If I am not mistaken, the gentleman guarding Lebron James in the photo above is Talk N' Text cager Ranidel De Ocampo. While Ranidel is a great shooter, one on one defender, and all-around stud, it's anyone's best guess who would win an extended matchup between RDO and the King.
Lebron James recently visited Manila, much to the delight of hoops crazy Pinoys. I too am a hoops crazy Filipino, but in a way, I took Lebron's visit to my homeland as a "Hi, see you later."
Before you throw tomatoes, cucumbers, and other types of produce my way, hear me out.
Lebron James is probably this current NBA generation's finest player. He's a cross between Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, and Magic Johnson. He's got 2 championships and counting, and can dominate ballgames through scoring, playmaking, and/or through his ability to make his teammates look better by drawing defenses towards him. He has proven that, since his days as a player for the Ohio-based Cavaliers, he has indeed grown as a player- and as a man- by leaps and bounds.
Well, maybe I just have the propensity to root for the underdog. In every NBA generation, therein lies players who are great, but fall down a few rungs because of the undisputed greatness of a subset of all-stars. During the generation of Bird and Magic, those players were Isiah, Dumars, Erving (in a sense), Olajuwon (partly), Bernard King, Alex English, Ralph Sampson (again, asterisk because he became oft-injured at some point), McHale, Parish, Kareem (partly), etc. During the Jordan era, you had a litany of stars that would have won multiple rings had His Airness not dominated as much as he did. The list of would-have-beens includes a litany of all-world players like Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Miller, D. Robinson, and Alonzo Mourning, just to name a few. Rooting for the underdog, the guy who either gets little to no media fanfare because he just can't beat the big guy no matter how skilled he is, or, the person who gets a lot of media fanfare as the poster child for "giving it your best shot against the odds", is fun because of the possibilities it presents.
1) Adversity can bring out the best in the 2nd fiddlers.
*John Starks played his best games as a Knick versus Jordan's Bulls, and who can forget Reggie Miller's turnaround 3 point shot in the waining seconds of Game 6 of the 1998 Eastern Conference Finals that sent the series between his Pacers and Chicago Bulls to a seventh and deciding match? Greatness is expecting from guys like Jordan, and even Lebron, but it's the Millers, David Wests, Paul Georges, Dirk Nowitzkis, Jason Kidds, Zach Randolphs of the world- the guys who are stellar but not otherworldy- who tend to grab my attention because facing the all-timers tend to make them "extend themselves". Players pushing themselves to levels they never thought they could reach is always a joy to watch. See the Mavs over the Heat in the 2011 Finals, the Pistons over the Lakers in the 2004 Finals, and the Warriors over the 67-win Mavs in the 2007 Playoffs.
2) It is exciting to see the mighty fall.
*Baron Davis and his 2007 "We Believe" Warriors shocked the sports world when they defeated the number 1 ranked Dallas Mavericks in 6 games during the opening round of the 2007 NBA Postseason. It was stunning because of the numbers- a 67 win team downed by a 42 win club, Dirk Nowitzki getting kicked out of the title picture so soon despite winning league MVP, etc. The X's and O's, when analyzed closely, though, tend to paint a picture which portray the Mavericks to be on the losing side of things.
That Warriors team had a helter-skelter style that the older, stiffer, Mavericks could not contend with. The athleticism of that Golden State team flustered Dallas which tended to rely to gang defense (Zone) instead of being able to gain advantages on straight up, man to man, sets.
Basically, there was no way in hell Dirk was going to be able to guard Monta Ellis on a switch, nor was Jason Terry going to be able to stop Baron Davis (in his prime) on a pick and roll. The Mavericks were doomed from the start.
The Lakers teams of Kobe and Shaq, and the Bulls teams of Pippen and MJ had their share of haters, and it wasn't really because they played dirty or did not have any respect for the game. In fact, it is the other way around. They had detractors because it was so tantalizing a prospect to see these era-defining clubs fall to run of the mill teams, despite being fundamentally (logically) more outstanding- man for man, or an a system per system basis.
