Thoughts on LeBron not being in the dunk contest

Last night, while watching the All-Star game, I got so frustrated every time I saw LeBron James flying through the air to catch an oop from Wade or contort his body mid-air after jumping from a dead sprint, to reverse slam it, and monkey swing on the rim. As I'm watching this, all I can think of is "now why didn't dude enter the dunk contest?" The only legitimate reason a player can give me for not wanting to enter the dunk contest is fear of injury. I respect that. I understand that. A player's body, esp. their knees, ankles, and feet (crucial elements in jumping and landing from any dunk attempt) are how they eat, so I TOTALLY understand not wanting to injure yourself in non-essential activity like the dunk contest. HOWEVA, if you tell me that, yet turn around and do the EXACT SAME ACROBATICS in another non-essential activity like the All-Star game the VERY NEXT DAY, then I have a serious problem and must ask some tough questions. As a team owner I would have the same outrage if my star player got hurt dunking in a dunk contest that I would have if my star player got hurt dunking in an All-Star game. LeBron didn't approach the All-Star game in the same fashion as KG did. KG has a bad knee. KG shot jump shots yesterday. KG was not running around full speed trying to catch oops thrown up higher than the square on the backboard. KG played like someone who was concerned with not getting hurt. LeBron didn't. LeBron was "showin out"! I was impressed and I was disgusted. I'm like - "if you gonna show out, why not show out in the contest where you are judged and rewarded for showin out!". Since risk of injury OBVIOUSLY was not the issue, then I must ask, LeBron, are you afraid of losing the dunk contest? I tend to think that is the reason why dude didn't compete. Why else, after being totally unprovoked at last years All-Star game, would he say he would compete in the dunk contest in Dallas, and then back out? I've already established that risk of injury couldn't really be the reason. What I'm left to conclude is LeBron was afraid of losing the dunk contest, so he didn't compete. I can't really trip on him for having that feeling, because I had the same feeling in 8th grade. I won my school's spelling bee in 7th grade, but I was scared to lose my title in the 8th grade (esp. when I heard they had allowed 4th graders to enter the competition. I couldn't bear the potential shame of being eliminated before a 4th grader did, so I didn't compete). In hindsight, it was a punk move. I admit it. All I need for LeBron to do is admit it too. He's still my favorite NBA player, regardless. I am just a little disappointed. The All-Star weekend here in Dallas was ridiculous even without his participation in the dunk contest. If LeBron had of been in it, it would have just made the weekend legendary.

Is Muslim an ethnic distinction?

The headline reads, "Pope baptizes Italy's most prominent Muslim", but in the article it says,

Allam was born a Muslim in Egypt, but was educated by Catholics and says he has never been a practicing Muslim.

So how can one be born a Muslim? I understand how someone could be born a Jew, yet not be a believer in Judaism (there is a ethnic group called "Jews" and a belief system called "Judaism". I know that many of the Muslims in the Middle East are of Arab descent, but I was unaware that there is an ethnic group called Muslims. Where did they come from and where are they most prominently living now? It seem like a big deal that this guy, Magdi Allam, converted to Catholicism and was baptized by the pope on Easter weekend, but he says he has NEVER BEEN A PRACTICING MUSLIM. So why is he fearful of his life? If a person is born a "Muslim", yet don't practice Islam, is that considered Islamic apostasy? The only why I can grasp this at this point is if Muslims are an ethnic people group like the Hebrews where during the times of the Old Testament. In those days, being born a Jew meant that you were born into the family of Yahweh and any movements contrary to the Mosaic Law were considered apostasy. However, I feel fairly comfortable saying that for Jews under the Mosaic Law, not practicing the Mosaic Law as akin to apostasy. I don't think the apostasy flag went up only after Jew's began worshipping other gods, I think the apostasy flag was flying high at the point when the Hebrew ceased to practice the Law. Given this, I'm struggling to understand the dynamics in play with brother Allam. I do believe dude is in danger and that some Muslim people are mad at him. I'm just trying to understand why?!?!?!

