Bleacher Report - Articles by chris marakovitz

ROCK BOX SPORTS: COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAY OF THE DAY

chris marakovitz — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:50:48 -0400

ROCK BOX SPORTS - COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAY OF THE DAY

Saturday September 12, 2009

3 STARS: WASHINGTON -20.5

For a team with a fifteen game losing streak, the Huskies looked pretty good last week, hanging tough with big bad LSU as the Rock Box predicted. Not only did we cash in on Washington in the opener, but we found plenty to like moving forward. This is a team that vastly underachieved last season, packing it in after the loss of stellar QB Jake Locker and the imminent dismissal of Ty Willingham.

It remains to be seen how the Steve Sarkisian era will pan out in the long run, but its apparent that for the moment the young new coach has given the program a serious injection of positive energy. It may be true that the Huskies went 0-12 last season, but they played the last ten of those games without Locker and faced a brutal schedule with BYU, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame on the non-conference schedule.

One of the reasons why Washington has such a long losing streak is that they haven’t faced a true cupcake in roughly three seasons. Enter WAC bottom feeder Idaho. The Vandals are completely over matched here against a Washington team that not only won’t overlook them, but in fact will relish the opportunity to lay the wood. Sarkisian will jump all over this opportunity to end the losing streak in a big way. It’s not enough for the new coach and his squad to win this game, they need to win big in order to make a statement and build confidence moving forward.

This is perfect storm-type situation when it comes to laying points- a vastly more talented team giving its undivided attention to a lesser one and taking the field with every intention of running up the score. Washington takes out two years worth of frustration on an Idaho team that finds itself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

1 STAR: TROY +36.5; NOTRE DAME -3; OHIO U. -2.5; GEORGIA/SOUTH CAROLINA UNDER 39

(rockboxsports.com)

Can Tom Izzo Scheme Michigan State Past North Carolina in Championship Game?

chris marakovitz — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:14:35 -0400

Saturday’s semi-final round from Detroit was full of strategic maneuvering by Michigan State’s Tom Izzo and Villanova’s Jay Wright.

Wright has been criticized by some for his decision to run with Carolina. Results notwithstanding, however, his decision is defensible. Facing the prospects of having his unimposing interior decimated by Tyler Hansbrough in a half-court game, Wright decided to roll the dice and play to his strengths by letting his guards push tempo and create in the open court.

It might have worked, or at least kept things closer, had his team not shot a woeful 5-of-27 from three-point land.

Had Nova shot shot anywhere near their season average of 36.8%, they would have nailed four additional three-pointers, adding 12 points to their total. Something to think about, considering that they lost by 14.

Depth was a factor here, as the fast pace of the game left Nova’s shooters with tired shooting legs down the stretch. Still, Wright’s strategy was a sound one. Overmatched as he was, he needed some luck in the form of a hot shooting night to spring the upset. He didn’t get it, but he gave his team their best possible chance to win.

Luck had very little to do with Michigan State’s win over Connecticut. Michigan State is deeper, more balanced and even more athletic than Wright’s Nova Bunch. And State’s Tom Izzo had the advantage of facing a UConn team that had a couple of weaknesses, namely transition defense and free-throw shooting, that left them vulnerable to the right team with the right plan.

Izzo had that perfect plan, and the roster to carry it out. Coming into the game, the assumption was that State, an excellent half-court team, would slow things down and run their sets against the speedy Huskies.

Considering that UConn was felt by many to be one of the best half-court defensive teams in the nation, there was some concern as to whether the Spartans would be able to avoid some debilitating scoring droughts.

Most predicted a low-scoring, defensive struggle (Vegas set the over/under at a relatively low 134, envisioning the teams to score in the 60’s).

Here’s where Izzo confounded conventional wisdom. Evidently sharing the concern that his team would struggle to score in a half court game, Izzo pushed the pace, allowing MSU to create in the open floor and generate some easy buckets in transition.

The decision to take their chances against UConn’s transition defense as opposed to their half-court set proved brilliant, as the Huskies big men- so menacing in the half court- struggled to keep up with the Spartan fast break.

