Victims and Sandusky, not JoePa, are what matter

I hate writing about popular stories.

And I can pinpoint exactly why. Usually they're overhyped and overblown, sensationalist arguments engendered so that talking heads may fill the 10 AM hour with impassioned diatribes about the higher calling of sport and humanity. Radio hosts, bloggers, and ESPN-watchers work themselves into a lather, spouting righteousness while losing sight of what the heck the issue was in the first place.

Contrary to popular belief, the Penn State Scandal is NOT about Joe Paterno.

The Penn State Scandal is about eight (or more) victimized young boys and one sick, sad... (for lack of a better word) fuck.

These are eight victims who will live with their abused adolescence for the rest of their lives. Likely inexorably scarred, they have lived with the personal shame and embarrassment for years. Now they will face an (almost? I don't even know) equally difficult task - living with the public humiliation and unending association to such a horrific act. Is that really what's best for them?

We are all disgusted that such despicable acts took place. But we don't live with it. We haven't had to cope with it the past 9+ years. Their well-being, and the well-being of all victims of child sexual abuse, is most important. That's what really matters here. I wish a greater emphasis was placed on the welfare of these, and all, victims. That is where the true attention should be.

Having read the grand jury testimony, Jerry Sandusky is a sick, sick man. Absolutely, no one -- not Paterno, or campus police, or Spanier -- should've turned a blind eye. I can't argue with that. But can we get back to the real culprit here? Sandusky's acts should shed light on the greater issue of pedophilia, and that is the other prominent issue that we should be concentrating on.

I believe that characters like Sandusky, and other abusers in general, are much more prevalent than we know of. I've probably watched too much Law & Order SVU (okay, I definitely have), so I'm somewhat desensitized to Sandusky's actions, but emphasis should be placed on pinpointing and stopping these predators.

I love sports. This is not a sports story. This is a story about humanity, and all the shades of grey from innocence to evil. It is, as some talking heads have correctly pointed out, a struggle between doing what is easy and doing what is right.

Lastly, short thoughts on JoePa. Joe Paterno was fired. Rightfully or not, it will tarnish his legacy. I don't know the man, but from all accounts he was an inspirational and decent individual. It shouldn't discount the people's lives he touched, not the Penn State diehards who live and breathe Nittany Lion football, but the players, coaches, and people that he influenced as a decent and influential human being. No one can take that away, and it shouldn't be forgotten.

JoePa probably should've blown the whistle. Then again, we're righteous from afar. None of us know what it's like to have a 40+ year legacy on the line. I, like the rest of us, remain very convinced that I would've reported this. It's too sickening and transcends the decency of humanity to turn a blind eye. But I haven't walked in those shoes and I don't know all the circusmtances.

I don't know.

The Engima of LeBron James

LeBron James is an enigma. Not the carefully constructed Tiger Woods puzzle, where we are force-fed a specific public image and shrouded from his real life. No, LeBron is a paradox - an egotistical megastar, a self-absorbed, alpha male whose greatest basketball skill is sharing in a sport where individual dominance reigns supreme. He is the ultimate alpha dog. Yet while he preens and flexes and struts like other NBA stars, his most valuable attribute is creating for others and elevating the play of others around him.

He is narcissistic. I don't think anyone can argue that. Anyone who has been bludgeoned repeatedly for the past two years, and in particular at an intensified 24/7 over the last two weeks, about LeBron's gut-wrenching "decision," can attest to the absurdity of his self-absorption to near-Favreian levels. There is no need to build hype for three years, to call an ESPN press conference, etc. for a free agent decision. There is no doubt that this man craves the spotlight. It is all about him.

Yet he will get blasted for being unable to handle the spotlight. He will be criticized because many believe he should stay in Cleveland, go to Chicago or New York, and build his legacy on his own. His teams, his titles. Instead of being the undisputed leader, who has the ball in his hands for the last possession, LeBron will share the glory and limelight with Dwayne Wade, and even Chris Bosh. Undoubtedly, since he is no longer THE man, his perceived legacy will be tarnished because of the inability to compare him on a scale with greats like Michael Jordan and even Kobe Bryant.

