Kobe Beef or Duncan Doughnuts?

 

The guys shown in the picture above are obviously two of the greatest to ever play the game of basketball. As of 2014, these two have won 9 out of the last 14 NBA titles and both have 5 rings each. But as with all sports, one must be better than the other. Who has had the better career; Tim Duncan or Kobe Bryant?

 

As a diehard Laker fan, it would be very easy for me to say Kobe has had the better career than Tim Duncan, but I have to objective when looking at the criteria. There are many different ways I could look at this, because Kobe edges Duncan in some categories, Duncan edges him in others. How should this be evaluated then? Since these two icons are deadlocked when it comes to rings, the categories that I believe should be evaluated are; all-nba/all defensive selections, finals mvps, league mvps, consistency, and win shares.

 

Tim Duncan has the slight edge regarding the All-NBA/All-Defensive selections because he has had 28 combined selections while Kobe has had 27. As far as consistency is considered, Kobe has had one league MVP (2008) while Duncan has 2(2002-2003). Ok, even if we throw that out the window and only judge stars on the big stage, Tim Duncan has 3 Finals MVP’s, Kobe has 2. However, the most important statistic that sticks out to me is win shares. The Big Fundamental’s 191.6 win shares rank 6th all-time in NBA history while the Mamba’s 172 win shares rank 14th all time. This shouldn’t surprise most fans because even for those who would argue that Duncan has always had the better team. Duncan had to be the guy and play with an aging David Robinson while Kobe got to play with Shaq while Shaq was still in his prime. Even after The Admiral retired and Parker and Ginobili emerged, Duncan still had to be the guy for so many years. Even though Kobe has the edge in other categories, they are not as significant. Yeah, Kobe has 4 All-Star Game MVP’s but do they matter? Let’s be honest. It’s the All-Star game, players don’t try as hard. Celebrity Game, Dunk Contest, Three Point Shootout, Skills Challenge, Shooting Stars, there’s a reason it’s called the “All Star Break.” Players don’t try as hard thus that is why one team will commonly score 140 points. Kobe may have more All-Star appearances than Duncan but take into account that the All-Star system has just one flaw. Fans are the ones that vote players into All-Star games. Kobe had the pleasure of being voted in the 2014 All Star Game after playing only 6 games and with his team being at the bottom of the Western Conference. Even though All-Star appearances are for the most a part a valid way to measure a player’s greatness, Duncan still beats Kobe in most other categories.

 

For those who watch ESPN First Take(like I do a whole lot), some of you may have been swayed by Stephen A. Smith’s point when he talked about how Kobe had to overcome more adversity to get 5 rings, which is why he’s had the better career. I think it is only fair to point out, Kobe has brought a lot of that adversity upon himself. He is the type of dude who doesn’t want to play second fiddle to anybody. Kobe’s all-business attitude, drive and determination to prove himself on a daily basis has been something that Laker fans like me have grown to love. At the same time, it has been a problem because his track record shows that he is unwilling to take a step back for the sake of his teammates. A 2 year, $48.5 extension, Shaq’s departure, and Phil Jackson labeling him “uncoachable” all speak for itself. Maybe if Kobe had been willing to take a step back from time to time, he could have more than 5 rings right now. Tim Duncan on the other hand, has been the better leader because he has never been the type of player to ask for a max deal or have an ego that will cause locker room rift. An example would be what happened from 2012 season to the 2013 season. Duncan took a 11.85 million dollar pay cut to give the Spurs organization leeway to get good role players. Duncan has also willingly turned the team over to Tony Parker when it was necessary and that has been one of the different aspects that have allowed the Spurs to stay in contention. It’s also worth noting that Duncan doesn’t care about promoting himself over the rest of the team. He hasn’t done big commercials, shoe deals or other endorsements. He just cares about winning and staying in contention for a championship. Also, Duncan has never gotten into trouble off the court which affects his playing time or his locker room unlike Kobe who got arrested during the 2003 offseason.

 

In fairness to Kobe though, he has been the one who despite dealing with a ton more pressure, has succeeded in a bigger market with one of the most glorious franchises in all of professional sports. Duncan will be more likely to get a pass if he fails in a late game situation as opposed to someone like Kobe. Let’s look back at the 2013 NBA Finals. Sorry Spurs fans for bringing up that painful memory. However, just think about that simple hook shot Duncan missed over Shane Battier when the Spurs were down by two in Game 7 with under a minute remaining. Now, if that were Kobe and that happened to the Lakers, the media would never let him forget it. Some people may say that because Duncan remains low key, he won’t be given the credit he deserves, yet, one of the benefits of Duncan’s low key nature is that he won’t be scrutinized at times he fails to come through in late game situations.

