July, approaching fast.
What bothered me about this entire situation is how forced it seemed, lending credence to its title. It's like watching a movie when you already know the ending. The apparent twists and turns aren't nearly as exciting when you know that road is in fact a dead end, and not an intersection.
For all the hate The Decision has received, and deservedly so, it was still a landmark NBA moment. While ESPN was reporting all morning that LeBron was going to the Heat, it still seemed a little too unbelievable. I have no doubt in my mind that every Bulls, Knicks, Cavs, and Heat fan watched The Decision with a bit of nervous energy. Sure, we all were supposed to know LeBron was going to the Heat, but there wasn't the 100 percent certainty of Melo to the Knicks. For that reason, among many other more important ones, The Decision was significant. It was proper dramatic conclusion to the 2010 free agency period. The Melo-drama just wasn't interesting, and maybe it wasn't meant to be. Carmelo isn't the player LeBron is, and probably didn't deserve that type of attention anyway.
I've heard two angles on this story come up more than any other. The first being that Melo's move represents the eventual doom of the small-market club, and the second being that the Knicks still aren't title contenders. To the latter, I say, "Duh!" Despite the buzz around the trade, Melo's acquisition was was a means to an end for the Knicks, rather than the end. This trade wasn't meant to make them contenders today. In fact, it's unclear if they're even a better team today than they were yesterday. The Knicks hope to add either Chris Paul or Deron Williams in 2012, assuming the new CBA makes that possible. Basically, the Knicks took a chance. Some people agree with taking chances and others don't.
Seeing as I root for a big-market team I may be a bit biased, but I think LeBron, Carmelo, and Co.'s relocations aren't motivated solely by playing in big markets. Miami isn't even a big market, but does have an advantage over other cities because it is a desirable place to live. Miami was a unique situation because it was three guys who wanted to play with each other. Miami was the only place able to make that happen in 2011.
Big-market Chicago had the best nucleus of any major free-agent player this summer and didn't even come away with a top 5 free agent. I think, more so than anything, an organization that drafts well and has built a team capable of contending will attract big and small-name free agents, regardless of where the team is located. The Nuggets drafted Carmelo and built their team around him. They made some mistakes along the way, but I think most can agree, although they probably weren't going to win a title, they were capable of making a playoff push and failed to do so. The problem here could be Melo, not the Nuggets organization or the city of Denver. I'm not buying the "death of the small market" argument. If Carmelo can't get it done as the centerpiece in Denver and thinks things will change in New York, then he was probably worth getting rid of.

Despite the saltiness of Denver and other small markets, the NBA is better off with Melo in New York. Madison Square Garden has been called The Mecca of Basketball since before I was born. The Knicks franchise has won two NBA Championships, tied for 8th most in NBA history. The "Mecca" title has long been ridiculous. But ridiculous or not, it still exists, and we can't deny that great players have elevated their game when playing against the Knicks in Madison Square Garden.
The Knicks aren't perennial losers anymore, even though they haven't won a ring since 1973. Melo's acquisition alone gives us the impression that they've won something on the court, even though they haven't. Look at the Heat. It seems that most team's fan bases get more joy out of beating them than the Lakers or Celtics. The same will happen to the Knicks, and the undeserving cloud of importance that constantly surrounds them will at least by somewhat justified. The NBA will be more fun this way. Trust me.
Not to mention, the Eastern Conference playoffs will be...well...indescribable. I've long maintained that the Celtics, Heat, and Bulls are the only true contenders in the East and I stand by that. But just looking at the potential first round match ups, there won't be an easy series for any team. Regardless of what team I root for, that's what I want to see. That's one of the reasons I like this trade. It brings some much needed excitement to an Eastern Conference, that save for a team or two, has been absolutely mind-numbingly boring the last decade.

The Derrick Rose Wars

On the eve of his 42-point explosion against the Spurs Thursday night, Derrick Rose had received quite a bit of criticism. Complaints ranged from his efficiency, to style of play, to MVP credentials. Some of it was warranted, some wasn't. None of this is out of the ordinary. When any player elevates his game into the upper echelon of his position like Rose has this year, it's natural to start comparing that player to his contemporaries. It's also natural to start picking apart his flaws and determining what he needs to do to surpass his contemporaries or stay at the top.
What has struck me the most is the lengths Rose/Bulls fans have gone to shoot down even the slightest negative energy directed towards him. You would think some of these Rose critics were trying to rewrite the Bill of Rights, or something, with the way they've been treated. It's not that I'm above the typical Bulls fan. I'm right there with them. I think Rose is the MVP too. I think he's having the best season of any point guard, and is playing like a Top 5 player in the NBA. I also understand how and why some people would think otherwise.
But why is Rose being defended so passionately? I think it has to do with a fundamental misunderstanding of what he's being criticized for. Rose's game and demeanor have become one in the same. This probably doesn't make sense. I think with the help of Rose's latest Adidas ad, it will.  



 "I'm quiet. Don't have to shout. Don't need to bark, run my gums, or talk smack. Don't need to drop a hot track for you to understand what I'm saying. Don't have to say a word, because I'm fast. I'm D. Rose, and fast don't lie."