But isn't that being hypocritical here? We criticize athletes for their egos, for their thirst for cash over rings, for their quest for individual glory. Isn't it refreshing to find someone committed to winning? Who has built his entire career on the pretense of being the undisputed man, yet is clearly willing to sacrifice his reputation for the best opportunity to win a title.

I've always thought that if I were a professional athlete, I'd be willing to take a pay cut if it would better my team's chances of acquiring other players to help us win. You're making millions of dollars anyway, what's the harm in leaving a few bucks on the table? But the truth is that most athletes aren't willing to make that sacrifice. LeBron is willing to make that sacrifice here (granted, he makes his real green from endorsement deals).

Is he ducking the spotlight? Copping out because he can't do it alone? Maybe. He understands that he can't do it alone, because he has tried repeatedly and failed repeatedly. But there shouldn't be shame in his decision. For a man who cares so much about his legacy, he ultimately did put winning above his image with this decision. And for that, I can't help but respect his choice.

For the record, LeBron doesn't owe Cleveland anything. The disgusting lack of grace that owner Dan Gilbert displayed is utterly classless and pathetic. Yes, he could have handled the situation better. No need to crush your hometown and show little public remorse for it. But remember that this story has always been about him, and not about the city of Cleveland.

So what now? The real truth is that we focus on the glamor stats, like points, and glamor moments, like who takes the last shot. But that's not necessarily what LeBron is best at. Yes, he's better than 99% of the league and thus can shoulder those responsibilities, but that's not what fits his skill set the best. Basketball is a team game. There is a right decision and a wrong decision, and the right decision isn't always shooting the ball (ahem, Kobe). LeBron has always understood that, but as Donyell Marshall can tell you, hasn't always had the supporting cast to do so. He is now in a situation where his talents should shine. Take a step away from the Jordan comparisons, because like Mike he clearly ain't, but with an apology to the bullied adolescents out there, LeBron is special in his own way.

The bottom line is that the pressure is square on his shoulders. No more excuses, it's time to deliver titles. Enough waxing poetic, time to resume yearly inane summer sports drama (ahem, Brett Favre).

Wooden

John Wooden always reminded me of Yoda. Maybe it was his wrinkly skin. Or his frail stature. Or the way he made every famous saying sound infinitely wise. At any rate, while I knew he someday must pass, there was little doubt that his wisdom would echo eternally.

In sports, the bottom line is that you have to win. And John Wooden won, and won, and won. He won with small teams dominated by spectacular guard play and magnificently orchestrated full-court presses. He won with big teams dominated by two of the most magnificent centers college basketball has ever witnessed. He captured an NCAA-record 10 national championships. His Bruins once won 88 consecutive games. He was, for several decades, the face of college basketball. He goes down in history as the most successful collegiate coach in history.

But despite all the records and wins, when I think of John Wooden, winning never comes to mind. I think of the teacher, not the coach, concerned with his players’ holistic development as well-rounded individuals, not just basketball players. I think of the dedicated husband, writing a letter to his beloved, deceased wife every month. I think of the classy, graceful humanitarian, true to his roots and principles, completely secure in his being.

I dislike making blanket statements. The ones that contain “greatest” or “all-time” or… “greatest of all-time.” I find it reckless making such absolute, declarative statements. But for John Wooden, one can safely argue that he is the greatest collegiate coach of all-time. And yet, while I suspect Wooden would be proud of such a title, I also think he would rather be described otherwise.

I never had the chance to meet John Wooden. I wasn’t alive to follow his basketball teams. I don’t know what he was like when he was younger. My recollections of Wooden are of just a few years in the twilight of his storied life. But based on these years, if I had to pick one word to describe Wooden, I wouldn’t pick humble or successful or modest or prepared or wise or wizard, even though he was all these traits and more. I’d say he was sharp.

