Letters to the Editor
-
Correction/Spurs
Damon Jones, not Daniel Gibson, hit the meaningless three at the buzzer.
This series was dramaless, obviously, which is unfortunate, and the Cavs played pretty bad, but I don't understand what's so boring about the Spurs. They are a great team at the top of their game. Why is it so terrible to watch a team play good basketball that involves a lot of good defense and doesn't necessarily include a lot of fast breaks and dunking? So what if Duncan isn't a rock star? Why are people so easily bored? (I say this as a Cleveland fan who just saw his team get waxed.)
-
paint, etc
I don't recall much talk about blowing the NFL playoff system up when the NFC routinely thrashed the AFC. But then again, that could be because you occasionally got some spectacular single-elimination games during the semis.
-
Do I win a no-prize?
"...when Dwyane Wade and the Miami Heat came from 2-0 down to beat the Pistons, bringing some sparkle to the Larry O'Brien Trophy."
Beat the whom? Methinks your (admittedly very impressive) prognostication success has muddled your memory. The Heat did beat the Pistons 4-2, but of course since they're from the same conference that wasn't for the Larry O'Brien Trophy. You meant the Mavericks.
-
We get the point
So, King, were the NBA finals boring for you? Maybe you could write yet another column about how dull it all was. I'm sure your other readers would find it as fascinating as I do.
I have an idea. How about picking another sport to learn and write about? You know, maybe do your part to break the grip of the "big three" on the American sports pysche. Think of it as a public service.
-
Two things.
First, in every team sport, defense wins over offense. That's why the two teams in the finals are almost invariably two of the best defensive teams while they may be only average offensively. Of course there are exceptions like the Indianapolis Colts, but the rule is defense (in baseball it's pitching) wins. So in the finals of the NBA, expect to see low scoring games. That's what we had with the Spurs and Cavs. It is NO surprise that Phoenix continues to miss the finals, good as the Suns are.
And, anyone with a true appreciation of baseball, football, basketball, soccer and hockey understands the above and likes it. Why? Two things get us to watch professional sports. The first and least interesting is the athletic excellence of the players. Anyone who has tried to do what they do is routinely astonished at the ease with which they make even difficult plays.
More importantly, any athletic contest consists of two dramas. The first is who wins the game. The second is whether the offensive team can score on the defensive team and whether the defensive team can keep the offensive team from scoring. That is the great drama of sports, the thing that keeps us glued to the TV set in a close game. That's why, when scoring is too easy, the excitement goes out of the game. Few people want to see a rout.
So, in almost all cases, defense wins and our emotional involvement in the game depends on a close balance between the ability of the offense to score and the ability of the defense to stop the offense from scoring.
-
Clarkson
Good article King. And while I agree with nearly everything you said, why the Kelly Clarkson potshot? She could very well end up being the only American Idol figure to transcend that show's cookie-cutter, blandly corporate, oranges-and-oranges aesthetic. She has Mike Watt of the Minutemen in her band for christ's sake!
She's the Curt Flood of American Idol. Act like you know!
Nate K
-
Glad I'm Not the Only One...
Who thought this was boring. It wasn't boring for any reason other than the fact that it was pretty damned clear, by Game 3 (OK, really in Game 1), who would be lofting the trophy.
It wasn't boring to me because of the players or the teams, etc., it was boring because there wasn't any "Who's going to win it?" tension. YMMV.
-
Two things
King mentions the East's dominance of the West at the end of the 20th century as proof that the pendulum swings back and forth as far as talent goes. In truth, the late 1990's Bulls helped mask how terrible the East was. Is there much doubt how the Shaq led Lakers teams that couldn't handle the Malone led Jazz teams would have handled the Pacers (who were the #2 dogs in the East?) No. The Lakers would have pounded them. If you were to rank late 1990's teams, the Jazz, Lakers, Spurs and Rockets (and sometimes Seattle) would all be the teams listed after the Bulls, not the Pacers, Heat, or Knicks.
Secondly, I don't think the NBA realized just how much those suspensions of the Suns' players hurt them. Lets remember, it wasn't just the Spurs players that wandered off the bench that weren't suspended; but Baron Davis didn't miss any floor time for throwing an elbow at the back of Dereck Fisher's head for no apparent reason. I know a couple NBA fans, that just tuned out basketball after the suspensions.
The message the League sent to the fans was, "we don't just condone teams that try to hurt the other teams' players by kneeing them in the groin or throwing them into tables; we encourage it! We don't care if we're being fair, you have no choice but to deal with our decisions puny mortals! We're Faaaaaaaaaaaaaantastic!"
-
Speaking of boring...
If people have a personal problem with the Spurs' entertainment value, then I'd suggest a more productive approach would be to address the complaints not to San Antonio, but rather to the NBA's Eastern Conference.
The best series of this year's championship involved (Guess who?) the San Antonio Spurs -- when they faced the Phoenix Suns.
The reason that was the best series is because the Suns showed up and gave the Spurs some competition.
If the Eastern Conference shows up at the finals with a team that can't compete, that's not the Spurs' problem.