Adidas has pulled off something pretty amazing with this ad. They've essentially taken Rose's demeanor (quiet, humble, contained -- all unmarketable qualities) and turned them into marketing assets. The only physical attribute of his they've focused on is his speed. Speed helps, but it certainly doesn't make one a good basketball player. We're left to think that it is Rose's focused and relentless attitude that makes him such a good player.
Now think back to some of Rose's nationally televised games. The first thing an announcer usually points out is that he's from Chicago, quiet, humble, and willing to learn. Again, all admirable qualities, but not necessarily ones that translate to success on the court. But that's the problem. Rose's demeanor is brought up so often, that it's looked at as a basketball skill, in the same way the ball handling or footwork is.
I think that's where some of this confusion sets in. If you're criticizing Rose's game, does that mean you're criticizing him as a person? I know this sounds kind of ridiculous, but consider the lengths people have gone to defend him. Good players are criticized all the time. But never have I seen a fanbase so desperate for a player to be acknowledged as great.
Rose is the perfectly molded athlete. A player who not only has elite skills, but is willing to put the work in to get better, treat his less talented teammates as equals, and pick the brain of any and every member of the Bulls organization.
It's easy to forget now that the Bulls were considered losers in the 2010 Summer free agency period. They had their sights set on a combination of Bosh and either LeBron or Wade. They got none of them and instead had to settle on Boozer and a variety of role players. Rose reacted exactly how you'd hope your star player would. He didn't care. He took what the Bulls had and made them into a contender. Perfect.
There's no clear distinction between Derrick Rose the person and Derrick Rose the player. Yesterday, the TNT crew argued about whether DeMarcus Cousins was a knucklehead or did "knucklehead things." Ernie Johnson argued that the "knucklehead things" Cousins has done in his young career don't define him as a basketball player. It's the opposite with Rose. His quiet and humble nature have been packaged as an integral part of his game.
Bulls fans like to think Rose has done things the right way. Some people think of him as the anti-LeBron. In a round-about way, an endorsement for Rose is an endorsement for the so-called good guys in the league. Or maybe that's just my warped, misguided view of the Derrick Rose wars.

The Case For Keith Bogans

Bulls fans are spoiled. As if six championships in the 90s and watching the greatest player ever wasn't enough, all I've been hearing for the last three months is the Bulls need to upgrade the shooting guard position. As if a 37-16 record without a full roster, and one game left before the All-Star break wasn't enough. We need to get better! And the only way is to get another shooting guard, anyone except Bogans. Rip Hamilton, Stephen Jackson, JR Smith, Arron Afflalo, Anthony Parker, Courtney Lee, OJ Mayo--ANYONE.
Derrick Rose can't just be considered one of the best point guards in the game, he has to be considered the best. Derrick Rose can't just be an MVP candidate, he has to be the MVP favorite. The Bulls can't just have one All-Star, they need at least two.
More. More More. Nothing has been good enough this year, has it Bulls fans?
I understand that the last 12 seasons have been tortuous, mixed with a little good here and there. It was fun watching Elton Brand compete with some pitiful Bulls teams early in his career. The 2007 playoffs in which we swept the defending champion Heat in the first round, and battled back from a 3-0 series deficit to take the Pistons to six was memorable, and left many of us foolishly thinking the Bulls had turned the corner. The 2009 first round series with Boston was quite possibly the greatest playoff series ever and best Chicago Bulls moment of the last 12 years--even though we didn't win that series.
I also understand the Miami Heat have created an "arms-race" mentality in the NBA. Three big names teamed up in Miami and the same will probably happen in New York. The Celtics already have their Big Three, now Big Four. Conventional thinking then says that in order to keep up with these teams, you need to stockpile the biggest names and most talent. This line of thinking is true to an extent, but disregards the issue of chemistry and a player's willingness to adapt to a certain role.
That's why I'll take Keith Bogans over any of the players I just mentioned above. He plays great defense and is rarely caught out of position. He's never once tried to do too much on the offensive or defensive end. Ask yourself if any of the above players be content with six shots a game? I doubt it, and that's twice the amount of shots Bogans takes per game. I'd rather not deny Rose the ball if it means the shooting guard replacement needs more shots.
The biggest critique of Bogans is that he doesn't score enough. On the surface, it's hard to argue with that. He averages 3.9 points per game. But lets look at this scoring "conundrum" a little closer.
With Noah back, the Bulls will average about 80 points per game from their starters, tied for the fourth highest total in the NBA. The only teams higher are the Knicks (85), Warriors (82), and Heat (81). The Knicks and Warriors push the ball up the court, take quick shots, and play very little defense. They also have thin benches. Their teams philosophies are perfectly suited to scoring a lot of points. I know, they're a combined 3-1 against the Bulls, but neither are championship contenders and wouldn't beat the Bulls in a seven game series. The Heat have the two best players in the NBA, who combine for 52 of those 81 points. In comparison, the Bulls' top two scorers, Rose and Boozer, combine for 44.
Hopefully, my point about Bulls fans being spoiled is starting to get clearer. How many points do they expect the starters to score? The fans seem to think we should be able to add a 12-14 point per game scorer to the starting lineup. If we did that, we'd not only have a starting lineup that averages more than 90 points per game, but outscores the 2nd highest scoring lineup by 7 or 8 points a game.
The average NBA team gets 70 points per game out of their starting lineup. The Bulls get 80, but the fans want over 90. Ludicrous!
Let's also acknowledge that Bogans has been shooting the ball much better of late. In the first 31 games of the season, he shot 37 percent from behind the arc, in line with his career average. In the last 22 games, he's shot the three-pointer at a 47 percent clip. How about the a happy medium, 42 percent? I think that's more than doable, considering nearly every Bogans three pointer is uncontested. He's seeing more wide open looks than he ever has in his career. A five percent increase from his career three-point shooting percentage isn't out of the question.
72 percent of Bogans' field goal attempts are threes, a number that I'd like to see closer to 80. He only attempts 2.5 shots per game, so the lack of scoring isn't his fault. There's simply not enough shots to go around, which is why it would be ridiculous to think a starting lineup could average over 90 points a game. If Bogans took even six shots a game, he'd be averaging 6 or 7 points, a number that is well in line with most fourth or fifth options. There's always going to be an odd man out and Bogans is that man. Why he's being criticized for it, I have no idea.
The Bulls have never won or lost a game because of Keith Bogans. They won't win or lose a game because of his potential replacement. We're good enough to contend with the team we have right now. It's been 12 rough years for God's sake. Stop trying to act spoiled now.