John Wooden seemed like someone who knew you better than you knew yourself. He seemed like someone you could relate to, would WANT to relate to, no matter your background. Who could simultaneously identify with you and also enlighten you. The world, such a mystery and challenge to most of us, was clear and lucid to him. And I don’t say that because he sold a bunch of books, or had a bunch of famous sayings, or experienced a bunch of success. I say that because he seemed to know EXACTLY where he fit in with the world, and he was completely comfortable with it. He knew his strengths, his wisdom, his influence. He also knew his weaknesses, his voids, his limitations. He was secure acknowledging both.

I always thought John Wooden should make it to 100 years old. I remember thinking this four years ago, when he was sharp and healthy and 96. I thought he was a lock. And then his health deteriorated, he took a nasty fall, and it wasn't a certainty. Life changes quickly. And then he was 99 and he gracefully departed.

I don't know why I felt like 100 was so appropriate for him. Maybe it's that UCLA Marketing "First to 100" campaign getting to me -- it would just be too fitting for the ultimate Bruin to hit that special age. For a man so numerically accomplished, 100 years would be the perfect capstone.

But John Wooden probably didn’t think the way I did. I'm sure he could have cared less about getting to 100, and I'm sure if you asked him, he'd probably say "it's the quality of those years lived, not the quantity of those years survived" or something equally Yoda-like. He knew, better than I, that his time had come. As an alum, I am so proud that John Wooden was a Bruin. But as humans, we are so lucky that John Wooden shared his wisdom with all of us.

Perfection

This should be a post about improbable perfection. When a decidedly mediocre pitcher, toiling in AAA a mere month ago, managed to string together 27 consecutive outs. We would revel in the magic of the moment, and how he managed to accomplish the feat, and how happy he must be, and where we were when it happened. Instead, while many stand on the soapbox and preach for change and call for Jim Joyce's head, the umpire who robbed Armando Galarraga of baseball immortality, I learned a little last night that made me remember why I love and appreciate sports so much.

Baseball can be a difficult sport to appreciate. It is just such a damn difficult sport, where a so-called successful hitter really does not succeed seven times out of ten. It is perhaps one of the most imperfect sports, a history rife with steroids and segregation. It is such a subtle sport – one hanging curveball can swing the outcome of an entire game. And most of all, it is a human sport. There are no clocks. Strike zones are arbitrary.

Perfection is so hard to achieve. 27 up, 27 down. No hits, no walks, no errors, no hit batsmen. Even the pitcher, who gets credit for his perfection, relies on his teammates for roughly 2/3 of the outs. In a game so often muddled by improbable events, there is such a clean beauty to perfection. And rightfully so. In almost 200,000 games played in major league history, there have been just 20 perfect games, somehow including two in the past four weeks. There are just so many places where perfection can go wrong that it takes a little bit of skill, a lot of luck, and yes, sometimes human factors to obtain it.

Perfect games are lost in the 3rd inning. They're lost in the 6th inning. They're lost in the 8th inning. Sometimes, rarely, they're lost in the 9th inning. Each time, we wonder "What if?" What if the umpire widened the zone a little bit for the 4th inning walk? What if the outfielder hustled for the ball in the 3rd that he would've chased down in the 8th? Usually, the "what if" game is illegitimate. The whole game plays out differently. But... what if the umpire didn't botch the call at 1st base with two outs in the 9th inning?

Sadly, unfortunately, Jim Joyce did blow that call at first base with two outs in the 9th inning of a perfect game. And while talking heads, bloggers, and analysts rip Joyce and jump on the opportunity to extol the virtues of instant replay, the truth is that it is sad. It is sad that in a game so driven by history and numbers, Armando Galarraga's name will not go into the books as the 21st pitcher to throw a perfect game. It is sad that a respected umpire, who has made the correct call so many times in a 22-year career, made a one-time blunder that will outweigh his largely successful career. It is sad, until you consider the bigger picture.