This takes the "my daddy can beat up your daddy" thing to a whole other level...

Lil' Wayne is a Christian?

Just when you thought that you had the good guys and bad guys separated into their neat little categories, up jumps this statement by Lil Wayne to the crowd attending a recent concert in New Jersey:

Lil Wayne had three things to explain. No. 1, a religious confession: “I believe in God and his son, Jesus. Do you?” He interpreted the roar as an affirmative response. No. 2, a professional confession: He said he was nothing without the fans, adding, “Make some noise for what you created!” Noise was made. No. 3: Same as No. 2. More noise.

This is quite interesting. I'm not sure I could find many people who would list Weezy F. Baby (Lil' Wayne for the uninitiated) as one who will be in the number when the "saints go marchin' in". However, is it possible that he could be a Christian? Several question come to mind as I ponder this:

• What does he mean when he says he believes in God and his son Jesus? Does he believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, was crucified, died, buried and was raised to life? Does he place all of his hope and trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ as being the sufficient substitute for his own deserved punishment (namely eternal separation from God) and that his trust/hope/faith in the work of Christ is the thing that makes him acceptable to a pure, loving, and just God?


• How can one really know if another person is a "believer"? 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards, in his book Religious Affections, cautioned against making determinations about what a person believes based solely on external actions that seem to be "Christianly" (a new word that I just made up). It is true that you will know a tree by the fruit that it bears (cocoa trees don't produce mangos), but it is also true that God is the only one who truly knows our hearts and thus is supremely qualified to be the final judge. I'm not saying that Weezy is a believer, but I'm also not saying that he isn't...


• Are we even comfortable with the idea that Lil Wayne could be a brother in Christ? How gnarly would it be if we could know with certainty that dude is a Christian? Would you welcome him into your church all tattooed, sporting a wife beater and smelling like weed? For those who would welcome him, would you gravitate to him because of his celebrity and his uncanny ability to spit over anybody else's beat and make that song better than the original? Or would it be because he is someone who just like you realized that he needs redemption has found it at the feet of Jesus.

Lil' Wayne a believer???? hmmmmmmm......

Are there really new sins?

I didn't realize there was such a thing as new sins, but apparently there are:

Asked what he believed were today's "new sins," he told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul was the largely uncharted world of bioethics.

I think the Archbishop was asked a bad question. I don't think there are any new sins under the sun. Maybe there are just new ways for us to manifest sin in our given context. I do feel him on his caution about bioethics.

Are the Lakers better without Bynum?

As good as the Lakers were with Andrew Bynum in the lineup, I think they have been better with Gasol. AND I think it is possible that their best rotation is the one they have now. There is a mindset (proclaimed with much veracity by Stephen A. Smith) that when Bynum comes back, the Lakers will be even better and the favorites to come out of the Western Conference.

I must supply some caution to this way of thinking because addition of a good player does not always equate to a better team. The case study that gives me pause is the Phoenix Suns the year Amare Stoudemire came back from injury. Boris Diaw had been playing out of his mind including receiving the 2005-06 Most Improved Player of the Year. When Stoudemire came back the next year the team was good, but it did not necessarily improve. Diaw's production fell way off and has not been the same since (from 13-6-6 to now 8-4-4). Now, I know this example isn't a one-to-one correlation with the Lakers situation, but it is a cautionary tale. Maybe Bynum comes back and the Lakers cruise their way to Kobe's first Shaq-less championship, but I can see a scenario where the Lakers struggle to incorporate Bynum back into the mix. When Bynum returns: Gasol may not be as effective, Odom will have the potential to become even more nondescript than he at times is, and Kobe feeling the pressure to make good on the expectations that others place on the team (having such a potent line-up on paper) tries to do too much and ends up hurting the team.

Just a thought...