Spurs vs. AC Milan And Other Soccer House Cleaning

I haven't written about soccer in a while now. Contrary to popular belief, I haven't stopped watching. It just took me about five weeks to realize no one wanted to read match by match breakdowns of an EPL team jockeying for a top four seed. What is the EPL anyway? Most people clicked the link expecting the San Antonio Spurs and wondered why they saw pictures of soccer.
Anyway, I've still been watching, and Wayne Rooney's goal to lift Manchester United 2-1 over City is probably the most aesthetically pleasing goal I've ever seen.  I've watched this video 20,000 times, accounting for two thirds of the YouTube views, and am still not sick of it.
"Wayne Rooney is back!" the pundits claimed. I never understood how a player could be "back" after one goal, albeit a spectacular one. But the assertion got me to thinking about all Rooney has been through the last year. He injured his ankle towards the end of the 2009-10 Premier League season, limiting his mobility, and still finished the season with 26 Premier League goals.
The English National Team followed with a poor showing in the World Cup, highlighted by Rooney's ineffectiveness. Citing his injury, some questioned whether he should have been playing at all. Then news of his extramarital affair was leaked, compounding his already sketchy public image.
Rooney returned to United and squabbled with Sir Alex Ferguson over a new contract, threatened to leave the club, and came off immature through out the entire process. All of this from Rooney despite being held goalless in open play for the previous eight months of the Premier League season.
I've tried to come up with a cross-sport equivalent of 2010 Wayne Rooney and there's absolutely no comparison. Rooney made Brett Favre's year look Sportsman of the Year Award worthy by comparison.
But hey, "Wayne Rooney is back, baby!" Unfortunately, it took his "return" to realize I liked the struggling, considerably less rich, and womanizing version of Rooney much better.
I've also changed my mind about the EPL schedule. A few months ago I whined about the lack of an end-of-the-year playoff. I thought they should assign seeds to the top eight seeds and let them battle for the league title. I argued that the mini-tournament didn't have to affect Champions League draws, as the top four seeds after the regular season would already clinch berths. I just thought something more needed to be done about crowning an official champion, rather than relying on regular season record.
Turns out that the pursuit of a top four seed is just as fun. Tottenham, Chelsea, and Manchester City are all currently in the hunt for the last two spots. Every game at this point is magnified. Dropping points to inferior teams is especially painful, and scoreboard watching is in full force. It reminds me of the end of the NFL season when teams are more concerned with making the playoffs, rather than what seed they are. I take playoff plead back, this is pretty fun too.

Tottenham's lone goal in their 1-0 victory over AC Milan in San Siro embodied everything that went right Tuesday afternoon. Aaron Lennon broke away from the pack after receiving an intercepted ball. Milan was sloppy with their passes all day, especially in the first half.
Lennon, who routinely beat his defender, was Spurs best playmaker. He made a couple good crosses to Crouch in the first half but they ultimately amounted to nothing. It was only fitting that the two would hook up to put the game away.
In the 80th minute, Lennon made Mario Yepes miss and delivered a perfect pass to Crouch, who tucked the ball inside the left corner. Milan midfielder Gennaro Gatusso attempted to goad Crouch into a fight the entire game, but Crouch left with the last laugh. Gatusso will miss the second leg after picking up a yellow card in the game. He even head butted Tottenham assistant manager Joe Jordan after the game, and could possibly face suspension. You have to love UEFA for that very reason--a head butt doesn't necessarily warrant a suspension.
I'm proud of Spurs. They went into a hostile environment, came out aggressive, and weren't intimidated by a side playing dirty in the second half. And they did it without Gareth Bale, who is still nursing an ailing back. A draw would have been a good result, but with the win, Spurs have set themselves up nicely to advance to the final eight.
That's the last time I'll talk soccer until March 9th. I promise.