On the defensive side of the ball, Izzo opted to put UConn, 67.8% free throw shooters as a team, on the line. He zeroed in on Hasheem Thabeet and Jeff Adrien, and they responded by shooting a combined 8-of-14 from the charity stripe.

Kemba Walker, normally a 71.5% FT shooter, obliged Izzo as well by going 3-for-9. Hard to win when three of your key players are clanking 12-of-23 free throws.

Also notice that Izzo used his deep bench early to send UConn to the line without saddling any of his key players with foul trouble.

Ten of Sparty’s 25 team fouls were committed by reserves who played minimally, including Idong Ibok, who committed 3 fouls in 6 minutes of play, and Draymond Green, who fouled out in 12.

So now the question arises of how Izzo will deal with North Carolina. Clearly he is a coach who is able to identify an opposing team’s weaknesses and design a gameplan to exploit them. The problem with the Tar Heels, of course, is that they have very few weaknesses, if any.

Nevertheless, I can assure that Michigan State will show up on Monday night and, quite possibly, will make this one just a little bit closer than people think.

Here’s one hypothesis on how they might do it. First off, it says here that Izzo will reverse course and do everything in his power to avoid the type of up and down pace that he courted against UConn.

Whereas UConn’s strength was in half-court defense, and their intimidating but relatively immobile bigs could be exploited in a speed game, the Tar Heels, big men and all, relish the opportunity to run the court.

And while they are by no means a poor defensive team, UNC has nowhere near the type of shut-down half-court defense that UConn presented.

Look for Izzo to do some version on Monday of what everyone expected on Saturday- slow things down, work the half court sets, run the shot clock down and make the Tar Heels work on defense. Most college teams would run great risk of sloppy play and turnovers in executing such a plan, but Izzo’s team can do it.

The Spartans will have to hope that they can wear down the Heels in the half-court, perhaps get Hansbrough in foul trouble, and, most importantly, prevent UNC from getting into the type of speedy rhythm that Villanova allowed them to slip into.

Defensively, Michigan State cannot pursue the same fouling strategy employed against UConn, as UNC is a 75% FT shooting team. Hansbrough makes his living at the line (85%) and the primary ballhandler Ty Lawson is no slouch (79.5%).

However, the Spartans can at least hope to somewhat successfully match up against North Carolina in the half-court game. Hansbrough killed State (25 points, 11 boards, 13 for 13 FT’s) in a 35 point Tar Heel romp at Ford Field in December. One catch: Izzo’s best interior defender, Goran Suton, was out for that game. The 6-10 Suton could match up well defensively with the 6-9 Hansbrough.

There is also some hope that Kalin Lucas, the Big 10 Player of the Year, can at least slow down UNC’s Ty Lawson. While Lawson is the fastest point guard in the nation, Lucas may well be number two on that list, in addition to being an incredibly gutsy performer, at once scrappy and athletic.

Troy Walton, meanwhile, is an excellent defender who has a chance to slow down the dangerous Wayne Ellington on the wing.

Keep in mind as well that the Spartans may have an advantage of their own in the rebounding department. Villanova actually out-rebounded UNC on Saturday, 50-46, including 19 offensive boards for the Wildcats. While the Tar Heels are hardly slouches on the boards, Michigan State is an outstanding rebounding team with a chance to win that particular battle on Monday night.

Finally, it’s important to consider that Michigan State can match UNC in another area where the Heels usually reign supreme: depth. Roy Williams loves to wear opposing teams by pushing pace and using his deep bench early (see: Villanova). He won’t be about to count on much of an advantage, though, against a Spartan team that is, if anything, deeper than UNC.

So there it is for Izzo and Michigan State, the anatomy of a potential upset: 1) Slow things down, run the clock on offense in the hopes of shortening the game and frustrating UNC’s desire to run; 2) Prevent the Heels from running whenever possible (if possible) and match up defensively in the half court game; 3) Dominate the boards- one shot and one shot only for Carolina on each possession.