I don't always root for the underdog due to a desire to see the great teams crumble. I am selective about it. When I do root for the all-time greats, it's often because they are great but don't exude greatness to the point that the suspense is sucked out of watching nip and tuck ballgames, for instance. I am not even referring to hubris here. It's more of, fans, as fans, want to see greatness, but not greatness at the expense of thrill.
3) The underdogs tend to be "unique".
Underdog teams always tend to have quirks which endear them to viewers. In the 2011, the Mavs were a ragtag crew comprised of veterans and cast offs that made them look- on paper- like the NBA's version of the Addams Family rather than the A-Team. The Memphis Grizzlies took their hard hats and lunch buckets towards a gritty series win over a highly favored OKC team in 2013. The Knicks of Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell made the NBA Finals instead on lineup headlined at Center by cagers that weren't exactly known for being fleet-footed or jump-out-of-the-gym athletes- Chris Dudley, and Kurt Thomas. Teams who headline the NBA's top tier- the old Bulls, the Spurs, and Lakers, the Thunder, the Heat, tend to be all too clean cut and moulded out of gold and granite to be "compelling".
Wouldn't you be watch a post championship interview with Brian Scalabrine rather than hear out-of-a-dictionary "love for game" quotes from Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant? I know I would. We need loose cannons and off kilter situations once in a while to make things fun. Just like Friedreich Nietzsche said- "“You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.”
I believe what Nietzsche said, but of course, I also prefer to qualify what chaos is on a scenario-per-scenario basis before pledging allegiance. Pretention and BS aside though, I'm sure you all get my point.
Having said all that, I have one request- please wake up when Mark Madsen or Greg Stiemsma come to town to do appearances, or when NBA mascots play an exhibition game at a local arena. I am for underdog- and oddball- stories, any day of the week.
Makin' It Happen,
MC
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Local Hoops/NBA: "Non-Witness"
If I am not mistaken, the gentleman guarding Lebron James in the photo above is Talk N' Text cager Ranidel De Ocampo. While Ranidel is a great shooter, one on one defender, and all-around stud, it's anyone's best guess who would win an extended matchup between RDO and the King.
Lebron James recently visited Manila, much to the delight of hoops crazy Pinoys. I too am a hoops crazy Filipino, but in a way, I took Lebron's visit to my homeland as a "Hi, see you later."
Before you throw tomatoes, cucumbers, and other types of produce my way, hear me out.
Lebron James is probably this current NBA generation's finest player. He's a cross between Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, and Magic Johnson. He's got 2 championships and counting, and can dominate ballgames through scoring, playmaking, and/or through his ability to make his teammates look better by drawing defenses towards him. He has proven that, since his days as a player for the Ohio-based Cavaliers, he has indeed grown as a player- and as a man- by leaps and bounds.
Well, maybe I just have the propensity to root for the underdog. In every NBA generation, therein lies players who are great, but fall down a few rungs because of the undisputed greatness of a subset of all-stars. During the generation of Bird and Magic, those players were Isiah, Dumars, Erving (in a sense), Olajuwon (partly), Bernard King, Alex English, Ralph Sampson (again, asterisk because he became oft-injured at some point), McHale, Parish, Kareem (partly), etc. During the Jordan era, you had a litany of stars that would have won multiple rings had His Airness not dominated as much as he did. The list of would-have-beens includes a litany of all-world players like Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Miller, D. Robinson, and Alonzo Mourning, just to name a few. Rooting for the underdog, the guy who either gets little to no media fanfare because he just can't beat the big guy no matter how skilled he is, or, the person who gets a lot of media fanfare as the poster child for "giving it your best shot against the odds", is fun because of the possibilities it presents.
1) Adversity can bring out the best in the 2nd fiddlers.