Reigning Threes?

Last Thursday Ray Allen broke Reggie Miller's NBA record of 2,560 career three-pointers. Miller, who was announcing the game, was very congratulatory of Allen, even going as far as to pretend that he was happy his record had been broken. What interested me more was Miller's insinuation that Allen's record (2,562 and counting) would never be broken. According to Miller, the consistency and health that Allen continues to enjoy during his career will be tough to replicate.

It's hard to argue with that. Allen has been a great shooter for a long time, and he's managed to keep himself in fantastic shape into his mid-30s. But can we safely assume Allen's three-point record will never be broken?

First, it would help to understand a brief history of the three-point shot in the NBA. The NBA added the three-point line at the start of the 1979-80 season. The three-point line was already being used in college basketball and the ABA. Players were reluctant to utilize the shot at first. In fact, just under six three-point shots were attempted per game in the early going, less than Ray Allen alone attempts per contest. 

In addition to the low number of attempts, shooters in the early 80s were not very effective. The best three-point shooters made around 35 percent of their shots, while the average players shot in the mid-20 percent range.

In the late 80s, Larry Bird became the first superstar to successfully incorporate the three-point shot into his arsenal, and three-point specialists started to emerge across the league. By the time the 1990s hit, the three-point shot was not only accepted way of scoring, but a shot that players were good at, and coaches attempted to utilize in their game plans.

The important thing to remember is that the three-point shot is still a relatively new "phenomenon." While it is commonplace in today's game, it didn't used to be. There's a reason why, by the end of the season, 8 of the top 10 three-point leaders will be current players. Players have grown up practicing the three ball, they're encouraged to shoot it, and are better able to knock it down than the NBA players of the 1980s.

Barring a drastic, league-wide shift in philosophy, there's no reason to believe that the three-point shot won't continue to grow in popularity over the years.

I made a chart of the current top 10 career three-point shooting leaders, and decided to differentiate them based on four different categories: "Durable Seasons," Three-Point Attempts Per Year (Career), Three-Point Attempts Per Game (Career), and Three-Point Shooting Percentage (Career).

I defined a "durable season" as one in which a player participated in at least 70 of the 82 games. In the 1998-99 strike shortened year, I adjusted the number to 42 of the 50 games. The number that appears first is the number of seasons a player met the 70 or 42 game requirement. The number in parentheses is the total number of seasons the player has completed. The difference in the two numbers are the seasons I determined to be affected by injuries. 

Note also, that for the current players on this list, I did not include their numbers from the 2010-11 season in factoring any of the four categories.



Look at this chart and what jumps out? It's certainly not Allen's shooting percentage or health, the two factors that Miller and seemingly everyone else have deemed as the key to Allen's success. Ray Allen just flat out attempts more threes than anyone else, and it's not even close. That's not to diminish his health or shooting ability. He's obviously been better and luckier than most when it comes to those factors. But compared the rest of the top 10, he's 4th in career three-point shooting percentage. Reggie Miller managed to stay healthier over a longer period of time, and Chauncey Billups, Rashard Lewis, and Jason Terry are all on pace to at least equal Allen's string of good health. Allen shoots more--that is why he has made more.

There's a few interesting "what-ifs" on this list. We have to start with Dale Ellis. He shot the best percentage (40.3) of anyone on the list. He also appears to be an unfortunate victim of his era. Ellis attempted an average of 160 less three-pointers per year than Allen, and an average of 105 less than the four players ahead of him (Peja overtook Ellis after I finished the table). Ellis also remained healthy over a long career. Had he come a decade later, he'd at the very least have a firm hold of 3rd place, and possibly would still be ahead of Reggie. Instead, Ellis will likely in 10th place once Lewis, Terry, Billups, Paul Pierce, and Steve Nash retire. Within ten years he'll probably be buried within this list. Kind of a shame.

Look at Reggie Miller's numbers across the board. Now look at Jason Terry's. They're practically identical. The only major difference is that Terry is still seven years off from playing the 18 years that Miller did. Attempts per game and attempts per season are eerily similar, although Miller's shooting percentage is a point and a half higher. It's a very real possibility that Terry could catch Miller. Terry benefited from missing the 1998-99, entering the league a year later. So he could lose a portion two years to injury and still stay on pace with Reggie. Miller played until he was 40, reduced to a spot up shooter for the last three years of his career. If Terry is capable of filling a similar role in his later years, he has a good shot of cracking the top two or three.

Peja Stojakovic is probably the greatest what-if of them all. He's played the least amount of healthy seasons of anyone on the list, yet is still in 4th place. He has the second highest shooting percentage and attempts per game. Peja simply couldn't stay healthy. Things have gotten so bad, that it's unclear if he will even play next year. What if Peja had stayed healthy? What if he had jumped to the NBA when he was drafted in 1996 instead of waiting until 1998? We could have been treated to two extra seasons. Those two alone would have him currently in third place with well over 2,000 career threes. Instead, he'll be at the bottom of the top 10 within four years and, along with Ellis, will eventually be usurped by the future generation.  