If Michigan State can accomplish all this, they can hope to keep the game close, lets say within ten, heading down the stretch. This will keep the partisan Spartan crowd in the game. Keep in mind- many of the Villanova and UConn fans are heading home.

Their tickets for Monday night will be gobbled up by Michigan Staters. If you thought the crowd was pro MSU on Saturday, just wait until Monday.

Izzo and company will have to hope that, if they can stay with striking distance in the final minutes, the crowd will ramp things up, Carolina will start to feel the pressure, and the Spartans will find a way to steal the national championship.

One thing is for sure, if Michigan State can boil this game down to one offensive possession for a win or tie, Izzo will run a set play out of a timeout and make it happen.

Know this: Michigan State can win this game.

But will they? At this point, it’s hard to go against Carolina. It says here, though, that MSU will keep this game much closer than many seem to think. Carolina will have to earn it down the stretch in a tough game featuring a slower tempo than they would like to see.

This Michigan State team matches up much better against Carolina than Villanova did or, for that matter, than the earlier Spartan squad that lost to the Heels by 35.

So, while the pick has to be North Carolina, if you happen to be Las Vegas, as I am, you might want to consider taking those 7.5 points (maybe more by game time) and/or taking a look at a lower scoring game that goes UNDER the posted total of 153.

PREDICTION: UNC 76-MSU 72

There's Something Wrong with the NCAA Tournament: Just Ask Siena (or Arizona)

chris marakovitz — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 05:42:09 -0400

The NCAA tournament is a near perfect sporting event. The only real argument made against the design of the tourney—that the field should be expanded to include more teams—is a faulty one.

The fact No. 15 seeds have beaten No. 2's, and that a No. 16 has never beaten a No. 1, speaks to the mathematical perfection of the 64-team field. It stretches the field to a perfect point on the edge of believability and leaves that one question just hanging out there, the question of if and when, maybe someday, a No. 16 will turn the trick.

The mere consideration of such a possibility is one of the many small storylines that combine to make the NCAA tournament endlessly fascinating and intriguing to the sports fan.

To go just one step further would be to cross the line into absurdity. Imagine a one seed going up against a No. 18 seed and what that No. 18 seed might look like. Not much intrigue there.

And besides, when we factor the conference tournaments into the equation, the fact is that the tournament already gives every Division-I team in the nation a chance to qualify. When it comes to the size of the field, then, the tournament is perfectly constructed.

The only real problem with the tournament, and one that receives surprisingly little comment or attention, is the seeding process. Granted, it’s a problem that doesn’t really impact the enjoyment we get out of the tournament as fans. But it’s a problem that detracts from the inherent fairness to the teams and the players involved.

The problem is that the tournament is not re-seeded after each round, and because of this, certain higher seeded teams receive significantly tougher draws than teams seeded much lower than them.

As a result of this flaw in design, teams are not sufficiently rewarded for the “body of work” they have built during the season. In fact, they are often punished for it.

The most glaring example of this is the case of the No. 8 and No. 9 seeds who are automatically slotted in to face the top seed in their region in the second round. Take a private poll of expectant tourney coaches on selection Sunday, ask them if they’d rather be a No. 8 seed or a No. 10 seed and I’ll bet a dollar they’ll take the 10 slot.

They very likely might even prefer to be a No. 11, No. 12 or even a No. 13 seed rather than an eight or nine. This doesn’t speak well to the idea that higher seeding is supposed to reward the season’s achievements.

Let’s take the Siena Saints as a case in point in this year’s tournament.

Siena dominated their league and played a tough enough non-conference schedule to earn a No. 9 seed, not to mention a No. 20 ranking in the RPI. In comparison, a team like Arizona took the backdoor into the tournament, sneaking into a No. 12 seed to go along with their RPI rating of 62.

Now let’s compare the two draws. Arizona draws No. 5 seed Utah, certainly no worse a matchup, and some might say a better one, than Siena’s matchup with No. 8 Ohio State. The real kicker comes in the second round, however, where Arizona lucks out and gets No. 13 Cleveland State while Siena faces Louisville, the top seed in the tournament.