 

Despite many great things that can be said about these two paragons of greatness, in my opinion, more credit has to be given to someone who has not only has the edge as the better player but has been one of the greatest teammates, which is where Duncan really excels more than Kobe. Duncan had not only to be the guy longer than Kobe but his ability to not show his ego at any time has made teammates comfortable with him, good to coach, which is why the Spurs have been more consistent than the Lakers. Sports is a results-oriented business and regardless of what Kobe has had to overcome dealing with more adversity and more pressure, results are results. Tim Duncan has had the better career than Kobe Bryant by just the slightest of margins.

 

What do you think? Who has had the better career and why? Kobe Bryant or Tim Duncan? Leave your comments below.

 

Worldwide, yet not American?

 Ah, the FIFA World Cup 2014, the time where the public interest in soccer is at its highest. The sport of soccer doesn’t get followed a whole lot in the US when the World Cup isn’t on and if US is not in it. Most people would rather watch NBA, NFL or the MLB. If soccer is the most popular sport in the world, why isn’t it popular in USA?

It is clear that other professional sports are far more popular for Americans to watch as opposed to soccer. Just to put soccer’s popularity in perspective, let’s look at the facts. 111.5 million Americans tuned in to watch the 2014 Super Bowl between the Seahawks and Broncos while only 24.3 million Americans tuned in to watch the 2010 World Cup final. Another stat that is worth mentioning is that despite the NBA Finals happening once a year and the World Cup Final happening once every four years, the NBA Finals still had MORE viewers as was evident in the 2013 NBA Finals Game 7 between the Spurs and the Heat that drew 26.3 million viewers. The Celtics-Lakers Game 7 in 2010 drew 28.2 million viewers. It is hard to tell with certainty as to why soccer does not capture the interest of the average American sports lover but here are a few that come to my mind.

 

Let’s start with attentiveness. Soccer is just one of those sports where it’s a thrill to play, but for many, perhaps a pain to watch without interruption. When you are watching a soccer match, just for each half alone, imagine having to keep your eyes glued to your TV screen for 45 minutes straight with no commercial breaks. For the common viewer, commercials serve as a good diversion to either get up to go to the bathroom or grab a quick snack. For baseball, there is a commercial break every half inning or during a pitching change. For football, there is a requirement of 20 commercial breaks per game. For basketball, there is a commercial break for every voluntary time out and for a “mandatory timeout” and for every dead ball after 6:00 and 3:00 in each quarter. The whole idea of having to watch for 45 uninterrupted minutes without any commercial breaks can be tedious at times, especially in a sport where it’s so tough to even score. That brings me to my second reason. Scoring is something that Americans want to see. In the big picture, the USA was able to thrive as a nation due to the ability to constantly grow, progress, become stronger, bigger and more powerful. Scoring is an accomplishment that can be identified, compared, and most importantly, increased. That is the American way. Having a game in which it is hard to score is something Americans would feel is a stalemate.

 

As with all living things, there is a capacity to absorb, and that applies to the American passion for sport. America has had basketball, baseball, football and ice hockey long before soccer was introduced in the country. As a result, soccer remains an outlier on the American consciousness. The Boston Globe’s Andre Markovits writes that America was too developed to embrace the sport of soccer. Writers Ivan Waddington and Martin Roderick has said, in each society, there is a limited amount of “space” for sports, and once that space is filled, there is no room for other sports. So after embracing other sports for so long, it will take time for Americans to embrace soccer.

 

Results of US soccer aside, there are some rules of the game that may just see un-American, such as not using the hands. There are so many things in sports being done with hands, swinging a baseball bat and hitting a home run, scoring a touchdown or shooting a three pointer. The concept of using hands to be accomplished in sports has been embraced by Americans for generations so having a sport in which hands are only used by two players (goalkeepers) on the field may seem hard to grasp.

 

Out of the popular “Big Four” sports such as hockey, football, baseball, and basketball, none of them  involve games which end in a tie. Soccer is the only one that does. One quote which always resonates with young American athletes would be “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” The American sports culture is based on the premium of winning, so having a tie certainly does not make Americans too eager. In the sport of soccer, if a team needs a draw (one point) to win the league, they can just expend no energy offensively, defend all game, end the game 0-0 and win the league. In American sports, a team has to go for the win all the time, no ties, just wins and losses. What makes it even more aggravating for Americans is that when a tie happens in Soccer, it is settled with a penalty shootout. Most Americans would view that as absurd as settling a Super Bowl through a field goal contest or settling Game 7 of the NBA Finals through a free throw shootout.

