One of the best post by my favorite blogger

Henry Abbott of TrueHoop (available on ESPN.com), in my humble opinion, has the best blog on the 'net. He consistently brings meat on all things NBA and is insightful on issues on and off the court. As a basketball fan and coach there is not a week that goes by where I don't feel like I've learned something about the game, players, coaches, strategies, personalities, etc. This posting evaluating the role chemistry plays in a team's success is BRILLIANT!!! Here's an excerpt from an email response to Henry's team chemistry question from Noah B. Gentner, Assistant Professor of Exercise and Sport Sciences at Ithaca College (courtesy Henry Abbott of TrueHoop):

Another important issue to consider here is the overall psyche and confidence of a team. There is an amazing connection in humans between our thoughts and actions. If we consistently think about something we are more likely to do it. If right now you start thinking, "I'm so happy this is the best day ever," and you continue to think that you will notice yourself starting to smile and feel better.

The same thing happens with athletes. If they believe they have a team that can win the title they will play harder, with more confidence, and be more likely to work through adversity than those who deep down don't believe in their team's ability to win.

It essentially boils down to what I know more and more and that is if you have talent, you can win games. You don't have to like your teammate to win games, but you need your teammates to be talented. You can love your teammates like they are your own flesh and blood, but if they can't hoop, it doesn't matter how great you all get along. Tactical talent (talent put to good use) trumps social cohesion all day long.

Thoughts while watching the Mavs vs. Spurs on TNT

At halftime of the TNT telecast of the Mavs/Spurs game on Thursday, Kenny Smith said that Jason Kidd gets guys easier shots because he "pitches the ball ahead". This is something that I strongly advocate that the middle and high school kids I coach do. Most young players want to dribble the ball the length of the floor into "assist range" where they can make a pass that leads directly to a shot attempt. However, the easier (and I dare say smarter) play is to pass the ball ahead to an open teammate which
1) allows the offense to go against less defenders because it's a transition situation and
2) forces the defense to react (which increases the chances of them being out of position) because the ball has moved.

This approach of passing the ball ahead, rather than dribbling the ball into the half court, makes for easier basketball because most youth players are not skilled enough to operate effectively offensively in a 5 on 5 half court setting.

I think kids pick the wrong approach up from watching guys like Nash accumulate assist via sweet bounce pass and lobs to teammates for 3s and dunks. However, the vast majority of kids don't have an ability to handle the rock and pass the rock anywhere near the level of a Steve Nash. Plus in the pre-Shaq Suns offense, Nash was receiving the ball quickly on inbounds after made shots it was akin to another passing the ball ahead (and Nash was operating in so much space he could afford to dribble the ball more).

John Stockton made a lot of "assist range" passes, but it was a function of the Jazz offense being built around the pick and roll with Malone.

Magic made a lot of "assist range" passes as well, but he was 6-9, which allowed him to threaten a defender in a fast break situation in a manner that a 6-1 guard could not -- so he gets a pass(pardon the pun).

Need help: XP or Vista

I'm in the market for a new laptop, so I need some help from the community. I'm leaning toward getting a laptop running XP because I've heard some grumbling about Vista. Please provide guidance with either positive or negative experiences with Vista and whether or not you think it is wise to go with XP given that this laptop will be my primary computer for the next 5 years.

All athletes are not selfish

Saying that all athletes are selfish is an uninformed reductionist statement, but it seems to be an opinion that is levied when an athlete does something that seems to shine more light on himself than the team. I hate to hear athletes, especially football and basketball players characterized with such broad brush strokes. T.J. Ford is a great example of a athlete who is putting team first. Of course he won't be the lead on SportsCenter this evening because of this, but let him get caught on the wrong side of the law or demand that the coach start him or trade him and T.J. will become a household name.

Now, it does help that T.J. has a guaranteed contract and that there is no denying that Calderon is a legit point guard, but that shouldn't take away from the magnanimity of the gesture.

Something not often seen in the media today

I was really impressed when I read Steve Weinman's apology to Rasheed Wallace. The Detroit Pistons are my team in the NBA and I have appreciated what Rasheed had done on the plus side: helping us get the ring against the Lakers in '03, making those championship wrestling belts, the cool "get hype" dance he does at the beginning of games, even the pre-Pistons "both teams played hard" quote. However, I do hold two things against him: leaving fellow Crimson Tider, Robert Horry open for that game winning three in the Finals vs. the Spurs, and the meltdown in game 6 against the Cavs, especially when Anderson Varejao stuffed his supposedly unblockable baseline turnaround jump shot. That being said, the boy 'Sheed has been hoopin' this season and KILLED the Suns this past Sunday. If many members of the media would just watch the games and not carry personal biases against athletes, then I think we could get more balanced reporting on complex cats like Rasheed Wallace. So big ups to you Mr. Steve Weinman you have earned my respect (as if that means anything to you).