Even if Arizona had faced No. 4 Wake Forest, they would have had an easier matchup than Siena. Either way, as a No. 12, Arizona was fortunate enough to benefit from an upset in their section of the bracket.

No. 8 and 9 seeds cannot expect such benefits. It is a virtual inevitability that they will face one of the top four teams in the nation. The bottom line here is that Arizona is going to the Sweet 16 not because they’re a better team than Siena—they’re not.

They’re going because they had much more beneficial seeding...as a No. 12 seed.

It should come as no surprise that a No. 12 seed advances to the Sweet Sixteen while the No. 8's and 9's go home early. Statistically speaking, this is the rule, not the exception.

In the modern history of the 64-team tournament, since 1985, a grand total of nine No. 8 seeds have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. No. 9 seeds fare even worse- only three No. 9 seeds have made it to the Sweet Sixteen. In 24 years.

Meanwhile, there have been 16 No. 12 seeds that made it to the second weekend. No. 12 seeds have a 16-15 second round record overall. No. 9 seeds are 3-49 in the same time period. In essence, a No. 12 seed has a better draw than a No. 8 and an infinitely better draw than a No. 9.

No. 10 seeds, for that matter, have enjoyed a virtual orgy of success compared to No. 8's and 9's, with 18 Sweet Sixteen appearances. (No. 11 seeds have 11 appearances, just a bit less than No. 8's and double the No. 9's).

Statistically speaking, then, the No. 10 through 12 seeds are far more advantageous than the No. 8 and 9 seeds in terms of a team's chances for advancing past the second round.

Even a No. 13 seed has a better chance of making the Sweet Sixteen, with four Sweet Sixteen appearances against three for the No. 9's. No. 14 seeds have gotten there twice.

So, basically, a No. 9 seed is roughly the equivalent of a No. 13 or No. 14 slot in terms of one's chances of making it to the second weekend.

The No. 9 seed, in essence, is the Fredo Corleone of the NCAA tournament, getting kissed on the forehead by big brother Michael and being told, "Fredo, you broke my heart!"

It's a death sentence.

And don't think this is lost on the players. Prior to the seeding announcements, Siena's Ryan Rossiter told the Albany Times Union that he and his teammates were "checking it out" and hoping for a more advantageous seed.

So the players were hoping for a No. 10 through No. 12 seed as opposed to a No. 9? Doesn't seem right, does it?

Because it's not.

Of course, the argument could be made that Siena has nothing to complain about at all. The point of the tournament is to determine the national champion and, to win it all, you’re gonna have to go up against the big boys eventually. So what’s the difference?

Siena, like Arizona, was never a real contender to win the whole thing. But there is a difference. Just ask the players. Arizona won’t win it all, they may not even get past their next game, but they’re going to the Sweet 16. They’re getting a heavy dose of the spotlight.They’re getting exposure to the nation. They’re going back to their campus as heroes for a week of adulation and anticipation that they’ll remember for their rest of their lives.

For a team like Arizona, and God knows even more so for Siena, going to the Sweet 16 is a goal in and of itself. It’s a big deal. Not for the fans. For the young men who play the game. Siena earned the right to have an easier path to that goal than Arizona.

Now, the average fan is probably recoiling from this suggestion on one basis alone. The bracket. The almighty bracket. Won’t re-seeding after each round put an end to the convenience of seeing the potential matchups in advance as we fill out our brackets? What in God’s name will become of our office pools?

Okay, admittedly, it complicates things a bit. But we can make some adjustments here in the interests of the student-athletes who actually play the games. Can’t we? Just pick your first round winners and that will dictate your second round matchups based on re-seeding and then pick those games, etc., etc.

We’ll have to make some adjustments to the way our bracket sheets are constructed but, c’mon, we can figure it out.

And besides, in the traditional 1-2-4-8-16-32 scoring format, the average pool basically comes down to who you picked for the Final Four, the Final Game, and who you have winning it all.

Re-seeding won’t change that basic reality. You’re still picking one team from each bracket to go to the Final Four and you will sink or swim accordingly.