 

One point we must not forget, as cruel as this sounds, the USA just isn’t good at soccer, at least compared to a pack of countries in Europe. Team USA has never won a World Cup unfortunately. In fact, since 1930, team USA hasn’t ever gone further than the quarterfinals. From 1950 to 1990, team USA never even qualified for the World Cup. Thus, it is clear why Americans may not take keen interest in soccer because they aren’t seen as ‘Winners’ in this sport yet. Yet, it’s not a knock against American soccer but an indication of current American standards in sports. Even for the American teams that do win, there is still discontent. If we take a look at the 2012 USA Olympic Basketball team as an example, they would have been hammered to bits if they didn’t win the gold medal. Even when they did win, they were still criticized because they weren’t as good as the Dream Team of 1992. Another example would be tennis player Andy Roddick. Even though Andy Roddick has won a grand slam title (2003 US Open), won a Davis Cup, and has been a World #1, people have criticized him for not being as good as Agassi or Sampras. Americans want winners at the highest level setting the best international standards, plain and simple.

 

 

The face of every American after each World Cup……..

 

There is also the concept of American pride. Writer Dave Eggers articulates, “As a nation of loony, but determined inventors, we prefer things we thought of ourselves.” I would agree because the most popular sports in America are those that are unique to America only. Even though Baseball was based on British Cricket and Football was based on Rugby, one can argue that they were altered so that Americans can take pride in being unique in the sports they play. Perhaps, because soccer could never be altered to give it a unique US flavor, it could be one more reason for its lack popularity in the US.

 

We are all human. We all want to be loved and recognized for talent and ability. Soccer doesn’t quite provide that opportunity as much as other sports do. Basketball, Baseball, and Football players provide the chance to sign multi-million dollar contracts and land high paying endorsements. Soccer players in the US on the other hand, make an average of around $80,000-$90,000 per year, which is still OK but does not make players feel rich and famous. By the way, international soccer stars make millions like the NBA and MLB professionals.

 

My bottom line is; soccer isn’t as popular in the USA as it is around the world because of Team USA’s performances in World Cups, the format of the game involving ties, the pace of the game involving low scoring, the amount of money made in US soccer and the American pride of not willing to take in a foreign sport.

Superman or Superbaby?

It’s fair to say that Dwight Howard will receive a smattering of boos when he returns to the Staples Center Wednesday night, but the question is, does he really deserve to be booed? What caused Laker fans to hate him so much?

On August 10, 2012, when three-time defensive player of the year Dwight Howard was traded from the Orlando Magic to the LA Lakers, expectations skyrocketed. Fans and media all looked at Dwight as the next man to be added to the Mount Rushmore of Laker big men legends. Kobe Bryant even stated that the Lakers were “locked and loaded to bring back the title.” However, things were never quite the same ever since. In the 2012-2013 season, the Lakers ended up only winning 45 games and were swept in the first round. Dwight Howard left for Houston the following summer, putting the Lakers in a position where they were forced to embrace tanking the 2013-2014 season. Let’s all take a step back and analyze, who is the one to blame? Is it Kobe? Is it Dwight? Is it the front office? I can tell you, it is most certainly not Dwight that is the main guy to blame.

First, let’s start with injuries. The Lakers had to deal with injuries all year. There was hardly ever a point in the season where all the key players were healthy at the same time. The Lakers opening day starting lineup of Nash-Bryant-World Peace-Gasol-Howard started together only in 19 games! Some examples of injuries that they had were that Steve Nash missed 32 games due to a fractured right fibula and injuries to his hip, back and hamstring. Pau Gasol missed 33 games due to a concussion, a right plantar fascia tear and tendinitis in both knees. Dwight Howard not only ended up putting up slighting smaller numbers due to recovery from a back surgery, but he missed 6 games due to a torn labrum. Finally, of course, Kobe Bryant ended up missing 8 games due to a left ankle sprain and later, a ruptured Achilles tendon. With all these injuries, is it really fair to blame Dwight? As it is, Dwight was averaging around 18 points and 12 rebounds even with his injuries, so is it really justified for Laker fans to say he did not have the heart and mental toughness required to be a champion? Even when the Lakers didn’t win, was it really Dwight’s fault that other key players are not able to play due to injuries? No. When a basketball player gets injured, it’s not anybody’s fault. Most injuries are just unfortunate situations that one can’t help.

