very disappointed

2008 NBA Finals--My Take on How the Lakers Need to Play (assuming Stern will allow the refs to call

Part I:  The Synopsis
The Lakers now trail 3-2 going back to Boston...but they're playing like crap!  I have no idea what PJax is thinking on offense.  The Lakers's offense is great when they attack the lane by driving or swinging the ball w/quick passes; the offense sucks a nut when they try to settle for outside jumpers (no boxing out for rebounds following the bad/quick shots).  I mean it's one thing to drive and kick--quite another to just settle for outside jumpers.  Kobe's lost a lot of his athleticism--I get it--but that doesn't mean he shouldn't still be attacking the paint each time he has the ball.  Hell, even the old alien (Sam Cassell) is attacking the paint on occassion--don't tell me he's got more energy and athleticism than Mr. "Black Mamba" (note: sarcasm w/r/t nickname).  When Lamar gets the ball in the post on a smaller defender--it's been money (even if James Posey is hacking each and every time); when Kobe dumps off to Pau Gasol(who's also played like a soft piece of turd in the playoffs--el senor Gasol necesita que crecer algunos cajones grandes inmediatamente!) it usually brings about something positive, provided that he doesn't fumble it away; when Kobe attacks the rim--good things happen regularly!  So why for the love of Mike are the Lakers settling for the outside jumper--especially when they keep tossing up brick after brick?!?!?!?!?!?  If they want to hit the jumper, they need swing the ball first--their outside shots tend to fall more after a series of fast and precise passes.

As for the defense, granted it was never the Lakers' forte, but in the finals...oy vey!  The Lakers need to shut down at least one of the "Big 3" (shutting down two would be better) if they want to win a game.  Paul "the Faker" Pierce is currently killing the Lakers, but if they can limit the looks that KG and Ray Allen (aka the "False Messiah"--if you know to what movie I'm alluding, kudos to you) get, it'll be that much easier for them to pull out a W.  Let Rajon Rondo (or my fellow Golden Bear Leon "the Show" Powe) do some damage on the offensive end.  The Laker frontline needs to start putting bodies on any Celtic who tries to drive to the hoop--especially the Faker.  Vlad Radmanovic should just put hard fouls on the Faker everytime the Faker drives--instead of the touch fouls that don't do anything except give the Faker "And 1" opportunities; hell, he's getting into foul trouble anyway, so he might as well make his fouls count!  The Lakers have to stop playing a finesse game--it's the NBA Finals for crying out loud!--and start playing w/ganas.  It's good to see Chris Mihm back in the lineup, but he needs to stop jumping when he contests the Faker's shots in the lane and just take the charge; CM needs to realize that he's a big guy--he can take the hit.   

I've always liked Ronnie Turiaf's game, it's very high-energy and lunch-bucket; he's like Kurt Rambis on steroids!  That said, he also has to learn to rotate over on D w/o fouling.  On offense, he's been decent on the offensie boards (when he's in the lineup), but he needs to power his way to the hoop--even if it means wearing a Celtic defender or twon on his back like a bad green cape.  Ronnie isn't alone in this; all of the Laker big men need to heed the advice of Big Red--especially his son--and "Throw it down Big Guy!  Throw it down!" 

Part II:  The Fun Part! 
The Lakers backcourt needs to work on their outside stroke--but I'd like it more if they worked on attacking the lane.  Without defensive help, Rajon Rondo, Eddie House, Tony Allen, and the False Messiah cannot keep up with the Lakers' backcourt when they drive to the hoop.  The Lakers need to continue running high pick and rolls; this works especially well when there's another Laker big filling the void on the weakside low post.

("Please excuse the crudity of this model, I didn't have time to build it to scale or paint it.")