"Sports do not build character. They reveal it." - Coach John Wooden

I am reminded of Coach Wooden's (our thoughts and prayers are with Coach right now) famous saying. In that split second, when he knew Joyce made the wrong call, and his unbridled, uncensored emotions percolated, Armando Galarraga revealed his true character. And it was down-to-earth modesty and humanity. No ego. Galarraga could have put up a stink, and no one, I mean NO ONE, would have faulted him for it. He could've stomped his feet, thrown his cap, spat flecks of spittle, and no one would've blamed him. Maybe most of us would've done that. Maybe most of us DID do that, in our living rooms, when we saw that. But he didn't.

No, he smiled. Not even the sarcastic "You have got to be effing kidding me" smile (okay, maybe it was a little sarcastic), but the "Really? Well, I guess that's it then" smile. And after the game, it was more of the same. Fans phoned death threats and analysts berated the quality of umpiring. Some called it an absolute travesty. Yet Galarraga, robbed of what will likely be the greatest highlight of his professional career, did not take the bait. He continued to smile, albeit sadly, as if to say "well, that's life."

"Nobody's perfect."- Armando Galarraga

Oh, the irony in that statement. You see, on Tuesday night, Armando Galarraga was perfect. He faced 28 batters, and he and his teammates magically, improbably, earned 28 outs. But additionally, and in my opinion, more importantly, Galarraga handled his imperfect game perfectly. In an environment rife with me-first prima donnas outraged at perceived injustices and chest pounding successes, he handled it with such humility and grace that made it okay to idolize an athlete again.

We live in a sports world that sensationalizes, cares more about ripping down than building up. Everything is overexaggerated. Best ever, worst ever, all-time. LeBron = king, Kobe = amazing, Ben = bad, Tiger = adulturer. So why can't we appreciate a story like this? When a pitcher accomplishes great feats athletically, and shows even more impressive grace personally. When an umpire butchers a call, but swallows his pride, apologizes, and truly, truly feels sorry. When a crusty manager, obligated to argue, argues, but knows how badly the umpire feels and admits what we all already know: it is what it is.

I'm not trying to make Galarraga out to be a saint. Maybe he has done imperfect things in his past. All of us have. But I will say this: he has perspective. When Galarraga said "nobody's perfect," he reminded us that baseball is just a sport. It is just a game. But like the rest of life, nobody is perfect.

When I was younger, I used to have so much trouble picking a favorite sport. When it was Fall, I'd say it was football. When it was Spring, I'd say basketball. And when it was Summer, I'd say baseball. Eventually, I settled on baseball. The numbers, the history, the lore of the game all attract me in an unparalleled way. I am a numbers geek. Baseball is king.

But screw the numbers. Screw history. I honestly don't care whether or not Selig retroactively overturns the call. Last night, I realized that it doesn't matter which sport is my favorite. What I love, and what will get me every single time, are those little moments in sport that show humanity. For a passionate sports fan like myself, I often revel in those moments when you truly feel those emotions. Usually that translates the desire to win, accomplish, amaze. But it doesn't always have to be that way. Sometimes, the other gestures, the less glamorous ones -- forgiveness, humility, grace -- are the ones that make you realize that sports, while still just a game, really do reflect life.

Over and over again, I try to put myself in Armando Galarraga's shoes. Would I have kicked dirt on the base? Shoved my paw in his face? Screamed and yelled, pleading my case? I don't know what I would have done. But I do know that I would be proud to do what Galarraga did: forgive and smile.

Man-Crush? Man-Love.

Preface: I usually try to separate fantasy sports from the real sports world, but I just can't hold back on this one.

In fantasy baseball, it's quite common for an owner to develop a "man-crush" for his player. Corey Hart's out-of-nowhere studly 2007? Man-crush fodder. Ryan Braun's beastly mashing against left-handers? Man-crush worthy. Daniel Cabrera? Well, you get the picture...

I've never really been a huge fan of the word "crush." You see, a crush is often fleeting. It's ephemeral by nature; eventually, reality sets in, and the crush drifts away. You write it off with a good laugh and a fond memory, then move on.

But every once in a while, that crush blossoms into more. It blossoms into true love. And this, my friends, is where my story begins.