The next problem we face is how we organize the locations and the schedules for the first two rounds. Under the current system multiple sites are used within each region. This becomes problematic once we start re-seeding.

You can’t have Louisville playing in Dayton and Cleveland State playing in Miami and then expect Cleveland State to travel to Dayton for a round two matchup. No problem. We just have single sites for each region in the first two rounds.

This raises a new issue, which is the fact that we can’t play eight games in one day at one venue. And if we divide the games over two days, then we’re forcing some teams to play on back to back days in round two.

Okay, fine. So here’s what we do. We start the tournament a day early, a Wednesday rather than a Thursday. On Wednesday, the top four seeds in each region play against their respective opponents.

Sixteen games, four in each region, just like we do it now. On Thursday, the five through No. 8 seeds in each region play against their respective opponents. Friday is an off day. We re-seed.

On Saturday, the top two remaining seeds in each region play against their slotted opponents. On Sunday the bottom two remaining seeds in each region play against their slotted opponents. Voila. We have our Sweet 16. Re-seed again, set your matchups, and play ‘em the following week as we do now.

No need for re-seeding in the Elite Eight, it's just the last two teams standing in each region. Re-seeding is optional once we get to the Final Four.

We can re-seed or we can just do it like we do it now with the winners of certain regions set up in a predetermined matchup with the winner of another certain region. This might restore some comfort and familiarity to the bracketeers.

Applying my system to this year’s Midwest region, we see that the top three seeds advanced to the second round along with No. 8 Siena, No. 10 USC, No. 11 Dayton, No. 12 Arizona, and No. 13 Cleveland State.

So now, in my second round, we have matchups of Louisville-Cleveland State; Michigan State-Arizona; Kansas-Dayton; and Siena-USC. Just as intriguing and considerably fairer than the current system.

Let Arizona earn their way into the Sweet 16 by going up against the two seed and give Siena a game against USC, by no means easy but certainly a fairer draw than Louisville.

If you’re worried about the number of days off involved for each team, under my plan, with the Louisville and Mich State games on Saturday and the Kansas and Siena games on Sunday, every team ends up playing on two days rest, except for Kansas, who gets three and Arizona who gets only one.

Once again, if someone’s gonna get the short end of the stick, shouldn’t it be the No. 12 seed rather than the No. 8 seed?

At the end of the day, of course, it’s going to be a tough sell. No real benefits for the fans here, the television networks, or the level of drama and intrigue that the tournament presents.

Who really cares whether Arizona’s Chase Budinger or Siena’s Kenny Hasbrouck gets the once-in-a-lifetime thrill of going to the Sweet 16?

Answer: They do. If anyone out there, preferably within the NCAA, really cares about what’s right and fair for the student-athlete, if we really care about rewarding hard work and achievement, then it’s time to re-seed the field after each round.

Kobe Schmobe: Why LeBron James Is the Real NBA MVP

chris marakovitz — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:01:22 -0500

Basketball is about assimilation. Integration. I’m not talking about racial integration, although the game has obviously been well-served by that as well. I’m talking integration in the sense of the American Heritage definition of the word: “The state of combination, or the process of combining into completeness and harmony.”

Yes, harmony.

That’s what I’m talking about. Five players moving in perfect rhythm, whether on offense or defense, such that the movements and actions of one player ripple down through the movements and actions of the other four. When it’s done right, when it’s really good, it is—to use a time-worn metaphor—not unlike sex.

If great team basketball is like sex, then Kobe Bryant’s game is like, well, um, let's just say that it sometimes looks like he’s trying to do it all by himself out there.

This is not to say that his game is not spectacular. Kobe Bryant is a talented and elegant athlete. He is an excellent offensive player and scorer, although not always the most efficient one.

His athleticism is apparent on defense as well, making him tantalizingly close to being an all-around great player. What he lacks however, particularly on offense, is integration.

What Kobe does on the court is often great and always fun to watch. However, it is generally not well-synchronized with the playing style of his teammates. When compared to the greats of recent vintage, players like Bird, Magic, and Jordan, the gaping hole in Kobe’s game is painfully clear.