While the accomplishments of Ray Allen shouldn't be diminished, he's been fortunate to play within offensive systems that take advantage of his ability and encourage him to shoot. Allen has also come along at the right time, during an era where three-point shooting is developed at a young age and valued in the NBA. While he hasn't shot the best percentage or been injury-free, he has attempted more threes than anyone with a similar career shooting percentage and games played, accounting for his growing lead. However, with the increase of three-point shooting and advancements in medicine, it wouldn't be surprising to see the new generation of shooters rewrite this list. As early as five years ago, the top 10 looked drastically different.

An Interesting Inquiry

Below is an excerpt from Larry Bird and Magic Johnson's book When The Game Was Ours, written by Jackie MacMullan:

   The "Dream Team" needed buffers for their privacy and their safety. During their 16 days in Barcelona, the Ambassador's game room served as an exclusive club where the players could shoot pool, play cards, enjoy a beer, and invent occasions to compete with one another.
On the night of August 7th, [some of the players] were wide awake, embroiled in an emotional debate over a simple question posed by Bird: which NBA team was the greatest of all time?
"Obviously one of our Lakers teams," answered Magic, leaning on his pool stick. "We won five championships. More than all of you."
"No, it's the great Celtics teams with my man Bill Russell," said center Patrick Ewing, who played for the New York Knicks but was raised in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "He won 11 rings."
"You're forgetting the '86 Celtics, with the best front line in the history of basketball, including this guy right here," added NBC commentator Ahmad Rashad, pointing to Bird.
"That Celtics front line was brutal," agreed Charles Barkley.
Jordan, refusing to allow the chatter to disrupt his concentration, knocked his ball into the corner pocket and puffed on his cigar. He was 29 years old and had just won his second straight championship and his sixth consecutive scoring title. His counterparts in the room were decorated NBA veterans, yet their body of work was nearly complete. The maestro of the Bulls was only just beginning to add new strokes to his championship canvas.
"You haven't even seen the best NBA team of all time yet," Jordan announced. "I'm just getting started. I'm going to win more championships than all of you guys. Tell you what. Let's have this conversation after I'm done playing."
"You aren't winning five championships," Magic protested.
"Michael, I'm going to steal at least one of them from you," Barkley shot back.
"Quiet," Bird said. "Charles, you ain't won nothing. You're out of this discussion. Ahmad, same thing. You're gone. Patrick, you don't have any championships either, so you need to shut up and sit down right here and learn some things."
Jordan insisted that his Chicago teams belonged in the conversation about the all-time greats; Bird reminded Jordan that he used to torture Scottie Pippen regularly before his back betrayed him.
"I feel sorry for you," Magic told Jordan. "You will never have what Larry and I had. We went two weeks without sleep knowing, if we made one mistake, the other guy was going to take it and use it to beat us. Who do you measure yourself against?"

Magic's last question, "Who do you measure yourself against?" particularly resonates in today's NBA. The League's current batch of stars has been criticized for being too friendly with each other, a criticism that reached its pinnacle this summer when LeBron, Wade, and Bosh joined the Heat together. But is "friendly" necessarily a bad thing?
Magic, Bird, and Jordan would have never played with each other. They said so themselves, and there's no reason to suggest otherwise. As the story goes, they were too preoccupied with trying to beat the other than to ever think of joining them. Fair enough.
From 1985 until the end of their careers, Magic and Bird had a friendly rivalry. They were cordial but still wanted to beat each other. Magic also wanted desperately to play with Bird -- in the 1992 Olympics. Battling chronic back problems, Bird had planned on foregoing the 1992 Olympic games. It was Magic that talked him into it. He was intrigued by the idea of playing with a comparably talented player who also exhibited the same competitive drive that separated him from the rest of his Laker teammates. Jordan called the Olympic experience, "The time of his life." Every member of the team relished the opportunity to play with teammates who pushed them everyday at practice.
Competitiveness is something we as fans often overlook. Great players, and teams for that matter, often get bored playing against inferior competition. Before this year, LeBron and Wade never played with anyone in their life that approached their skill set. The daily competition in practice will make them better players, in a way that competing against each other every so often couldn't.
That's not to say I agree with their decision to join the Heat. I still would have much rather seen them as the best player on two different teams. But the notion that one of them would have to scale down their game to accommodate the other has already been proven wrong. In fact, Wade and LeBron are better players this year than they were last year. I think just being around the other has brought out the best in them.
While never actualized, even members of the 1992 Dream Team recognized the vast potential of teaming up. LeBron and Wade were accused of lacking competitiveness because they took the dream of the 1992 Olympic squad and made it an NBA reality.
We may have all been wrong. The Heat may have done the competitive thing. They just did it in a way that the previous generation of players would have never conceived. 