Next, let’s take a look the ownership and coaching. When head coach Mike Brown was fired, Dwight Howard had no say in that. It was in fact Kobe who sealed Mike Brown’s fate by giving him the “death stare” during a frustrating game against the Utah Jazz. On top of that, when Dwight specifically requested Phil Jackson, Lakers owner Jim Buss chose Mike D’Antoni instead. Dwight had every right to be upset at the decision because D’Antoni runs a very fast paced system, which was not at all well suited to the aging Lakers roster. One can easily make the argument that D’Antoni’s system is the reason all these injuries have occurred because aging players were pushing their bodies to their limits, as we saw with Kobe Bryant towards the end of the season. D’Antoni’s system also does not utilize big men, which is why we have even seen the usually quiet Pau Gasol complain about D’Antoni. The fact that his system does not utilize big men could be another reason for why injuries to have occurred because guys in the backcourt were forced to do too much. Another thing that’s important as a head coach is to win guys over in the locker room. Mike D’Antoni on multiple instances in his coaching career has shown that he has turned certain players against him, whether it’s his game planning or his stubbornness. Carmelo Anthony in March 2012, even stated that he would only remain with the Knicks if it was guaranteed that D’Antoni would not be back the following season. Amar’e Stoudmeire conveyed that D’Antoni “has never taught defense.” Stephon Marbury referred to D’Antoni as a “coward.” Finally, Dwight Howard admitted that if Phil Jackson had been hired instead of Mike D’Antoni, he would have stayed with the Lakers. So at the end, if Laker fans themselves know that D’Antoni is not the right coach for the Lakers, why blame Dwight? If anybody, Jim Buss is the one to blame. I mean, as he proved himself as a guy who is as worthy as his father to be owner of the Lakers? He was the one who hired Mike Brown over Brian Shaw, to the dismay of Bryant, he was the one who D’Antoni over Phil Jackson, to the dismay of Dwight, and he was the one who decided not to trade Dwight at the trading deadline when they had the chance, thus putting the Lakers in a position where they lost Dwight for nothing during free agency. There are some people, like ESPN analyst Skip Bayless, who will say Dwight does not have the mental toughness to embrace the pressures of a great franchise like the Lakers, but what great franchise? The combination of Jim Buss and Mike D’Antoni does not sound like the right recipe for a great franchise.

Now, with all that said, let’s address one of the questions that I asked at the very beginning. Why do Laker fans hate Dwight so much? There’s the old saying, it’s not about how you start, it’s about how you finish that matters most. This could not be more true. With Dwight’s resurgence in the second half of the season and mental toughness to put up big numbers even in pain, none if it mattered unfortunately in Game 4 of the first round series against the San Antonio Spurs, when he was ejected in the third quarter after only scoring seven points. No matter what the circumstances are, if you give up on your team in an elimination game or if you do not end your tenure with a team on a good note, then fans will hate you. That’s just how fans are psychologically. We saw this with LeBron in the 2010 playoffs against the Boston Celtics. Despite all the great things he did for that franchise, his tenure did not end well with the Cavs considering his horrific 15 point performance in Game 5 and his 10 turnover performance in Game 6 of that series. The exact same thing happened to Dwight in Orlando. With all the great things he did for the Magic, it did not end well due to all the drama of the trade rumors during the 2011-2012 season, thus Orlando Magic fans hate him now. Whether it’s winning a big game, closing out a career, or closing out a tenure with a team, it will always be about how you finish that counts. That’s basketball. That’s life.

My bottom line: So Dwight, even though you do not deserve blame to a very high extent, due to injuries and an improper coaching selection, objectively speaking, you do deserve some blame because you struggled to make free throws, you showed vulnerabilities offensively, and finally, you kept complaining about your touches and even when Kobe went down and you were getting touches, you did not show enough heart when your team was facing elimination in Game 4 of the last year’s first round series against the Spurs.

A Pick for the Future

Both the San Antonio Spurs and Brooklyn Nets have superstars, talent, and prior championship experience. But only one is really successful, why?

When you look at certain teams in the NBA, many have had superstars at some point. Despite the abundant talent we are all privileged to witness, there are only certain teams that succeed in making the playoffs while other teams that have superstars, sit at home and end up watching the playoffs. Why do certain teams consistently make it to the playoffs while others do not get as far?

To answer this question, we have to ask another one: How did teams like the San Antonio Spurs and Oklahoma City Thunder become successful franchises without signing big free agents or making blockbuster trades? The answer is not that complicated. The key ideas that both franchises believed in were smart drafting and patience within their organization.