He does not make his teammates better. He does not lift his team up aside from what he accomplishes on his own. His teammates, in the end, often just stand around and watch.

Is Kobe selfish? I believe that he is. My gut tells me that his statements about the importance of team and the ultimate priority of winning are phony.

Logic confirms my hunch. If winning was the ultimate priority, why did Kobe not accommodate Shaquille O’Neal when the team was winning championships? What possible reason could Kobe have had for being unhappy in such circumstances? Winning means everything, right?

In reality, of course, winning wasn’t the most important thing for Kobe Bryant. The important thing was that it was “his” team. The important thing was that the spotlight shined on him.

I am convinced that, if in a dark and private moment, an angel came down from basketball heaven and offered Kobe Bryant his choice of an NBA Championship or an MVP award, he would choose the latter.

Look at Kobe’s actions, not his words, if you want to see his true character. Or just look at his game.

Even if we suppose, for the sake of argument, that Kobe truly is an unselfish team player, it is apparent that he doesn’t understand how to gel with four other players. His basketball I.Q., which is considerable, lacks this particular kind of intelligence necessary for any player to achieve greatness.

Kobe’s idea of being a team player is to not shoot the ball for a given period of time, let his teammates try to score, and then, if the team falls behind or the game is on the line, take things into his own hands once again. This is not integration. This is selective self-assertion.

Integration, as it turns out, is also the fundamental difference between Kobe and LeBron James.

James can take over a game offensively as quickly and spectacularly as Kobe can, however, the difference is that he makes his teammates better in the process. This is the deadly combination that makes a player truly valuable.

It is this type of player alone that is capable of elevating a group of mid-range players to the NBA Finals. Kobe has never been able to do this. He wants to win, but the only thing he knows how to do is to put a team on his back and carry them. LeBron can do this when the situation calls for it. What he can also do, and what Kobe can’t, is empower his teammates.

For those stat-geeks out there, the numbers offer strong support for my assertion that LeBron is the better and more valuable player.

In order to comprehend the differences between LeBron’s game and Kobe’s, it’s useful to compare them both to the stratospheric Jordan standard. It’s rather surprising how many modern fans and even media commentators, who should know better, are quick to imply that Kobe has reached Jordan’s level as an offensive player.

This must be based on the fact that, night-in, night-out, Kobe makes plays that show up on ESPN that look as spectacular as anything Jordan ever did.

Problem is, ESPN never seems to show all those bad shots that Kobe took.

All the times that he drove into the teeth of three converging defenders and threw up a log while his teammates stood flat-footed around him. All the times that he dribbled around the perimeter and tossed up an off-balance floater as the shot clock went off. In moments like these, Kobe is sometimes a little too easy to defend. Because he’s not integrated.

Here’s a hint: If you really want to understand what an astounding offensive player Jordan was, look at his field goal percentages. Jordan shot .497 from the floor for his career. He shot over .500 six times and was over .480 another four times. Think about that. He was a guard and he played on the perimeter, yet he still hit more than half of his shots.

In the 1988-89 season, Jordan was No. 10 overall in the NBA with a mind-blowing .538 percentage. The nine players ahead of him were Rodman, Barkley, Parish, Ewing, Worthy, McHale, Otis Thorpe, Benoit Benjamin, and Larry Nance. All big men. All guys who took the vast majority of their shots in the paint.

And yet Jordan was in the same category in terms of offensive efficiency. This indicates that even though he was not necessarily an outstanding passer, he was in-sync with his teammates. He knew when to take his shot. He knew the difference between a good shot and a bad shot.

And, yes, he could create shots better than Kobe as well.

Bryant, by comparison, has never shot higher than .469 from the field in any given season.

Think about this the next time you’re inclined to think that Kobe is in Jordan’s league as an offensive player. Think about this as well: Jordan averaged 5.3 assists per game in his career with an individual season high of 8.0 per game in 1988-89.

