Well, thank you, TheSunGod, for that second note. You're right, I'm not responsible for what others are saying, and if others are saying that Kobe Bryant is better than Wilt Chamberlain, then they're not saying the same thing I'm saying.

Yes, I'm in the sports media. But that doesn't make it not bizarre for you to argue with me over something Marc Stein said.

For those without the box score in front of them, the non-Kobe Lakers shot 14-for-42 Sunday, 33.3 percent.

This era of pure offensive basketball sure is a lot lower scoring than in the defense-first '80s.

I have now lived long enough to have heard in four different decades that defense in the NBA is a lost art.

DavidWilliam writes: I can't disagree with King's choice of Gretzky as the greatest ever but I think it's a very close call between him and Mario and I note a tendency on King's part to downgrade the accomplishments of those with super athletic skills, such as Mario or Wilt in favor of less impressive though obviously equally talented physical specimens such as the Great One. I wonder if that makes any sense. Gretzky could not have been as great as he was without possessing unbelievable physical talent as a hockey player. Those talents were less apparent at first sight than Mario's but they were present nonetheless. It's sort of like those who used to argue that Bird was less talented than Magic. As a way of looking at sports I don't think it holds up.

First, for what seems like the thousandth time, I've never "downgraded" Wilt Chamberlain. All I've done is point out that he accomplished what he accomplished against competition that isn't anywhere near what exists in the modern game. Wilt was a magnificent athlete, freakishly large and talented. So is Shaquille O'Neal. The difference is that Shaq plays against of other freakishly large and talented guys. Wilt, at least in the first half or so of his career, played against what would look to us like mostly Division III talent. That does not mean I'm saying Wilt was not as good as Shaq.

Also, I didn't choose Gretzky as the greatest ever. I chose him as the one guy I'd want to watch if I could only watch one guy. Though having said, that, I think, yeah, Gretzky would be my choice for greatest ever, and I don't know if Lemieux is second or third or just top five.

But I don't think any less of Mario Lemieux, or Wilt, or whoever, because they have obvious athletic advantages, by which I mean things like size, speed, quickness, etc. that would benefit them in any sport.

It's just that -- djavier made this point above too -- I tend to personally identify more with athletes who seem, on the surface, to be more like me, more like an everyperson. (The freakishly large and talented Larry Bird, by the way, does not fit the description.) I like watching guys pull rabbits out of hats more than I like watching guys physically dominate. But I like the latter too, and I realize nobody does exclusively one or the other, that all the best athletes do a whole lot of both.

Whoever mentioned Bobby Orr, that's a pretty good call. Maybe I'd want to see him ahead of Mario too, but it'd be a toss-up really.

Max didn't tell me there'd be a test today. I'd have studied.

Thanks for the heads-ups on the typos: morals intstead of motrals -- something Freudian there, I think -- and Philadelphia instead of Toronto for Mario's comeback game.

I was thinking of the comeback-from-cancer game, which was at Philadelphia, and forgot to double-check.

I'd say the Rams playing in Pasadena constituted home field advantage, even if the actual field was up the freeway from the team's home. (And that's my favorite freeway, by the way. The first one, and they've never made a better one.) The Rams definitely had a home crowd that day.

Ditto for the 49ers playing a Super Bowl at S------d Stadium in Palo Alto.

That's not entirely fair. The Eagles finished the season with 12 players -- many of them starters -- on IR, plus the whole getting-rid-of-T.O. thing.

They'll be back next year.

In the immortal words of Bill Parcells: You are what your record says you are. There were nine teams better than the Eagles this year.

And next year's a different subject.

I'd go on Oprah, but Oprah can't HANDLE the truth! And also doesn't know or care who I am.

1. I went to school at the University of California, Berkeley, where there are a number of traditions, most of which I either never knew about or now no longer remember. I figure I fulfill most if not all of my alumnus duties by just hating Stanford. There's a cannon someone shoots off every time the football team scores. It's on Tightwad Hill, which overlooks the stadium, and where you can watch the game for free. Don't know if any of that's trademarked, but I'm sure Cal is as rigorous as anyone in enforcing its trademarks and copyrights and, especially, patents.

And I don't think I'm denigrating any traditions at A&M or the passionate regard in which they're held by expressing the opinion that this trademark, for the reasons stated eloquently above by others, isn't or at least shouldn't be enforceable.

Honestly, is there 1 non-Aggie football fan in 10,000 who knew that Texas A&M had any connection to the phrase "12th man" before this week? Is there 1 in a million who would be confused by the use?

2. No column is beneath me.

I was disappointed when King had to resort to using a chat site in order to save his sanity and personal time.

What's that mean?