Let’s start with the Oklahoma City Thunder (previously known as the Seattle SuperSonics).Kevin Durant was drafted in 2007. Russell Westbrook was drafted shortly after Durant in 2008, and finally James Harden was drafted in 2009. Initially, the Thunder were not a successful franchise. But once Durant was drafted, the franchise turned a cornerstone and focused on the future rather than the present. Durant went from averaging 25.3 to 30.1 points per game within one season. Harden went from 9.9 to 16.8 points per game in a span of two years. Westbrook went from 16.1 to 21.9 points per game within a span of one season. The Oklahoma City Thunder focused in drafting players who had potential and developed them as contenders. There have been teams in the past that have not drafted well despite having high picks such as the Trail Blazers selecting the injury prone Greg Oden in 2007 or the Wizards selecting the slothful Kwame Brown in 2001.

They say that patience is a virtue. This could not be anymore true in the NBA.  We’ve seen teams like the Pistons fire the head coach after a season or two and with a coach constantly changing, there is no one to unite the team and build chemistry in the locker room. The Thunder were wise not to follow that path. They continued to stick with Scott Brooks despite having a couple of disappointing seasons and it finally paid off once they made it to the Conference Finals in 2011 and the Finals in 2012. And last year, although Westbrook sustained a season ending knee injury in the playoffs, Scott Brooks kept his team from capitulating and eventually grinded his team into the second round.

If you think Oklahoma City Thunder is the only team to believe in these two basic GM concepts, then you must not have heard of the San Antonio Spurs. What about the Spurs? Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobli, and Tony Parker were never signed or traded for but were rather drafted, giving the Spurs coaching staff and front office the reputation it has today. Yes, I know, Duncan, Parker, and Ginobli are old now, yet the Spurs are still one of the top teams in the West. How? It all comes down to giving importance to the draft. The Spurs have drafted younger players like Kawhi Leonard, who was pivotal in the 2013 Spurs playoff run as he averaged 13.5 points per game and 9 rebounds.

There’s a reason why Gregg Popovich is the longest tenured coach in professional sports. The entire Spurs organization showed patience with him despite multiple playoff disappointments. Such examples include when they were a number one seed and lost in the first round of the playoffs, or when they have been up 2-0 in multiple playoff series and subsequently lost, or when they even came seconds away from an NBA title and losing that as well (**cough cough** Ray Allen, Game 6, ring any bells?). Despite these setbacks, the Spurs have remained a model organization over the years because they never rely on trading for superstars or signing big free agents to increase their chances to win a championship. They mainly rely on their draft picks, team chemistry, and patience with the head coach from the GM side. That’s what professional sports is all about.

Now let’s go to the other end of the spectrum and examine the last year’s Los Angeles Lakers or even this year’s Brooklyn Nets. For the Lakers, when Steve Nash and Dwight Howard were brought to Tinseltown, it was fair to say that Laker fans already started making plans about how they’ll celebrate during the championship parade. Ironically about a year later, they ended up making posters to convince Dwight to stay in LA (which obviously did not work). The Lakers barely made it to the playoffs and when they did, they were brutally murdered by the Spurs in the first round (funny how the NBA works, right?). Now let’s look at the Brooklyn Nets. They gave up their first round draft picks in 2014, 2016, 2018, and the right to swap picks in 2017 in order to get Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Jason Terry who are all well past their prime. Yet, the Nets are well below .500 and are most likely out of playoff contention. Notice how I said “most likely” instead of COMPLETELY because when you look at the Eastern Conference, the Nets are definitely not alone when it comes to being a terrible team. The bottom line is that a team cannot bring in superstars and expect to win a championship because even stars need time to hone their skills, develop team chemistry and understand their coach’s new system that they will play under. The Brooklyn Nets are the perfect example of what an NBA franchise should NEVER be. Not only did their package of current superstars not workout this season, but by giving up a significant number of draft picks, they have made sure to deprive themselves of getting automatic young talent. Nice going Brooklyn.

Right now, the Brooklyn Nets and the New York Knicks have the highest payrolls in the NBA at $101,291,208 and $86,862,927, respectively. Ironically, the teams with the two highest payrolls end up having the  worst records in the NBA. On the other hand, the San Antonio Spurs and the Portland Trailblazers have their lowly $64,033,860 and $$61,260,350 payrolls. But both teams are in the top 3 seeds in the heavily competitive western conference. We have all heard the saying money can’t buy happiness, but guess what? Money does not always buy championships either.

In the end, preparing for the future is not a crime. Teams should use draft picks wisely by selecting players who show potential and have the ability to take their game to the next level. A solid work ethic does not hurt either. Teams need to show patience with their coaching personnel and players and should not expect instantaneous results.  If a GM just decides to bring in superstars, a bad season is possible just as much as a good one. Sure there have been success stories with packing superstars together such as the 2007-2008 Boston Celtics or even the current Miami Heat. However, teams like the Celtics and Heat still have the ability to focus on their future because they haven’t completely given up their draft picks.