Here We Go Again

well, today's ABJ had cavs column's by both pluto and windhorst and both said things that they've said before and that i think are wrong. or at least misguided, at best.

let's start with the good reverend pluto's column. for some reason he devotes a great deal of his coulmn giving time to what can only be described as complete idiot "fans" who are bitchin' and moanin' about how LBJ is not as good as anthony and wade, blah, blah, blah...pluto even says this at one point, " Wade is a superior player at this stage of his career partly because he's three years older. He's a super talent and a mature guy, and he plays with superior talent around him. During the next 10 years, we will be talking about Wade vs. James much as we did Larry Bird vs. Magic Johnson. The fact that Wade is winning more and receiving better reviews should drive James to keep improving."

ok, where to start...first of all, in what way is wade a "superior player" to LBJ? is it because he has a ring and LBJ doesn't? if that's your only criteria for judging a player, fine but by that thinking i guess robert horry, who has like 7 rings or something, is a great player.

here's the FACTS: LBJ compares more than favorably to wade in almost every statistical category. except FT%, of course. wade shoots almost 82% there. they both avg. about 20 shots a game and wade shoots about 1% point higher than LBJ but both are right near 49% in FG%. LBJ averages about 2 more rebounds a game than wade; wade averages about 2 assists more than james. james is a much better 3-point shbooter at 34%, while wade shoots 24%. wade averages more turnovers a game as well.

and since we're talking about winning being the true measure of a player, the cavs have 5 more wins this year than the heat. and please don't come to me with the injury excuse. the cavs had a lot of injuries last year and james lead them to 50 wins.

this leads me to something i touched on briefly last time, which is the lack of criticism of wade for the fact that his team is stinking it up this year. he is the undisputed best player on his team, yet the injury excuse is used by national media people and he escapes any criticism. it's kinda baffling to me. could you imagine kobe or LBJ, for example, if they won a championship and the next year were below .500 at the all-star break? the mind boggles at all the column inches that would be devoted to them. yet, again, nary a mention of wade.

wade CANNOT be considered the best player in the league as long as shaq is on his team. period. the heat won the championship because shaq is a physical specimen (with hardly any actual basketball skills, btw) that no other team can match up well with. that combined with the most insane refereeing since the days of the "bad boys" championship run, allowed miami to steal that series. like kobe, i will judge wade after shaq retires. this is the only true way to compare people like kobe, wade and LBJ.

now we move on to my favorite line of bullshit from pluto and, i'm sorry to say, windhorst as well. both take time in their columns to bemoan our perceived lack of a point guard. pluto says "That said, the Cavs probably won't become an elite team until they find a point guard who really does control the offense. Rookie Daniel Gibson is more of a Steve Kerr/John Paxson-type guard." here we go again, indeed...where to begin? ok, first of all, how did it work out for paxson and kerr, hmm? how many rings do they have between them? like 8? gee, i think we'd take it if gibson ended up having a career like those fellas. how many rings did super-elite point guard john stockton have? what? none? but...well, ok how about 2-time MVP steve nash? also zero? how can this be??

well, for starters if we look at history, we find that since 1990, there has been one team who won the championship with an elite-type point guard; the pistons a couple of years ago. the rockets of the mid-90's and the spurs won with with pretty good point guards but their teams were defined by their interior play for sure.

meanwhile, the bulls and the lakers won mutiple titles with non-tradtional point guards. yes, i know they ran the triangle but ya know, they also had LBJ-type players in MJ and kobe. it seems to me that phil jackson has recognized that one needen't have an traditional point guard to win it all, while people like pluto and his ilk still think it's the 80's and that isiah and magic are the answer to winning in the nba.

against the heat the other day we saw how the cavs SHOULD play most of the time. LBJ, hughes and sasha on the floor at the same time. and don't gimme that shit about guarding "quick" 2-guards. i have no doubt LBJ and sahsa are capable of guarding them because i've SEEN them do it. and besides, i'd rather focus on the problems those players pose to the oppostion, rather than focus on what the oppostion might due to us. it's called creating mismatches and putting the pressure on the other team.

it wouldn't be a pluto column, of course, without another plea to get Z more touches. pluto really is priceless, isn't he? or should i say shameless? one day after Z shot 1-7 and got lifted for POLLARD because he wasn't guarding shaq either, pluto bemoans Z lack of minutes: "I'd like to see Ilgauskas play more. He's averaging nearly 12 points and 8.1 rebounds in only 27 minutes. He's slow, but his 7-foot-3 frame does help clog up the middle. You don't see many opposing centers throwing in 30 points on the Cavs." hahaha! yes, he seriously think's "clog(ging) up the middle" on a team full of greyhounds is a GOOD thing! jeebus, where do i start? isn't it clear to pluto that Z isn't getting more minutes because andy is almost ALWAYS more effective that him?? i swear, what will it take for pluto to wake up?

for some reason windhorst's column isn't online yet, so i can't give you his gibson quotes but i will address 'em when i can link 'em for ya. needless to say, he's down on the rook, per usual...