Pick 6: The Super Bowl's Worst

Who am I to complain about the Super Bowl? This year's game drew an estimated 111 million viewers on average, making it the highest rated television event of all time. So obviously the NFL is doing something right.
The problem I have and have always had with the Super Bowl is that it has to cater to such a large audience -- many of which could care less about football. Those of us who follow football religiously are unfortunately force fed with crap such as: a four and a half pregame special, which, among other things aired a video montage likening football to wars and other events that altered America's social and political landscape, witty and creative commercials that are supposedly reason enough to watch the Super Bowl, and a Halftime Show that is sure to blow us away.
As a football fan, I can do without the pageantry, but I understand why it's there.
The game itself was unbelievable. Anytime the Super Bowl comes down to potential game-winning drive, we're in for a treat regardless of the outcome. We saw turnovers and dropped passes that affected the outcome of the game. We saw Ben Roethlisberger get off to a shaky start and then lead his team to a come back. We saw Aaron Rodgers continue his flawless play through out the playoffs. The actual game was everything a neutral observer could ask for. As is most often the case, the Super Bowl is more about the spectacle than the game itself. There were six things that left a sour taste in my mouth.
6) Alex Rodriguez is shown in a luxury suite, being fed popcorn by girlfriend Cameron Diaz. I can imagine most of us reacted the same way. "Oh, look at A-Rod and his 250 million dollars. Can't even feed himself." Or something along those lines. That's because we hate A-Rod. We've all been fed by our girlfriends/wives at least once in our lives (don't lie and say you haven't), just not in a luxury suite at the Super Bowl in front of 110 million people watching on television.
This reminds me of a conversation I once had in a Wrigleyville bar, while waiting in line to use the bathroom.
Me (the guy behind me is wearing a Yankees hat): So you're a Yankees fan?
Him: Yeah. (His response was followed by a few more exchanges between us, but I don't remember them. Sorry, I was drunk).
Him: I'm a fan of the old school Yankees though. Guys like Jeter, Posada, and Rivera.
Me: But those guys still play for them.
Him: Yeah, but they're not A-Rod.
That tells you all you need to know about A-Rod. Despite being one of the best hitters in baseball, and even when playing well, Yankees fans don't even like him. There's no comparable case in any other sport. Only LeBron James could come close, but Heat fans don't hate him. If LeBron were to play for another team in his career, then we would see an A-Rod parallel.
So there was A-Rod doing something ridiculous, let's make fun of him. It was completely warranted, but it really wasn't.

5) The Black Eyed Peas Halftime Performance. This slightly edged out Christina Aguilera's unique rendition of the National Anthem. BEP's halftime show was exactly what I expected, minus their inclusion of "Where Is The Love?" The song is essentially about compassion for your fellow man. It's one of the more heartfelt songs (despite the source) you'll hear on mainstream radio. Meanwhile, BEP delivered the song's message in light-up space suits. I know it's one of their bigger hits, but the time and place for this song was all wrong.
4) Jerry Jones' Luxury Suite. Some of the faces I saw in Jerrah's suite: George and Laura Bush, Jesse Jackson, John Madden, and Condolleeza Rice. Jerry Jones calls that his luxury suite, I call that hell.
3) Aaron Rodgers-Brett Favre Comparisons. These comparisons, while somewhat appropriate two years ago, grew increasingly old and tired this year. Aaron Rodgers has won his first Super Bowl in only his third year as a starter. He's won as many Super Bowls in three years as Brett Favre has in 20. You would think that would end the comparisons but it will only further them. Rodgers has to pass Favre or else we'll keep hearing about it. Favre played way too long, so he'll hold all of the individual accolades over Rodgers -- Super Bowl rings will be the main determinate of who was better. I will say this, with Brett Favre as your quarterback, you knew he was just as capable of losing a game as he was of winning one. With Rodgers, I don't sense that. We're still early in his career, but when has he given the indication of trying to do too much, and hurt his team in the process?
2) The Ticket Debacle. The NFL and Jerry Jones, in an effort to maximize attendance and revenue tried to add about 15,000 seats. Hours before kick-off, 400 fans found out that their tickets were not being honored because they had not passed the safety inspection from fire marshals. As a consolation prize, those turned away were given three times the value of their tickets and tickets to next year's Super Bowl.
Sure that sounds like a fair compromise, except the feeling of seeing your team in the Super Bowl is irreplaceable. Unless Green Bay or Pittsburgh is in the Super Bowl next year -- I mean 2013, the fans come out with the short end of the stick. I really feel for those people, I'd be seething.
1) The Impending Lockout. The Packers should have been given two Lombardi trophies because that's what it's going to feel like. The NFL lockout will strip us of a 2011-12 season, so we'll have a long time to remember this year. Let me recap for Bears fans:
A) The Packers just won the Super Bowl.
B) There will be no football next year.
C) When football resumes, the Packers will have a better team than they did this year.
D) 27 year-old Aaron Rodgers (or Tom Brady) is the best quarterback in the NFL.
E) Rodgers has the Brady-like quality of being able to win with whatever he has to work with. So should key offensive players go down (like this year), or the defense has a major let down (2013), the Packers will still always be in contention.
I'm going to go and play in traffic now.