Women, Preaching and Pastoring

A discussion on this topic had begun in the comments section of the post about my boy planting a church in the A-T-L and I wanted to have this converstation in a broader context. The background:

jimmy said: "Since we are talking about Church planting, tell me what you think about women pastors and even women teaching the Church setting?"

rick said: The pastor of the church is also the leader in the home (1 Timothy 3:1-5). The scripture say how can a man led the church if he can't even led his home. Therefore, the issue is not about a woman's right to preach but a man's responsiblity to led.

My take:
I think there are two separate issues. a) Do women have the biblical authority to preach? b) Do women have biblical authority to pastor?

I think each of these begs a whole other set of questions. Here are a few:

1) The only offices of the church mentioned in the New Testament are elder and deacon.
Is this list prescriptive or descriptive?

For the sake of clarity, everyone needs to be on the same page as to what the terms that are used in this particular discussion mean. Pastoring is mentioned in the N.T. as a spiritual gifting. The term "pastor" now seems to be used in a colloquial sense as being analogous to the biblical office of elder. There are some who make the further distinction of saying that the office of "Senior Pastor" is equivalent to an elder.

2) So are we saying that women cannot be elders?

3) Or are we saying that woman cannot have the spiritual gift of pastoring?

4) Or are we saying that women do not have biblical authority to teach? (Notice I didn't say preach, because I don't find much distinction between preaching and teaching. If you give any sort of exhortation in your teaching, then you are preaching, regardless of the level of emotion involved the presentation.

5) Are spiritual gifts gender specific?

6) If woman can have the spiritual gift of teaching/preaching, how is this then “regulated”?

7) If a woman is not desiring to be an elder, but only to preach and is not allowed is this sexism?

Let the games begin...

TV Addiction

Opaque and I engaged in a fairly animated discussion on the pros and cons of TV watching. I took up the position that TV watching is okay when done in moderation (as most things that are amoral are such as eating junk food, playing sports video games, washing your car, etc.). Apparently, he's been on a four month TV diet and is really seeing how much of a time waste TV watching is for him. I, on the other hand, do not feel that I have a bad habit when it comes to ingesting boob tube. Getting a DVR about midway through football season last fall completely helped me better manage my TV watching. I use the DVR to record my favorite shows such PTI, the Boondocks, The Wire, and any sporting events I'm interested in watching. I have actually found that I spend less time idly surfing channels because I have specific, tried and true, programs on my DVR that I can turn to when I can't find anything of interest on "live" TV. I've never been a big renter of DVDs, so I guess I think I've convinced myself that I don't have a problem watching too much TV. Now, I do have other ways of wasting time, but at least it's not in front of the "idiot box".

Sacrilege or just good old fashion capitalism?

Is there a line where marketing or a TV show crosses into the realm of sacrilege? I was flipping between several TV shows and landed on an old Good Times episode where Fishbone the Wino was mistakenly thought to be dead and attended his own funeral dressed as a woman. When it was discovered that Fishbone was not dead, Willona, JJ and other cast members began clapping, jumping, and singing about Fishbone in a manner obviously parodying stereotypical black church exuberance (notice I didn't call it worship...that's a completely separate topic) in celebration of Fishbone not being dead. Was this sacrilege?

The second thing I came across to today was this post about the Christian imagery and themes used to promote LeBron James. Is Nike simply consistently using a transcendental motif to market and uplift "King James" to the rare, crossover, iconic status of M.J. and Tiger Woods? Or is it taking it over the line and prostituting Christian imagery and text for profit? Is Nike wrong for trying to do so? Or is this reflective of the ends that the producers capitalism will go in order to feed itself. Can Christians be upset at this infringement of their religion by capitalism when capitalism seems to be welcomed by Christians when people purchase their books, buy their sermons, attend their conferences, and watch their movies? There have been times in the history of Christianity where it has co-oped something pagan and made it Christian (Christmas and Halloween are two examples of such actions). Since Christianity has shown a willingness to lift from that which is pagan, sanitize it, and make it their own, how much of a problem should Christians have when the reverse happens?