In 2006, a relatively little-known 2B broke into the league with the Texas Rangers. Ian Michael Kinsler assumed 2B, a position previously locked down by luminaries like Michael Young and Alfonso Soriano. Surely this unheralded 2B had a tenuous hold on the starting position, let alone dream to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the likes of the aforementioned perennial All-Stars.

Kinsler started modestly, but promisingly, delivering a solid average, and decent pop and speed. In the 11th round of the FFPDL fantasy league, at pick #176 overall, I decided the Pittsburgh Pirates had found their 2B of the future. Well, for 2007 anyway. Little did I know that these would become the roots of a franchise and the first date of our fast-growing romance.

2007 came and went promisingly, and I decided I wanted to lock Kinsler into a long-term deal. While the Chicago White Sox tried to pry him away, Kinsler took an extra year at a hometown discount to remain a Pirate. He had big plans for Pittsburgh.

Needless to say, the rest is history. Kinsler demolished pitching in 2008, leading all hitters before going down with another (3rd year in a row) season-ending injury. He has gotten off to an even more torrid start in 2009. Ian Kinsler has gone onto become the face of the organization, single-handedly carrying the squad with magical weeks.

So how do I know this is true love? Well, let me count the reasons.

You see, 2B happens to be one of my favorite positions. It rewards quick hands and good range. While it doesn't have the glamor of shortstop, it requires a decent amount of athleticism, though not height (always a good thing, for me). Additionally, I love coming over from 2B to cover 2nd on a double play. It requires an underrated amount of concentration to make the catch, sidestep the runner, and wing an off-balance throw to first.

There once was someone else. A Bruin. With power. He has gone onto become well-recognized as THE premier 2B in the game -- Chase Utley. Utley has power heretofore unseen by a 2B (excluding ones that fall while washing their trucks). Chase was a Bruin, and he sure is a stud, and I loved him for it.

Until this boy Ian Kinsler came along and stole my heart, which is saying something (dethroning a Bruin like Chase isn't easy). I don't love Kinsler for his surprising power. I love Ian Kinsler for his ability to hit gap shots. His ability to spray line drives all over the field. Singles, doubles, triples, homers. He doesn't care, he doesn't discriminate. He will rip it anywhere and everywhere. And when he wants to muscle up? He'll knock one out, and remind you that he's got the best power for a leadoff man in baseball not named Soriano or Sizemore.

And the speed! Oh, the speed. He may not be the fastest cat, but he's a basestealer. The type of guy that gets on base with a Texas leaguer, then steals 2nd and 3rd just because he can. The type who wreaks havoc on the basepaths for no good reason, but just to torment the pitcher. The type that says, "hey, good job, you held me to a single. But I'm still going to make it to 3rd before you finish with the next guy."

Kinsler plays with some flare. A little do-everything spirit. He's got some Jackie Robinson in him. You can call the college kid banging out hits in beer baseball Ian Kinsler, because he's just like the real man. Or Sizzler, if you forget how to say Kinsler.

But most of all, Ian Kinsler gets me. He understands me, knows when and what is important to me.

When the Giants blew a 4-2 lead to the Dodgers last week, Sizzler was there. He banged out 6 hits, good for 1.5 cycles. He rapped hits, scored runs, and stole a base. He knew how upset I was with the game of baseball, and wanted to remind me it could all be okay.

And what about the huge at-bat against Toronto, with a runner on third base and huge fantasy implications? With the chance to deal my AL counterpart (Jays) a victory, and hand division rival Cubs a body blow, Sizzler took Doc Halladay yard for a two-run bomb. The kind of bomb that made me laugh out loud in the car. The one that left me shaking my head and grinning like an idiot in rush hour traffic. That's what Sizzler does for me.

But perhaps the best measure is MY reaction to his struggles. After all, do I support him during his tough times? The answer is immeasurably yes. So Sizzler has gone 0/10 with 4 k's the last two days. Surprisingly... I'm not worried or upset about it. I know that my boy is going to be there for me, he's going to deliver when I most need him to. I can understand his struggles, and support him through the tough times. Ian Kinsler is my boy, and where he goes, the Pirates go.