Bryant, on the other hand, averages 4.6 for his career with an individual season high of 6.0. Not only was Jordan a more efficient scorer, but he created more scoring opportunities for his teammates.

In LeBron’s case, the stats tell an equally compelling story. What they tell us is that he, not Kobe, is the real heir to Jordan. Whereas Kobe has never topped .469 from the field, LeBron, over the last four seasons, has shot percentages of .472, .480, .476, and .482. While he’s not quite on Jordan’s level just yet, he’s within range. As this indicates, his shot selection and offensive efficiency are far superior to Kobe’s.

In fact, he’s statistically superior to Kobe in virtually every aspect of the game. Those who argue Kobe over LeBron for MVP should take a look at the numbers.

When comparing Kobe and James's season averages, LeBron has more points per game (30.2/28.5),) more rebounds (7.9/6.3,) more assists (7.3/5.4), and a higher FG percentage (.482/.460.)

Defensively they are tied in steals (1.8 each) and LeBron is more likely to block a shot (1.1/0.5.) If your appreciation and knowledge of the game was not sufficient enough to allow your naked eye to see the superiority of LeBron over Kobe beforehand, how, after seeing these numbers, can anyone possibly claim that Kobe is the better player?

Perhaps, if he’s lucky, Kobe Bryant will have a career comparable to Clyde Drexler’s. To date, Kobe’s rebounds per game, assists per game, and FG percentage are below Clyde the Glide’s career numbers, but there’s nothing wrong with that.

Kobe is one of the best players of his time and a future Hall-of-Famer. However, he is not the second coming of Michael Jordan. He is not the best player of his time. That honor will go to LeBron James.

He is the best player. He is the MVP. He is not only better than Kobe Bryant, he is far superior.

For me, the one thing that really sums up Kobe Bryant’s game, and maybe even who he is as a person, is his now infamous comment that, when he was in high school, he would sometimes let other teams back into the game towards the end just so he could take a potential game-winning shot at the buzzer.

For anyone who has ever played team basketball, this is a rather alarming notion.

What about the other players on Kobe’s high school team? Did they factor into his decision at all? They were working and playing to win the game, not to serve one man’s narcissistic daydream.

And what about the guys on the bench, the ones who showed up for practice but didn’t always get into the game? Did it ever occur to Kobe that it might be nice to blow the other team out so that some of his teammates might get a chance to play too?

Apparently it did not. Apparently he was not well-integrated with the eleven other boys on his high school team. It’s a tough problem for a basketball player to have, and a bit of an Achilles heel that haunts him to this day.

Some have argued that Kobe's heroics against Spain in the 2008 Olympics offer some kind of absolute proof that he is the best player in the world. With so many great players to choose from, including LeBron, the argument is that the team went to Kobe for the big shot.

However, just because Kobe took those shots and hit them does not mean that LeBron, or for that matter Dwyane Wade or Chris Paul could not have taken those shots and hit them as well.

In fact, it is the very willingness of LeBron to defer to Kobe in that way that makes him the best basketball player in the world. LeBron understands that basketball is a team game, not an athletic beauty contest. As the younger guy, LeBron showed an ability to defer to Kobe in much the opposite way that Kobe refused to defer to Shaq.

LeBron's game is summed up not only by his willingness to defer for the good of the team in Beijing, but his willingness to do the same with his teammates on the Cavaliers. I am reminded of one game in particular in April 2008.

The Cavs, down by 14 midway through the third quarter, came back to win as LeBron scored 33 points on 11-21 shooting, along with seven boards, and eight assists. The highlights on ESPN were full of shots of LeBron slashing to the basket and sticking jumpers from downtown.

But it was one play in particular, an assist, which stood out to me. LeBron dribbled the ball on the perimeter. Cavs center Zydrunas Ilgauskas lumbered out and seemed to be setting up for the pick-and-roll.

But LeBron moved away from the pick, luring not only his own defender but Ilgauskas’ as well. As both defenders locked in on LeBron, frozen for a split second, Ilgauskas released, and cut back towards the basket, and LeBron whipped him a perfect pass for a layup and a three-point play.