*John Starks played his best games as a Knick versus Jordan's Bulls, and who can forget Reggie Miller's turnaround 3 point shot in the waining seconds of Game 6 of the 1998 Eastern Conference Finals that sent the series between his Pacers and Chicago Bulls to a seventh and deciding match? Greatness is expecting from guys like Jordan, and even Lebron, but it's the Millers, David Wests, Paul Georges, Dirk Nowitzkis, Jason Kidds, Zach Randolphs of the world- the guys who are stellar but not otherworldy- who tend to grab my attention because facing the all-timers tend to make them "extend themselves". Players pushing themselves to levels they never thought they could reach is always a joy to watch. See the Mavs over the Heat in the 2011 Finals, the Pistons over the Lakers in the 2004 Finals, and the Warriors over the 67-win Mavs in the 2007 Playoffs.
2) It is exciting to see the mighty fall.
*Baron Davis and his 2007 "We Believe" Warriors shocked the sports world when they defeated the number 1 ranked Dallas Mavericks in 6 games during the opening round of the 2007 NBA Postseason. It was stunning because of the numbers- a 67 win team downed by a 42 win club, Dirk Nowitzki getting kicked out of the title picture so soon despite winning league MVP, etc. The X's and O's, when analyzed closely, though, tend to paint a picture which portray the Mavericks to be on the losing side of things.
That Warriors team had a helter-skelter style that the older, stiffer, Mavericks could not contend with. The athleticism of that Golden State team flustered Dallas which tended to rely to gang defense (Zone) instead of being able to gain advantages on straight up, man to man, sets.
Basically, there was no way in hell Dirk was going to be able to guard Monta Ellis on a switch, nor was Jason Terry going to be able to stop Baron Davis (in his prime) on a pick and roll. The Mavericks were doomed from the start.
The Lakers teams of Kobe and Shaq, and the Bulls teams of Pippen and MJ had their share of haters, and it wasn't really because they played dirty or did not have any respect for the game. In fact, it is the other way around. They had detractors because it was so tantalizing a prospect to see these era-defining clubs fall to run of the mill teams, despite being fundamentally (logically) more outstanding- man for man, or an a system per system basis.
I don't always root for the underdog due to a desire to see the great teams crumble. I am selective about it. When I do root for the all-time greats, it's often because they are great but don't exude greatness to the point that the suspense is sucked out of watching nip and tuck ballgames, for instance. I am not even referring to hubris here. It's more of, fans, as fans, want to see greatness, but not greatness at the expense of thrill.
3) The underdogs tend to be "unique".
Underdog teams always tend to have quirks which endear them to viewers. In the 2011, the Mavs were a ragtag crew comprised of veterans and cast offs that made them look- on paper- like the NBA's version of the Addams Family rather than the A-Team. The Memphis Grizzlies took their hard hats and lunch buckets towards a gritty series win over a highly favored OKC team in 2013. The Knicks of Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell made the NBA Finals instead on lineup headlined at Center by cagers that weren't exactly known for being fleet-footed or jump-out-of-the-gym athletes- Chris Dudley, and Kurt Thomas. Teams who headline the NBA's top tier- the old Bulls, the Spurs, and Lakers, the Thunder, the Heat, tend to be all too clean cut and moulded out of gold and granite to be "compelling".
Wouldn't you be watch a post championship interview with Brian Scalabrine rather than hear out-of-a-dictionary "love for game" quotes from Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant? I know I would. We need loose cannons and off kilter situations once in a while to make things fun. Just like Friedreich Nietzsche said- "“You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.”
I believe what Nietzsche said, but of course, I also prefer to qualify what chaos is on a scenario-per-scenario basis before pledging allegiance. Pretention and BS aside though, I'm sure you all get my point.
Having said all that, I have one request- please wake up when Mark Madsen or Greg Stiemsma come to town to do appearances, or when NBA mascots play an exhibition game at a local arena. I am for underdog- and oddball- stories, any day of the week.
Makin' It Happen,
MC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment