I'm watching the UCLA v. Florida game and it's a little disturbing. The refs are ignoring moving screens that look like pass protection drills for offensive linemen. They also don't seem to mind people traveling. Joakim Noah should have been given a technical foul after his 2nd personal in the first half. He lashed out at the ref and emphatically untucked his jersey, obviously displeased. That would have been Noah's 3rd personal ... not that Al Horford and Chris Richards couldn't hold down the middle for the Gators. Then, there was the curious double foul on the block/charge. The announcers seemed pleased that the refs settled on a double foul and alternating possession. But, why? On what grounds? Can it really be a block and a charge simultaneously? It seems like a cop out by the refs. Green just lost the ball off his foot into the backcourt, but the refs didn't call the violation. What are they watching? And, most importantly, the refs blew this one with ticky tack fouls early. I don't remember Aaron Afflalo's 1st foul but his 2nd-4th were all pretty weak: holding Humphrey, Brewer jumping into him, then on a Humphrey drive. And, I haven't mentioned the play where Noah threw Mata to the ground right in front of the ref, resulting in an easy put back.
Brewer was on fire. It wasn't Afflalo's night. The Gators are bigger inside (although having the Bruin bigs in foul trouble doesn't help UCLA). But, the game didn't go like it should. The officials need to be more consistent and enforce the rules. Noah should have been given a technical for yelling and gesturing at the ref after losing the ball out of bounds with just under 4 minutes left in the game. The Bruins live on pressure defense. They beat Kansas because they were allowed to disrupt the KU guards by hedging hard on all the ball screens. A lot of contact was allowed in that game. KU was the better matchup against Florida, especially in a game where physical play isn't allowed.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
What a Joakim!
Anyone looking for another person to kiss Noah's ass, keep looking. You will not find him here. Len Elmore thinks people saying Noah left millions on the table by coming back for his junior season are crazy. I disagree. I have not seen Florida play a whole lot this year, but I watched quite a bit of the last three games they've played in the tournament. Noah is fairly tall and athletic for his size. But, those are his only major strengths. He's not overly physical and does not display a wide array of post moves. He's pretty good at laying the ball in from close range and dunking, but there are lots of those guys riding the pine in the NBA. Noah does not shoot from the outside and it's not surprising given his two-handed, side-spin producing, push shot he jacks up from the charity stripe. He also does not create off the dribble much for himself or teammates. There was talk about Noah as the top pick if he'd come out after last year. This year, he won't come close to the #1 overall pick unless a lot of underclassmen stay in school - regardless of how the Gators do in the Final Four. The problem is that Noah is the same player he was last year, without quite as big an impact in the NCAA tournament. He still can't shoot from outside. He's still raw in the post. He's not any more of a physical presence. Noah may have returned to Gainesville to pursue another National Championship, and that's fine. But, you'd have thought he would try to get better, too. It doesn't look like he has, and that's probably as big a deterrent to NBA people as the lack of a jumpshot.
Now to the point I was originally going to make. Someone needs to call an illegal screen on Joakim Noah. Noah spreads his legs like _________ - I can think of a number of things to insert there, but I'll let you come up with your own - every time he sets a screen. Last time I checked, that's not how you set legal screens. Honestly, he gets his feet at least twice shoulder width apart. And, to make matters worse, in the game against Oregon he was leaning to whatever side the defender was trying to get around the screen on. So, not only was the screen set illegally, he was moving his body to block the defender! Was it called? Do I really need to answer?
Now to the point I was originally going to make. Someone needs to call an illegal screen on Joakim Noah. Noah spreads his legs like _________ - I can think of a number of things to insert there, but I'll let you come up with your own - every time he sets a screen. Last time I checked, that's not how you set legal screens. Honestly, he gets his feet at least twice shoulder width apart. And, to make matters worse, in the game against Oregon he was leaning to whatever side the defender was trying to get around the screen on. So, not only was the screen set illegally, he was moving his body to block the defender! Was it called? Do I really need to answer?
Friday, March 23, 2007
Whistle blowing
Is it just me, or were there too many fouls in the Ohio State - Tennessee game last night? It's one thing to call fouls when they definitely occur. But last night I had to strain at half the replays to see where any contact even occurred. Most of the fouls seemed to be coming at the Buckeyes' end of the floor, but there were definitely some phantom calls down the stretch in the Volunteers' favor as well.
I didn't tune in until Tennessee was up twenty in the dwindling moments of the first half, but I immediately questioned the foul that ended the half and resulted in a three-point play for Ohio State. And with the second half came more and more of this. The telecast remarked at one point that Ohio State had scored on eleven of twelve possessions. But how many of those were free throws?
It's nice to see a nail-biter come down to a final play—and a blocked shot to boot—with a one-point margin of victory. But it's not so nice that that one point was gained on a free throw because of a foul called in the lane with under ten seconds on the game clock.
Because of horrible "foul management" by the officials (by this I mean calling too many fouls early in the half), situations that would normally lead to possession on the side resulted in free throws instead, including a couple for Ohio State after a marginal call at the other end of the floor. (Unfortunately, I can't remember the details of the play.) The bonus is the bonus, but some things just should not lead to free throws. But that's a whole other conversation.
I didn't tune in until Tennessee was up twenty in the dwindling moments of the first half, but I immediately questioned the foul that ended the half and resulted in a three-point play for Ohio State. And with the second half came more and more of this. The telecast remarked at one point that Ohio State had scored on eleven of twelve possessions. But how many of those were free throws?
It's nice to see a nail-biter come down to a final play—and a blocked shot to boot—with a one-point margin of victory. But it's not so nice that that one point was gained on a free throw because of a foul called in the lane with under ten seconds on the game clock.
Because of horrible "foul management" by the officials (by this I mean calling too many fouls early in the half), situations that would normally lead to possession on the side resulted in free throws instead, including a couple for Ohio State after a marginal call at the other end of the floor. (Unfortunately, I can't remember the details of the play.) The bonus is the bonus, but some things just should not lead to free throws. But that's a whole other conversation.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Out for a Swin
Swin Cash has a cool name, but she needs to focus a little bit more on other people's names. Recently, on an "NBA Fastbreak" broadcast on ESPN (I believe it was on Monday, March 19th), Cash was talking about the Golden State Warriors and started mentioned that along with Stephen Jackson, Al Harrington and Baron Davis, they also have Richard Jefferson. Yep. She said "Richard Jefferson." Anyone with any interest in the NBA knows that Richard Jefferson does not play for the Golden State Warriors. He's a Net. Cash was referring to former Michigan State Spartan Jason Richardson.
Big mistake? Maybe not. Maybe it was just a slip of the tongue. But, why did neither she nor the host catch the mistake? There are two main possibilities:
(a) they didn't realize there was a mistake made or
(b) they figured the listeners wouldn't care, so they didn't want to correct the mistake
I have a problem either way. Looking at (a), the more straightforward of the two, if the talent on an ESPN NBA program don't have a good knowledge of the NBA, there is something very wrong with that. If it was (b), then that is just one more instance of style trumping substance. Why pair Stuart Scott with Kenny Mayne? It's not for the great sports commentary they provide. Personally, I don't find them entertaining, but I know a lot of people do. But, as the guy says on the commercial for ESPN news (I'm paraphrasing ... unless I get lucky and get it exactly right) "Now I know sports ... or better yet, now I sound like I know sports."
Knowing sports should be more important to ESPN than sounding like you know sports. Unfortunately, substance just isn't as important as style these days.
Big mistake? Maybe not. Maybe it was just a slip of the tongue. But, why did neither she nor the host catch the mistake? There are two main possibilities:
(a) they didn't realize there was a mistake made or
(b) they figured the listeners wouldn't care, so they didn't want to correct the mistake
I have a problem either way. Looking at (a), the more straightforward of the two, if the talent on an ESPN NBA program don't have a good knowledge of the NBA, there is something very wrong with that. If it was (b), then that is just one more instance of style trumping substance. Why pair Stuart Scott with Kenny Mayne? It's not for the great sports commentary they provide. Personally, I don't find them entertaining, but I know a lot of people do. But, as the guy says on the commercial for ESPN news (I'm paraphrasing ... unless I get lucky and get it exactly right) "Now I know sports ... or better yet, now I sound like I know sports."
Knowing sports should be more important to ESPN than sounding like you know sports. Unfortunately, substance just isn't as important as style these days.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Expand the Field
Syracuse's coach was on PTI looking for an expanded NCAA Tournament field. His team won 10 conference games this year. Well, so did the Kansas State Wildcats. First time a team in one of the major conferences has won 10 games and been left out of the field and it happens twice! People are also talking about Drexel, Air Force, Oklahoma State, Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina State, Akron, etc.
I say, if you're going to have 65 teams, you might as well have them all (336, I think is the number I heard).
People say college basketball is better than college football because the top team is determined on the court, not in the polls and computers. Well, that is mostly true. But, there are teams left out of the tournament who could, potentially, make a run. NC State almost won the ACC Tournament! Oklahoma State has a talented squad that made a run in the Big 12. Syracuse beat Georgetown recently. They must be pretty good. The field in the bball tourney is bigger, which is better, but the selection committee still has their hands in things, especially with seeding and match-ups.
People say that conference tournaments are an extension. Well, I guess in a way. If you win your conference tourney, you get into the field of 65. But, losing in your conference tourney doesn't keep you out of the field. And, if you're going to be an at-large team anyway (KU, UNC, Georgetown, Florida, Ohio State, etc.), winning your conference tournament doesn't gain you much in the big dance. Duke lost in the first round and they were still a #6 seed despite having a poor year in ACC play (or at least mediocre). UCLA lost early and they moved from a #1 seed to a #2 seed. Oooh ... big punishment. So, there may be a little incentive in seeding to win your conference tourney, but it's insignificant in the grand scheme of things. So, my question is why, if the conference tournaments are an extension, do some teams get double elimination and some teams get single elimination? So ... stop kidding yourselves and saying that they are an extension.
In fact, it's time to get rid of the conference tournaments. I'm tired of having a regular season champ and a tournament champ. Let everyone in the big dance. Determine some rating to rank the field. Use some kind of RPI or an average of a system of computers. It will get teams close enough to their value.
Let's say there are 336 teams. We need to cut the field to 256 (that's 2 to the 8th power). So, we need 80 teams to lose. So, the bottom 160 in the RPI will play.
177 vs. 336
178 vs. 335
179 vs. 334
etc.
255 vs. 258
256 vs. 257
Then, we'll proceed with 4 groups of 64 (or 16 groups of 16). So, in the week when conference tournaments are usually played, the preliminary 80 game round will be played, along with the first two rounds that cut the field from 336 to 256 to 128 to 64. Then, it'll be just like usual. So, no time is added. Everyone gets a shot. There isn't a hand (selection committee) dealing a team a good draw of a bad draw. You get what you get, and no one can change things around to adversely impact one team or another. It will be determined on the court, through the regular season as it pertains to seeding based on RPI (or whatever is used) and in the tournament.
We won't need Joe Lunardi and people like him. We won't have to hear about snubs and insane inclusions. We won't have to hear about stacked regions and easy roads. It will be real march madness and teams will have to keep it together for 8 (or 9) rounds if they want to be the champ, although the first two weeks should be relatively straightforward for the major contenders. Well, actually, maybe the first 3 games. Including everyone will make the top of the field deeper and challenge some of the big guns earlier, in all likelihood. They'll still probably win, but not with the ease that they've done so in the past.
I say, if you're going to have 65 teams, you might as well have them all (336, I think is the number I heard).
People say college basketball is better than college football because the top team is determined on the court, not in the polls and computers. Well, that is mostly true. But, there are teams left out of the tournament who could, potentially, make a run. NC State almost won the ACC Tournament! Oklahoma State has a talented squad that made a run in the Big 12. Syracuse beat Georgetown recently. They must be pretty good. The field in the bball tourney is bigger, which is better, but the selection committee still has their hands in things, especially with seeding and match-ups.
People say that conference tournaments are an extension. Well, I guess in a way. If you win your conference tourney, you get into the field of 65. But, losing in your conference tourney doesn't keep you out of the field. And, if you're going to be an at-large team anyway (KU, UNC, Georgetown, Florida, Ohio State, etc.), winning your conference tournament doesn't gain you much in the big dance. Duke lost in the first round and they were still a #6 seed despite having a poor year in ACC play (or at least mediocre). UCLA lost early and they moved from a #1 seed to a #2 seed. Oooh ... big punishment. So, there may be a little incentive in seeding to win your conference tourney, but it's insignificant in the grand scheme of things. So, my question is why, if the conference tournaments are an extension, do some teams get double elimination and some teams get single elimination? So ... stop kidding yourselves and saying that they are an extension.
In fact, it's time to get rid of the conference tournaments. I'm tired of having a regular season champ and a tournament champ. Let everyone in the big dance. Determine some rating to rank the field. Use some kind of RPI or an average of a system of computers. It will get teams close enough to their value.
Let's say there are 336 teams. We need to cut the field to 256 (that's 2 to the 8th power). So, we need 80 teams to lose. So, the bottom 160 in the RPI will play.
177 vs. 336
178 vs. 335
179 vs. 334
etc.
255 vs. 258
256 vs. 257
Then, we'll proceed with 4 groups of 64 (or 16 groups of 16). So, in the week when conference tournaments are usually played, the preliminary 80 game round will be played, along with the first two rounds that cut the field from 336 to 256 to 128 to 64. Then, it'll be just like usual. So, no time is added. Everyone gets a shot. There isn't a hand (selection committee) dealing a team a good draw of a bad draw. You get what you get, and no one can change things around to adversely impact one team or another. It will be determined on the court, through the regular season as it pertains to seeding based on RPI (or whatever is used) and in the tournament.
We won't need Joe Lunardi and people like him. We won't have to hear about snubs and insane inclusions. We won't have to hear about stacked regions and easy roads. It will be real march madness and teams will have to keep it together for 8 (or 9) rounds if they want to be the champ, although the first two weeks should be relatively straightforward for the major contenders. Well, actually, maybe the first 3 games. Including everyone will make the top of the field deeper and challenge some of the big guns earlier, in all likelihood. They'll still probably win, but not with the ease that they've done so in the past.
Head Hunter
Apparently, taking a stick to an opponent's head will cost you 25 games in the NHL. In real-life, it would probably cost you closer to 25 years! Ok, maybe not, but at least 25 months.
But, the penalty is not the problem. If it's a 25 game infraction, fine. Give Simon 25 games of pine time. The NHL didn't do that. They said "You're out for the year!" Well, the year is almost over. They are rolling the suspension over to next year if the Islanders don't play enough playoff games. That seems weird. "You're out for this year, unless your team doesn't do well enough to make you sit out enough games ... then you'll be out to start next year too!"
If Simon should be out for a year, he should be out for a year. Not the rest of this season or at least 25 games, but a year. An entire calendar year. I wouldn't mind if he was banned from the league. There is no place for that type of action in any sport. Fighting is commonly accepted in hockey ... I doubt attempts at decapitation are as appreciated by everyone around the sport.
The problem with saying someone is out for the rest of a season is that it isn't a reproducible penalty. If someone takes their stick to someone's head in the 1st game of the year, are they supposed to sit out the last 80 games because they'll be suspended for the year when Simon only got about 25 (and not that many in the regular season)? Is the action really less reprehensible late in the season than early on? That's what invoking a "rest of the season" penalty says.
But, the penalty is not the problem. If it's a 25 game infraction, fine. Give Simon 25 games of pine time. The NHL didn't do that. They said "You're out for the year!" Well, the year is almost over. They are rolling the suspension over to next year if the Islanders don't play enough playoff games. That seems weird. "You're out for this year, unless your team doesn't do well enough to make you sit out enough games ... then you'll be out to start next year too!"
If Simon should be out for a year, he should be out for a year. Not the rest of this season or at least 25 games, but a year. An entire calendar year. I wouldn't mind if he was banned from the league. There is no place for that type of action in any sport. Fighting is commonly accepted in hockey ... I doubt attempts at decapitation are as appreciated by everyone around the sport.
The problem with saying someone is out for the rest of a season is that it isn't a reproducible penalty. If someone takes their stick to someone's head in the 1st game of the year, are they supposed to sit out the last 80 games because they'll be suspended for the year when Simon only got about 25 (and not that many in the regular season)? Is the action really less reprehensible late in the season than early on? That's what invoking a "rest of the season" penalty says.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
La La Coach
The Lakers' esteemed head coach is not happy with the suspension of his star, Kobe Bryant, for smacking another player in the face? This is one fight Jackson shouldn't take on. Stu Jackson, who handed out the suspension, did the Lakers a favor only giving Kobe one game.
Even more ludicrous than Phil arguing against the suspension is his assertion that Kobe flailing his arms to "create space" is a natural basketball movement. Not all habit are good. Should it be allowable if someone naturally punches kicks a defender in the man region while on the way to a lay-up? What if a defender punches the offensive player in the face in the act of stealing the ball? I'm sure Dikembe Mutombo would love to be allowed to elbow people in the face intentionally to clear them out when blocking out, posting up, and rebounding.
Kobe seems to be the only player who performs this action. I played basketball for years and never once did I smack someone who blocked my jumper, at least not on the spot. Phil needs to take more time convincing his star that he needs to quit flailing and just play, rather than making himself look like an idiot arguing against a suspension that was really quite nice to LA.
Even more ludicrous than Phil arguing against the suspension is his assertion that Kobe flailing his arms to "create space" is a natural basketball movement. Not all habit are good. Should it be allowable if someone naturally punches kicks a defender in the man region while on the way to a lay-up? What if a defender punches the offensive player in the face in the act of stealing the ball? I'm sure Dikembe Mutombo would love to be allowed to elbow people in the face intentionally to clear them out when blocking out, posting up, and rebounding.
Kobe seems to be the only player who performs this action. I played basketball for years and never once did I smack someone who blocked my jumper, at least not on the spot. Phil needs to take more time convincing his star that he needs to quit flailing and just play, rather than making himself look like an idiot arguing against a suspension that was really quite nice to LA.
Who needs a salary cap?
All the whining from NFL players about wanting to be traded and released has led me to a new idea. Dre Bly got traded to the Broncos but now wants to be in D.C. by the start of the season. Lance Briggs doesn't like the franchise tag and wants out of Chicago. Corey Dillon wanted to be released. Jake Plummer says he'll retire if he's traded to Tampa.
The idea: why don't the players just decide where they want to play each year. Bring all the players together for a weekend and have them sign up for positions! Obviously, I'm not serious, but this is getting ridiculous. It seems like half the RB's want to change teams: Tatum Bell, Thomas Jones, Ahman Green, Travis Henry, Jamal Lewis, Willis McGahee, Corey Dillon, etc. Joe Horns going to Atlanta. Randy Moss and Dante Stallworth are rumored headed to NE ... or Moss to GB? Wes Welker is already a new Patriot.
Free-agency can be exciting. But, all the movement decreases continuity from season to season and players need to honor contracts they sign and play when "franchised". Maybe a better idea is to give players (and teams) incentives (monetary, of course) to stay together. Wait a second, I've proposed that before!
The idea: why don't the players just decide where they want to play each year. Bring all the players together for a weekend and have them sign up for positions! Obviously, I'm not serious, but this is getting ridiculous. It seems like half the RB's want to change teams: Tatum Bell, Thomas Jones, Ahman Green, Travis Henry, Jamal Lewis, Willis McGahee, Corey Dillon, etc. Joe Horns going to Atlanta. Randy Moss and Dante Stallworth are rumored headed to NE ... or Moss to GB? Wes Welker is already a new Patriot.
Free-agency can be exciting. But, all the movement decreases continuity from season to season and players need to honor contracts they sign and play when "franchised". Maybe a better idea is to give players (and teams) incentives (monetary, of course) to stay together. Wait a second, I've proposed that before!
Matthews Jr.
The Angels shouldn't be mad at Gary Matthews Jr. for having his name come up in connection to performance enhancing drugs. The Angels should be disgusted at themselves for their idiotic signing of Matthews. Sure, Matthews had a solid season last year. He hit .313 with 19 HR's. That's pretty good for a centerfielder who can make spectacular defensive plays.
Unfortunately, the Angels paid Matthews based on his performance over one season. I'd be fine with that if they'd given him a one-year contract. Maybe he'd have another good year. Or, he might return to his usual ways. Matthews has only once hit above .276. Once. Last year! He's never hit 20 HR's. He averages 12 SB's per 162 games. Matthews isn't worth $50 million over 5 years. He's 32 years old and the contract is just getting underway. I may be wrong, but I have a hard time seeing Matthews Jr. being productive in center on the other side of 35. But, I have concerns about his productivity this year, too, unless you think .275 and 15-20 HR's is worth $10 million.
Unfortunately, the Angels paid Matthews based on his performance over one season. I'd be fine with that if they'd given him a one-year contract. Maybe he'd have another good year. Or, he might return to his usual ways. Matthews has only once hit above .276. Once. Last year! He's never hit 20 HR's. He averages 12 SB's per 162 games. Matthews isn't worth $50 million over 5 years. He's 32 years old and the contract is just getting underway. I may be wrong, but I have a hard time seeing Matthews Jr. being productive in center on the other side of 35. But, I have concerns about his productivity this year, too, unless you think .275 and 15-20 HR's is worth $10 million.
One Game?
Kobe wanted to appeal his first one-game suspension for swinging at a player who was blocking his jump shot. He should be pleased with his second one. While Kobe tried to convince everyone that he didn't intend to smack Manu Ginobli, he'd look like an idiot if he tried to do it after throwing a backhand at Marko Jaric.
First, what is Kobe thinking? No one likes to get their shot blocked, but you don't take a swing at the defender.
Second, what is the league thinking? The first time, maybe it was an accident, maybe it wasn't. He gets a game for hitting Ginobli. Fine. One game for a second offense? That's ridiculous. The league should have sent Kobe a message this time. Oh wait, they did. Problem is, it was the wrong message. They should have sat him for at least 5 games for this second, absurd, offense. Instead, they gave him a slap on the wrist.
What is the league going to do if Kobe does this again? Is it one game per offense? Is it going to be a Fibonacci sequence (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, etc.)? They really need to go against the precedent they set, and that's not really something you want to do.
First, what is Kobe thinking? No one likes to get their shot blocked, but you don't take a swing at the defender.
Second, what is the league thinking? The first time, maybe it was an accident, maybe it wasn't. He gets a game for hitting Ginobli. Fine. One game for a second offense? That's ridiculous. The league should have sent Kobe a message this time. Oh wait, they did. Problem is, it was the wrong message. They should have sat him for at least 5 games for this second, absurd, offense. Instead, they gave him a slap on the wrist.
What is the league going to do if Kobe does this again? Is it one game per offense? Is it going to be a Fibonacci sequence (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, etc.)? They really need to go against the precedent they set, and that's not really something you want to do.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Drooling over Durant
Texas lost to Kansas on Saturday. The Longhorns were on fire in the first half and ran out to a solid halftime lead. But, KU quickly erased the gap in the second half. UT phenom Kevin Durant did get hurt in the second half. It looks like he sprained his ankle. But, that wasn't the reason they lost the game. In fact, Durant was part of the problem in the second half, not the solution to any of Rick Barnes' problems.
Durant is tall, long, athletic, skilled, etc. It's hard for me to compare him to Tracy McGrady because McGrady didn't play college ball and I didn't see many Raptors games early in his career, but some do. Durant can handle the ball ok, but don't kid yourself thinking he's Allen Iverson off the dribble. He can shoot it, too.
The problem is that Durant doesn't always take good shots. When he gets his shots in the flow of the game, Texas is tough to beat. Why? Everyone else is involved and Durant gets better shots. When Durant is forcing shots, he ends up taking wild, off-balance shots that have little chance of going in. Or, he'll dribble into traffic and lose the ball (one such instance on Saturday left him on his butt and the ball going the other way in possession of the Jayhawks). In fact, the play he got hurt on never should have happened. Durant should have passed the ball before he stepped on the defender's foot and rolled his ankle. Too often, Durant demands the ball posting up off the block and then tries to be Michael Jordan and hit a fade-away jumper. For everything Durant is, he's not MJ (at least not yet), and it's going to hurt Texas in the Big 12 and NCAA tournaments if he doesn't keep the other talented Texas youngsters involved in the game.
And, what's with the commentators brown-nosing and not pointing any of this out? Come on. Durant may be the most talented player in college basketball, but KU beat Texas because they shared the ball and kept everyone involved and didn't force bad shots, at least for the most part. It is the job of the announcers to recognize what is going on and remark on it, not sit back and oooh and ahhh over all the spectacular plays while ignoring the bone-head ones.
Durant is tall, long, athletic, skilled, etc. It's hard for me to compare him to Tracy McGrady because McGrady didn't play college ball and I didn't see many Raptors games early in his career, but some do. Durant can handle the ball ok, but don't kid yourself thinking he's Allen Iverson off the dribble. He can shoot it, too.
The problem is that Durant doesn't always take good shots. When he gets his shots in the flow of the game, Texas is tough to beat. Why? Everyone else is involved and Durant gets better shots. When Durant is forcing shots, he ends up taking wild, off-balance shots that have little chance of going in. Or, he'll dribble into traffic and lose the ball (one such instance on Saturday left him on his butt and the ball going the other way in possession of the Jayhawks). In fact, the play he got hurt on never should have happened. Durant should have passed the ball before he stepped on the defender's foot and rolled his ankle. Too often, Durant demands the ball posting up off the block and then tries to be Michael Jordan and hit a fade-away jumper. For everything Durant is, he's not MJ (at least not yet), and it's going to hurt Texas in the Big 12 and NCAA tournaments if he doesn't keep the other talented Texas youngsters involved in the game.
And, what's with the commentators brown-nosing and not pointing any of this out? Come on. Durant may be the most talented player in college basketball, but KU beat Texas because they shared the ball and kept everyone involved and didn't force bad shots, at least for the most part. It is the job of the announcers to recognize what is going on and remark on it, not sit back and oooh and ahhh over all the spectacular plays while ignoring the bone-head ones.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