As a big man, Ilgauskas is not the second coming of Bill Russell. He is more like Bill Cartwright. But that’s okay because he plays with LeBron, and because the Cavs are in-sync with one another.

Integrated.

It was a pass that made you stand up and cheer.

When, I ask you, when was the last time Kobe Bryant made a pass that made you stand up and cheer?

Still thinking? Yeah, me too.

Steelers-Cardinals X-Factors: What To Expect for Super Bowl XLIII

chris marakovitz — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 06:18:14 -0500

X-Factor No. 1: Road Skill

Neutral field games are essentially road games for both teams. It’s true that the disadvantage of being on the road is mitigated by the fact that the opposing team is on the road too, if that makes sense. However, the bottom line is that both teams are away from home, away from their own beds, their families, and they will be playing on an unfamiliar field without the benefit of a stadium filled to capacity with their own fans.

With this in mind, it is worth exploring the track records of both teams in road conditions.

All things being equal, neither team would figure to have an advantage on the neutral field. However, if one of the two teams has been particularly dependent on the home field in getting to this point, they may suddenly find themselves at a disadvantage in an unfamiliar environment.

This is precisely what we see this year with the Arizona Cardinals. The Cards were virtually night and day when it comes to home/road in the regular season, going 6-2 at home and 3-5 on the road. Their only regular season road victories came at San Fran, St. Louis, and Seattle. Admittedly, they did win at Carolina in the playoffs. However, this is their ONLY impressive road win of the season.

The Cards were fortunate to have their other two playoff games at home- a 30-24 win over a marginal Atlanta team, and last week’s tight win over Philly. Had they been on the road last week, or even on a neutral field, it is highly questionable whether they would have come out ahead.

As it stands, Arizona is now 8-2 at home and 4-5 on the road. In essence, they are dominant at home and average or slightly below on the road. Warner and company outscored their foes 242-178 on the season at home and were outscored 248-185 on the road.

Pittsburgh, by comparison, was 6-2 at home, 6-2 on the road, outscoring their opponents by nearly as much on the road as they did at home. Thus, while we can expect the Steelers to play their best game on Sunday, the Cards may see a drop off from the level of play they’ve demonstrated on their recent hot streak.

Add in the fact that Steelers' fans are expected to make a much stronger showing in Tampa than Cardinals' fans, and you have a neutral field situation that would seem to favor Pittsburgh.

X-Factor No. 2: Running into a Wall

While the strength of the Arizona offense is obviously the passing game, an important part of their playoff success has been a renewed emphasis on the run. The ability to run the ball over the last three weeks has been instrumental in providing the type of balance that opens up the play-action pass and the aerial attack in general.

Against Pittsburgh, however, it is highly questionable or even doubtful that Arizona will be able to continue their success on the ground. Although Edgerrin James has looked rejuvenated of late, he is still averaging just 3.9 yards per carry in the playoffs.

The Cards would like to think that Tim Hightower and/or J.J. Arrington will add an element of explosiveness that James clearly lacks, but it is unlikely that any of these Cardinal backs will strike any fear in the Steeler defense. Although Arizona will likely stick with the running game as long as possible in the interest of providing balance, they face a significant mismatch against the stout Pittsburgh run defense.

Prediction

The Cardinals are no fluke. With Warner playing as well as he has and Larry Fitzgerald looking virtually unstoppable, they certainly have a chance to spring an upset. However, due to the x-factors outlined above, the Steelers are my pick. Arizona averaged roughly 30 points per game at home this season and 20 points per game on the road. Also, they have yet to face a defense of Pittsburgh’s caliber.

Unlike Carolina and Philly, the Steelers do not need to devote extra players to the blitz to pressure the QB. Moreover, they should have little trouble shutting down the Arizona running game without putting extra men in the box.

This will allow them to make the Cardinals one dimensional, while at the same time devoting extra d-backs to help out against the receivers. Fitzgerald and Boldin will make some plays, but not as many they have in recent weeks, and not enough to win.

FINAL SCORE: Pittsburgh 28, Arizona 17