In this diagram, Pau starts the play by setting a pick for Kobe at the elbow/strongside top of key (1).  Next, Kobe drives his defender into the screen (2).  After Kobe drives, Pau drops down to the block on the strongside (3).  At this point, Kobe can run through his checklist of options.  First, Kobe can hit Pau as he rolls (A).  If the D collapses around Kobe or Pau, Lamar Odom cuts backdoor to the basket (4).  If Pau has the ball and the leprechauns converge around him, he can dish to LO across the paint (A-1).  Conversely, if  Kobe still has the ball he can hit a wide-open LO as he cuts backdoor--ideally for an alley-oop (B).  If the paint is covered in green, Kobe can swing the ball to Vlad for a short trey in the corner (C)--not preferred.  Alternatively, Kobe can hit DFish for an open three from behind the arc (D)--not preferred.  If Kobe is feeling it, he can also pop up for a 15' jumper--not preferred (E).  Of course if Kobe has a wide open lane after the pick set by Pau, he can attack the basket for a dunk instead of going w/the pick and roll (not shown).  Additionally, if Kobe hits Pau early on the roll (requires Pau to tax his abilities by doing a couple different things at once--running to the hoop and keeping his hands up and open ready to catch the ball) and the Celtics D converges around Pau, it can turn into a give and go w/Kobe slashing to the basket for a touch-pass alley-oop or Pau can touch-pass it over to LO on the backdoor cut (not shown).  Basically, by having Pau set the screen, the Lakers have a variety of ways to score--the best options of course have the Lakers finishing at the rim (best because they're higher percentage shots and the Lakers can get fouled on the way to the basket, thereby setting up a potential 3-pt play).  Additional wrinkles can be thrown in by running the pick and roll on the left side, having Vlad camped out in the left side corner or having the pick set a little lower--at the elbow--instead of just inside the arc. 

A similar play would be to start with a give and go between Kobe and DFish at the top, then having Pau run into position to set a blind pick on Kobe's man.  This should spring Kobe for an alley-oop (preferred) or a quick jumpshot at the free-throw line (not preferred). 

Note that just by having Pau change the angle of the pick a little bit and having Kobe hesitate a little bit w/the ball at the free-throw line, it can turn from the give and go to the pick and roll above.

In case you're wondering, yes, I'm happier if the Lakers force the Celtics into taking long-range jumpers instead of giving them easy layups at the rim.  If the Lakers defenders cannot stop the penetration, they need to make each foul count (play clean, but foul hard--think Magic on Isiah, not Kermit Washington on Rudy Tomjanovic/Kevin McHale on Kurt Rambis).  I guess I'm just too old-school; I think games are easier to win if you can score in the paint than if you have to bomb away from outside.  Incidentally, should the Celtics try to defend against the Lakers pick and roll, you've gotta keep in mind that LO is the Lakers' weakside cutter--he's got good handles and can get around anyone the Celtics try to throw in his way on the weakside rotation.  Hell, even Luc Walton could probably drive and score on the mismatch--if he takes the ball hard to the hole and listens to his dad.

When they're on D, the Lakers need better help rotation against the high pick and roll (ideally, the refs will start calling KG and the rest of the Celtics big men for holding the Lakers guards--but since it didn't happen in LA, you know it's not going to happen in Boston).  The weakside post defender needs to rotate over to the strongside and block the lane (watch out for lazy officiating, though--they seem to base "charging" calls solely on where the defender's feet are relative to the semi-circle).  The Celtics have been beating the Lakers w/the high Pick & Roll where the Faker is driving into the lane.  The Lakers' can stop this by having Kobe "match-up" on Rondo so that he can help defend inside.

The Pick and Roll that the Celtics run successfully starts w/the Faker w/the ball outside the arc on the strong side.  KG then moves from the low post to the high post at the elbow (1).  As the Faker drives, Vlad follows him into KG's pick on the strongside (D-1).  Pau then needs to step into the Faker's right to prevent him going baseline (D-2).  Kobe cuts off the Faker's lane to the left of KG (D-3), thereby preventing the Faker from going left into the lane.  LO should start from the low block and take a quick shuffle step into the key (D-4) to really cut off the Faker penetration access.  Of course, this will spring the Show to cut backdoor.  If he sees this, the Faker will probably try to feed the Show.  LO needs to then pivot slightly and shuffle quickly down to the block to pick off the pass or at the very least to contest the Show's shot.  Better yet, if he can get there before the Show, it'll force the Show to settle for an outside jumper or swing the ball back outside.  In the meantime, DFish should be sticking to the False Messiah like glue.  Later in the game, though, it'll be a combination of the False Messiah and James Posey, that being the case make the greenies resort to Flower Power.  Note that if the Show establishes position on the weakside block at the start of the play, LO should play smart D and deny the entry pass from the Faker instead of stepping up to help on the Faker.  If Boston's backcourt is comprised of the False Messiah and Eddie House, cover the False Messiah--unlike Vegas the House's odds are lower here.  Finally, I realize that this setup means that there will be a traffic jam at the right elbow--hopefully this will give the Lakers a chance to steal the ball from a frustrated Faker and lead to an easy fastbreak at the other end.

Historical Precedent for President?