My boy is planting a church in the A-T-L

Motivation for not settling for the 9-to-5

I am graduating this spring and I don't necessarily want to go back to the 9 to 5 grind. Of course I'm conflicted given my familial/financial obligations, but I think I'm headed toward one of those crossroad moments where if I decided to get a conventional job, then I don't know when I'll have another opportunity to get outside of the box. This guy provides me with some affirmation that I can go the unconventional route, but still be okay.

Thoughts on the 2008 NBA Slam Dunk Competition

Here are a few thoughts I had as I reflect on one of the greatest dunk competitions EVER!!!!

• Only somebody over 6-9 with long arms and at least a 35 inch vertical could even attempt Dwight Howard's behind the backboard dunk. Nate Robinson (5'8") could elevate high enough, but his arms would be too short to reach around the backboard to do so. Nate maybe could do it if he was dunking on a goal that had only a small section of the backboard hanging below the rim.
  
• Gerald Green is a victim of the Steve Francis/Tracy McGrady syndrome (having a great, normally contest winning dunking performance, but being unfortunately in a contest with a pantheon dunk competition performance a la Vince Carter).
  
• Gerald Green blowing out the candle has to be in the top 10 of dunk competition of dunks. Not only did he demonstrate creativity, but also the skill to jump high enough (its difficult to blow out a candle that is higher than your head), AND the ability in mid air to change his brain from focusing on catching the ball off the bounce while jumping, to blowing out the candle, to dunking a basketball with TWO hands - ALL without knocking the candle down or hitting is head/mouth on the rim. Impressive.
  
• TNT had bad live camera angles on both the Green candle dunk and the Howard tip-it-off-the-glass-off-the-bounce-with-one-hand-and-dunk-it-with-the-other-hand dunk. I could here Green expel air from the rim being miked, but it was only when I heard Kenny Smith's jumping around about how he blew out the candle, did I get the full effect of what happened. Also, on the Howard dunk, on the live feed I was not quite sure why Kenny Smith was talking about his leaving the building and all because of what he had just seen. It wasn't until after I saw the reply that I began flopping on my bed like a fish because I couldn't believe Howard did that dunk. I think the judges should have the benefit of replay before they give their scores because the difficulty and unrealness (yes, I'm making up a word) of some dunks can't really be appreciated until they are seen in slow motion or from different angles. For example, a guy jumping from the free throw line looks impressive initially until you get an idea of where he took off from. If he took off from in front of the free throw line, it should not be considered as high of a score as if he took off from behind the free throw line. Or take Vince Carter's arm in the rim dunk -immediately after he did the dunk the crowd was quiet, but they showed the replay and the place went nuts.
  
• Why is Dikembe Mutombo always somebody the camera focuses on for post-dunk reaction shots? Here he is in 2000 (see 3:01), 2001 (see 1:06), 2002 (see 0:13), 2003 (briefly see 1:04), 2008 before the Superman dunk (see 0:02) and after (see 1:13).

Over analysis of the Shaq trade

It's only been 3 games into the Shaq experiment with the Suns and I have found the over analysis of the trade up to this point whimsical . After the first game against the Lakers, a Suns loss, there were favorable reviews. After the second game, a win against the Celtics, Shaq's 14 rebounds was lauded as the reason why he was brought to the Suns. After the third game, a blowout loss to my beloved Pistons, I heard a TV talking head say Shaq has turned the Suns into the Heat. Here are the facts - the Suns have played 3 of the best teams in the NBA and with or without that trade, they quite possibly would have had a 1-2 record in this stretch. Shaq just played in his 3rd game since Jan 21, he is in a completely different offensive system, and he wasn't brought in to help the Suns win regular season games where they consistently ran at a high tempo. The Suns traded for him in order to give themselves a fighting chance against other Western Conference foes with strong inside presences (Lakers, Spurs, Jazz, Houston) in the playoffs, when the game tends to be played more in the half court. To me, analysis this early is pointless because of a) lack of data and b) the period to analyze this trade is the playoffs, not the regular season.

The Oscars

Not a big fan of the show, but it was what the wife had the TV on, so I endured some of it. The part that I saw included the montage of the people who died since the previous show. As I watched not only actors and directors, but sound guys and executives included in the montage, it made me wonder how one gets included in the In Memoriam piece. Did they have to participate in x number of movies? Did they have to have been in a Oscar nominated movie? I'm sure several sound guys died over the course of the year, so how did Peter T. Handford make it into the montage? Here's the answer...