Update 3/17: I initially inked this to be posted over 2 weeks ago, but since then Mr. Gasol has sustained an ankle injury and it is showing how much the Lakers miss him in the middle.

Hate 'em now, Love 'em later

Today is the big day (for the Texans in the room). It's our turn to decide who we want. Is it gonna be Hilary or Obama? (on a side note: Republicans can take the day off because regardless of Huckabee's courage, the brother just isn't gonna make it.) The much anticipated primaries in Texas and Ohio are here and the Democratic Nomination may be on the line. I'm not a political guru and honestly I really don't care who wins the nomination because I don't like my choices either way. Hilary is a retread of Bill, except more annoying. And Obama looks great but his ideas are second in emptiness to Miss Teen South Carolina.

What I'm looking forward to is the loser speech. At some point in this whole fiasco we call politics the loser of the race will be forced to endorse the very person they have been attacking for months on end. If Hilary wins we will watch Obama gracefully "forget" that he has spent the last few months telling everyone that Hilary's ideas are old and ineffective and with the CHANGE banners still waving he will endorse the candidate who, at present, represents status quo. And if Obama wins Hilary will sing the praises of a man she currently derides as too inexperienced to run our nation.

But regardless of who wins today we are in for a great show. On the stage will be an actor ( see politician) and he/she will read the lines on the script with great emotion and zeal. And the audience (that's us) is expected to place their trust in a person whose opinions change with the wind.

So, in the words of the great Derek Webb, "You can trust the devil or a politician to be the devil or a politician but beyond that friends you best beware because at the Pentagon bar they're an inseparable pair. And as long as the lobbyists are payin' the bills we'll never have a Savior on Capitol Hill."

LeBron Inc.

He's not another dumb jock. It's crazy that a guy so young understands so much about the game (yes, it's a double entendre...every once and a while I like to flex my literary device swag).

Jay-Z and LeBron

Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo Sports wrote an intriguing article discussing the relationship between Jay-Z and LeBron. As I was reading it, the first thing that came to mind was the NBA rule against collusion and tampering, e.g. Owners and GMs can't talk publicly about their interest in players under contract with other teams. Apparently, even when Jay-Z, part owner of the Nets, spoke publicly about LeBron potentially coming the the Nets, the league didn't punish him. The second thing that came to mind was how fascinating and how statistically unlikely it is that a guy who grew up in the housing projects of Akron and a guy who grew up in the housing projects of Brooklyn could one day be collaborators with both operating huge media conglomerates. The third thing I thought about was how cool it was that two guys who "made it" through the conduit of entertainment (read: playing sports and rapping) have translated their on court and on mike skills into successful business ventures. So many young people see playing ball or rappin' as their only way out of their 'hood. It is nice to see that 2 guys who are amongst the few who "make it" from their communities aren't content with the currency of fame and notoriety with somebody else receiving the bulk of the profits from their abilities. They both seem to understand how to exploit capitalism instead of being exploited by capitalism.

Politics ain't the only thing that makes strange bedfellows

I find it quite amusing that Bob Knight, one of the most polarizing coaches in the sports media landscape, is now going to do a stint with the worldwide leader. I vividly remember the interview of Bob Knight by Jeremy Schaap where he punked Jeremey by saying he had a long way to go before he could measure up to his dad (the late, great Dick Schaap). I also have read articles from others in the ESPN family that have provided stinging analysis of Knight's character. And now is all forgiven? What happens when Bob Knight bumps into Pat Forde at the snack machine (hopefully the .com people office in the same building as the on-air talent)? I would love to see how some of the ESPN talent interact with Knight when he's up in Bristol. Do they stay away from him? Or do they glad hand and suck up to him? I guess there are at least two lessons here: 1)It's easy to critique someone from a distance, but do so with the understanding of one day that distance might shrink considerably and 2) politics ain't the only thing that makes strange bedfellows. Money is such a powerful motivator...capitalism - ya gotta love it!

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.

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).

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...