Why is it that some people insist on voting for Senator Clinton because they want to see a woman president?  Why is it that some people insist on voting for Senator Obama because they want to see a president of African-descent?  I just don't get it; why should it matter that our president would be the "first"?  Is it because they think that the experiences of the two senators would make them better presidents somehow?  Should Senator McCain win in the general election, he would be the first torture victim to become president (btw, George Washington holds the distinction as the first POW to serve become president), yet no one seems to want to trumpet this as historic.  Seriously, of what value is "historic precedent" in this regard?  The history of the world has included women leaders as well as leaders of African-descent. 

Queen Isabella of Spain (the lady who financed Christopher Columbus's journeys to the new world in 1492-1504) and Queen Elizabeth were arguably the most powerful women (heck, even the most powerful world leaders!) in their respective times and in their respective worlds.  Going back even further, Hathshepsut and Cleopatra also both served as Egypt's pharoah.  In recent times, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and Margaret Thatcher all reached the epitome of the respective political systems.  From this greater historical perspective, having Hillary Clinton serve as the first woman president would provide very little in terms of historical value. 

Similarly, up until last year, Kofi Annan served as the Secretary General of the United Nations.  Additionally, as Kofi Annan led the world in the UN, Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa.  Additionally, while the American colonies were unifying into the United States, Toussaint Louverture not only helped lead a successful revolution (in what is now modern day Haiti) but also helped ensure a stable economy afterwards.  Thus, even in the Western Hemisphere, Senator Obama would not be the first leader of African-descent to lead his people.  In the greater historical perspective, of course, this would not change, either.

Thus, instead of arguing that one candidate or the other should be president because of historical precedence strikes me as arbitrary and shortsighted.  Rather, I would contend that instead of choosing a president due to the perceived value of historical import, the voting public votes for a new leader that they think would best serve the interests of the country.  I ask that those (few) of my friends and family who read my blog vote for the candidate whom they believe will best be able to serve our country and guide it for the next four or eight years.  As many of you know, I believe the person best suited for this job is Senator Obama, not because of his parentage, but because of who he is and what he represents--hope, reform, and a government that works with the people and not against them.

yes, i support senator obama for president

hi everyone, i had intended for my next blog entry to be on my thailand trip during spring break (it was a total blas, btw), but i wanted to post a response of mine that i submitted to an article (and the comments that followed it) in the latimes online edition (posted here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/barack-obama-wi.html).  but have no fear, the spring break travelogue will still come out at some point--stay tuned.  anyway, my posting was in response to the contempt in which those who support senator obama have been held by many clinton and mccain supporters.  in some of the latest writings, we have been described as "college kids", "college-educated", "black", etc; while some of these descriptions are true, what galls me is that we are then declared not "regular" people in the same breath.  for my reply to this, please read below.  (please note, in my original submission to the comments page, i did not include citations for the quotes in my ultimate paragraph--i have inserted them in brackets in this posting.)

at what point did college students and college-educated folks change from "regular" people?  most of the college grads i know work in the "regular" world.  some are teachers, some are in construction, some are in the medical industry, some tend bars, some work in restaurants, some run small businesses, some are in industry, and some are serving their country in the military.  moreover, many of us who went to college also played with, learned with, prayed with, and grew up with the "regular" folks in "regular" towns.  does spending four or five years in the pursuit of a piece of paper somehow change all that?  moreover, isn't it elitist and patronizing to suggest that "regular" people are not college-educated?

those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s do believe in change.  for babyboomers, remember how you felt when jfk called upon you to "ask what you can do for your country"?  well, that's how we feel about barack obama's message of hope.  we see this as a chance to make positive changes to the system--a system that just about everyone agrees needs repair.  it's not that the system is completely broken or "bad", rather, like anything that's been running for awhile it'll need the occassional tune-up.  if your car's been running on the same oil for a while, it'll collect some soot, dust, and other particles that will reduce the responsiveness and the effectiveness of your engine.  similarly, having the same folks in office for a while will lead to a reduction in responsiveness and the effectiveness of our government due to bureaucratic inertia.  our generation believes that it's time for an oil change--that's all.

as for those who try to resort to personal attacks on senator obama or attack his wife or attack his relationship with reverend wright, do you really think that either hillary clinton or john mccain have entirely clean hands and are friends with only "pure" people?  while i could list the sins and the suspect associates of senators clinton and mccain (a quick google search turns up many hits), that would be playing into the old system of dirty politics that rely on division, partisanship, and mud-slinging.  since we're asking for reform of the current system, i'll move away from that and instead point out that much of the attacks against senator obama are based on false assertions and poor assumptions. 