The Rise And Fall Of Converse

Converse has become somewhat of an afterthought in today's NBA, but the impact the shoe has had on the game is undeniable. The marriage between Converse and basketball was a product of good timing and geographic proximity. In 1908, founder Marquis M. Converse started his business in Malden, Massachusetts. By 1915, Converse was designing shoes for the newly popular game of basketball, invented in the southwest city of Springfield less than 25 years earlier. Malden was within Springfield's sphere of influence, and no doubt, their proximity played a large role in Converse's pioneering decision to create a market for basketball shoes.
Converse of course had some help, in the form of professional basketball player Charles H. "Chuck" Taylor, the eventual namesake of the Converse Chuck Taylor All Stars. Taylor was first introduced to the shoe in 1918, while playing professional basketball in Ohio. In 1921, he began endorsing Converse, promoting the shoe while conducting basketball clinics across the country. As the nation's interest in basketball began to take off in the 1930s, Converse became the standard issue basketball shoes for numerous high school and college teams across the country. Leading to many players of my generation to ponder: how could they possibly have played in those things?
Julius Erving was the fist superstar who endorsed Converse, wearing the shoe through out his exhilarating ABA days and into the NBA in the early 1980s. Despite Erving's marketability, ABA basketball, and even the NBA in the early 80s failed to capture a national audience. The arrival of Larry Bird and Magic Johnson would change everything, including Converse's marketing campaign.
In honor of the Super Bowl bonanza surrounding their commercials, here's one of the most popular NBA commercials ever: Larry and Magic team up to promote the multi-colored shoe called The Weapon, in Converse's "Choose Your Weapon" campaign.



The commercial emphasized the perceived differences between the two. Bird, playing alone in his rural Indiana hometown is approached by the flashy Johnson, who arrived in a limousine. Talking on the set, the two found out they were more similar than they could have ever imagined. Both grew up poor, in blue collar families who preached hard work. Both approached basketball and leadership with the same unwavering intensity.
Johnson and Bird were originally opposed to the idea of appearing in a commercial together. The Lakers and Celtics were mortal enemies, a predisposition that extended to the players of each team. Lakers players were especially perturbed that Magic was fraternizing with the reigning MVP of the league, who had defeated them in the NBA Finals the year before.
Magic and Larry's new found relationship off the court, as you can imagine, didn't spill over into the games. They remained as competitive as ever. In fact, Magic got his revenge the next year when the Lakers defeated the Celtics in six games to win the title.
This commercial was crucial not only from a marketing standpoint, but for forging a relationship between two competitors who mutually respected each other's game but were otherwise very distant. The "Choose Your Weapon" ad also spawned the commercial below, so take the bad with the good.



Converse went on to further their success with Larry's Johnson's "Grandmama" ads of the 90s, and then fail miserably with Latrell Sprewell. They paved the way for marketing basketball players. Their efforts would eventually lead to their demise. Nike signed Michael Jordan and have been firmly in control of the basketball shoe market since.
The story ends predictably, Converse was bought out by Nike in 2003. But Converse's Chuck Taylor All Stars and basketball tradition remain intact.

Ernie Banks Home Run Derby Footage

Two of baseball's most engaging personalities and 1,048 combined career home runs sounds like a winning combination to me. Hall-of-Famers Ernie Banks and Mickey Mantle provided just that when they faced off in the second episode of Ziv Television Program's 1960 series, Home Run Derby. Not only are these clips entertaining, but are important because very little footage exists of these two sluggers.
The 1960 Home Run Derby was quite different than our current format. For one, it wasn't a yearly supplement to the All-Star Game, but a syndicated television program that aired weekly. Two hitters vied for the two thousand dollar prize every week, with the previous week's winner returning to defend his crown. In addition to the two thousand dollar prize (and one thousand dollars to the runner-up), hitters received a 500 dollar bonus for three straight home runs, another 500 dollars for a fourth straight, and one thousand for each additional home run after four. In other words, they took this shit seriously. A few swings of the bat could lead to a substantial payday.
My favorite part of this program is the format of the derby itself. Nowadays, we give hitters ten outs and see what they can do. They're allowed to swing or lay off of any pitch they want. This wasn't the case in 1960.
The format was similar to a real baseball game. They played nine innings, and each hitter was given three outs per inning. Outs were recorded the same as they are now. Anything that doesn't leave the yard in fair territory is an out. The biggest difference in the 1960 version was the presence of an umpire that called balls and strikes. If the hitter didn't swing at a pitch the umpire deemed a ball, it was counted as an out. You'll see Ernie rack up a few outs this way.
An unintended consequence of the event was some awkward interviews in between innings. When hitters weren't at bat, they sat in the dugout with announcer Mark Scott. Maybe it was because they were focused on the game, or maybe Mark Scott wasn't a good conversationalist, but for two players who were supposedly some of the most media-friendly of their era, there were plenty of cringe-worthy exchanges in this episode.
One last not for Cubs fans. If the stadium looks similar, it's because it was modeled after Wrigley Field. In fact, this ballpark in Los Angeles was also known as Wrigley Field, named after the same chewing gum founder William Wrigley Jr., and bared the name before the current Wrigley Field. And I'm guessing their ivy didn't die in the winter.