just about everyone is familiar with the "barack obama is muslim" rumor.  ignoring for the fact that senator obama is actually a christian convert, would it really make a difference if senator obama is a muslim?  all of the american muslims that i have known throughout my life are still good people.  none of them believes the radical islamic rhetoric that spewed by al-qaeda and the other islamic ultraconservatives.  to equate an american muslim (for instance, kareem abdul-jabbar or muhammad ali) with muslim extremists in the middle east is stereotyping of the worst kind.  to allow such stereotyping to go unchecked would be like suggesting that all white high school kids are terrorists because eric harris and dylan klebold massacred their classmates at columbine; or that all young white men who like the outdoors are terrorists because timothy mcveigh and terry nichols blew up the alfred p. murrah building in oklahoma city; or that all white women must be bad mothers because andrea yates drowned her kids.  clearly such examples of stereotyping are flawed and lead to false conclusions.

as for the suggestions that because senator obama attended the same church for 20 years must mean that he espouses the same political beliefs as the reverend.  while he may have been persuaded by reverend wright to accept jesus christ as his personal lord and savior, this doesn't mean that he has come to accept reverend wright's worldviews.  senator obama has shown time and again that he is his own man who makes up his own mind.  for instance, instead of following the political herd, as a freshman senator, he voted against sending our troops into harms way in iraq.  this isn't to suggest that senator obama was not against saddam hussein's tyrannical regime, rather, as a man who has studied his history he understood that to open up a second front while we were still fighting al-qaeda in iraq was a flawed tactic (for other examples of two-front wars leading to military defeats.see Napoleon & Nazi Germany). 

but i digress, for those that find the beliefs of reverend wright to be sinful or anti-american and then attributing those sins and anti-american beliefs to senator obama would be similar to attributing the sins of the catholic priests who molested boys to the boys.  while some would argue that the flaw with this argument is that senator obama did not have to return to reverend wright's church once reverend wright made known his controversial views but the altar boys had to return to church because their religious beliefs told them that only through the catholic church could they be saved even though they disagreed with what their clergymen abusers did to them, for senator obama he also disagreed with reverend wright's controversial world views but returned to his church because he believed that reverend wright's spiritual views were valid.  in this regard, the sins of the father do not pass on to the parishioner.

for those of people who refuse to vote for senator obama because of the color of his skin, i'm not sure i could dissuade you from your beliefs.  i ask that you re-consider something that was written into one of our founding documents "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal" [(thomas jefferson, declaration of independence)].  or perhaps "four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" [(abraham lincoln, gettysburg address)] is more to your liking.  in any case, those of of who support senator obama are moving toward a nation where people "are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" [(dr. martin luther king, jr., "i have a dream" speech)].  we believe that as president, senator obama will lead us to that promised land, and "transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood" [(id.)]

It's weird, the more I'm confronted with non-believers, the stronger grows my faith.  Maybe it's part of my ornery and contrarian nature.  Maybe it's because my faith really is strong and cannot be shaken (at the very least, I hope this is true).  Maybe it's because I accept that there are things that have to be accepted on faith when it comes to religion and faith--after all, if you believe in something only because it has been proven to you after a rational analysis of the facts, then you believe not through faith but through facts.  Maybe it's because I want to believe that there is a greater being (at this point in my life, I don't think that it's even a desire to believe that there is a greater being who created everything--I just accept and expect that there is).  I'm not sure. 

In the final analysis, what I do believe is that Jesus was the Son of God, who came to the earth and took our sins upon himself, thereby washing us clean in his blood.  This was an act of God's grace and mercy to man.  Jesus, as the Son of God, was also his mouthpiece; we should honor his commandment as much (if not more than) those handed down to us through the previous prophets.  Namely, we should love one another as He loves us (John 13:34).

If Jesus loved us so much that he was willing to sacrifice His own life for our salvation, how can we treat each other any less?  How can we, as Christians, accept capital punishment?  Did Jesus not forgive the adulteress, though she was caught in the act of adultery?  (John 8:10-11)  Did Jesus not say "let he who has not sin cast the first stone"?  (John 8:7)  Was this not a clear indication of Jesus's love for us?  Can we love each other less than as was indicated by Jesus?  How can someone be both a Christian and proponent of capital punishment?  This I find hard to understand.

If Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven (Matthew 19:24), then why are there so many rich Christians and rich churches?  Shouldn't the rich "sell [their] possessions, and give to the poor"? (Matthew 19:21)  How can any Conservatives (who are against the redistributing their wealth to help out the poor) be Christians?  This I also find hard to understand.

Maybe I'm just dense.  Maybe I just expect too much.  I dunno.  In the end, what I do have is my faith.  My faith tells me to follow the Lord and adhere to his teachings.