PART I



PART II



PART III

An Unlikely Luc Longley Sighting

Last weekend I found myself in a retro bowling alley. Everything, and I mean everything, from the bowling balls, to the bar, to the employees, were aged at least sixty years. The left corner of the alley was doused with a touch of modernity in the form of fifteen year-old pinball machines. My favorite of which was NBA Fastbreak, a ditty from 1997, featuring Nick Van Exel, Clyde Drexler, Luc Longley, Jerry Stackhouse, Penny Hardaway, Jason Kidd, and Detlef Schrempf. One of these things is not like the others.
To recap: by 1997 standards, we have one future Hall of Famer (Drexler), two perennial All-Stars (Van Exel and Schrempf), two up and coming superstars (Kidd and Stackhouse), and Nike's latest prodigal son (Hardaway). Then there's the lonely Aussie, who looks to be playing help defense on Drexler, and primed to end up on a poster.
Before I get to Longley, I feel that Van Exel, Stackhouse, and Schrempf aren't nearly talked about enough for the right reasons. Van Exel doesn't receive enough credit for dispelling the myth that left-handers were incapable of playing the point guard position. Don't remember that myth? Just take my word for it, the 1990s were filled with some truly reprehensible people. As far as I'm concerned, without the trailblazing efforts of Van Exel and Derrick Coleman, players like Brandon Jennings and Josh Smith wouldn't exist.
In the mid-90s, Stackhouse was dubbed as the next MJ. Sure, he flew through the air like young Jordan, and attended North Carolina, but the similarities pretty much ended there. Stackhouse provided plenty of highlight reel dunks during his first two years in a 76ers uniform. All pale in comparison to the two-piece he hit Jeff Hornacek with during a game his rookie year.
I hated Jeff Hornacek as a kid. Him and Stockton made up the dirtiest backcourt I've seen to this day, except nobody acknowledged this at the time because they wore bowl cuts and didn't have tattoos. The Bulls played the Jazz in two straight Finals, so the nuances of that Utah team got on my nerves. Especially the way Hornacek used to rub his cheek before attempting every free show. The gesture was dedicated to his wife and kids, to show that he was still thinking of them. Spare me. For some reason, this makes me even angrier now than it did then.
Even if Stackhouse's punches appear unprovoked, I feel pretty comfortable with my belief that they certainly were not. My opinion of Hornacek hasn't changed in thirteen years, and no one can tell me different.
I spent a year and half of my prime childhood years trying to figure out what Detlef Schrempf was. Not who he was, but what he was. I was convinced he was a genetic cross between an iguana and Ivan Drago, created for the specific purpose of embarrassing American basketball players. Schrempf had one of the prettiest jumpers I've ever seen and shot a remarkable percentage for someone who took as many outside shots as he did.
Schrempf also has an entertaining blog: Det's Ramblings, that I suggest you read.

Now for the difficult part: what to say about Luc Longley. I watched almost every one of his games for four years of his career and am still at a loss for words. I think this Longley highlight reel, 95 percent of which is made up of dunks and layups does the trick:   



To truly appreciate Luc Longley, you have to look beyond what he did on the basketball court. As the video shows, what Longley did on the court was far from spectacular. He won three championships with the Bulls, was limited offensively, but was not expected to contribute much other than solid defense and smart passes within the triangle offense. Luc Longley is more interesting when stripped from the context of basketball. Here's some Longley anecdotes:
1) Longley was known as a gentle giant. According to Longley's back-up, Bill Wennington, "[Longley] was just a fun kid. He tried to do his best on the basketball floor, but he really just wanted to have fun. He never wanted to hurt anybody. He actually seemed to love everybody he knew on the team." You can imagine how well his attitude went over with Michael Jordan, who was a tad more unforgiving on the court.
2) During a November west coast trip with Chicago, Longley and teammate Jud Buechler went bodysurfing on their day off. Longley was picked up and dropped by a wave and ended up separating his shoulder. He had to wear a shoulder pad for the next few weeks and his teammates joked that he looked like the Hunchback of Notre Dame. Why do we not have side-by-side pictures of a crippled Longley and the Hunchback of Notre Dame? I wish we had today's version of the Internet back then.
3) In 2009, Longley won a 2,900 dollar eBay bid to name a newly discovered shrimp off the southwest coast of Australia. He named the shrimp after his 15 year-old daughter.
4) While playing for the Suns, Longley was stung twice by a scorpion while sifting through the CD collection in his home.
5) He once backed down from a game of one-on-one against a drunk 60-year-old Lithuanian with a 4-inch vertical leap. Story.

When my confidence as a writer and human being wavers, I think of Luc Longley -- who despite averaging 7 points and 5 rebounds in his 12-year career, won three championships and one of the seven coveted spots on NBA Fastbreak. Anything is possible.