The State of UCLA Basketball

Before we begin, let's preface this piece by saying it has been long overdue. So if we're covering some topics that would've been more relevant in November, not March, my apologies. It's time for a massive brain dump and reach that cathartic state of unleashing all the thoughts that have been fermenting for the past 5 months. Hopefully this will be done in an hour and I can go back to trying to figure out how to use a zero forcing equalizer or some BS like that.

It is mid-March at UCLA, which means two things. 1) It's finals week. 2) It's March Madness season, which naturally diverts all attention from finals and into the much more important task of basketball. So, without further ado, here is the state of UCLA basketball.

Here's a rough outline of where I'm g

Publish Post

oing with this.

1) 2008-2009 Bruins vs. the past three Final Four squads
2) Seniors
3) Which player we miss the most
4) Jrue Holiday
5) The future
6) HERE. NOW. UCLA
7) How far we will go in the NCAA tournament

Over the last five seasons, I've probably attended roughly 90-100 of our 176 games. Of the ones I haven't seen in person, I've managed to catch almost all the rest of them on TV. That's a lot of basketball.

But for the purpose of this discussion, we need to examine the 05-06, 06-07, and 07-08 squads. All three squads reached the Final Four. And even though none of the teams managed to win it all, we'd have to categorize all three seasons as resounding successes.

1. 2008-2009 vs. 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008

So what made those three Final Four teams so special? Defense. Defense, defense, defense. DEFENSE. Do you remember how ugly those games looked? How routinely the opposing team would spend 30 seconds dribbling around, swinging the ball frantically, before driving to the hoop and missing a layup? Or how a hard double team would trap a surprised big in the corner, forcing a turnover? That is what defined the Bruins three Final Fours. DEFENSE.

50-30. That was the final score of a game against Washington State. The Cougars (granted, in the Dick Bennett slowdown era) managed to score 30 points in 40 minutes. This year? They pumped in 82 points in 40 minutes. That was the extreme example, but it wasn't far from an everyday Bruin final score. When we beat Memphis in the Elite Eight? 50-45. LSU in the Final Four? 59-45. These final scores are ingrained my head.

My memories from the past five years aren't Josh Shipp threes, Darren Collison drives, or Alfred Aboya dunks (well okay, maybe the teabagging on NOAH). No, the fondest memories are Aboya hedging on a screen, forcing a 6' PG to go 15 feet laterally across the floor, away from the hoop, to get past Aboya. Or Luc Richard Mbah a Moute (we'll get to him more in a bit) frantically doubling in the post, forcing an errant pass and a subsequent Josh Shipp throwdown. Or Arron Afflalo throttling Ronald Steele, forcing an offline three and a Bruin victory.

That's the difference between the old Bruin teams and this one. No one is willing to get down and dirty. Where we used to have Lorenzo Mata playing enforcer by playing solid straight-up D, we now have Drew Gordon trying to swat everything into the seats (though he's doing an admirable job). Luc Richard Mbah a Moute used to snatch every board in sight, now we have Nikola Dragovic trying to bat everything in the air like it's an effin volleyball (we could easily have Diefenbach do that). Alfred Aboya used to take charges all day. Now... well, he still does. Some good things don't change.

This squad is, however, actually much more talented offensively. Ken Pomeroy is a college basketball statistics guru, rating teams on their offensive and defensive efficiencies, adjusting for pace (i.e. quick tempo teams like UNC and UW vs. slow teams like WSU) and strength of opponent. Take a look at our overall ratings (offense/defense/overall) from the past few years:

05-06: 28/3/3 (Loss to Florida in title game)
06-07: 23/2/6 (Loss to Florida in Final Four)
07-08: 7/3/3 (Loss to Memphis in Final Four)
08-09: 3/37/9 (TBD)

One of these is not like the others, one of these doesn't belong... so whereas our offense (despite popular belief) is actually relatively strong, our defense has been decidedly subpar. And although many think that our inside presence is lacking offensively, do remember that we made Final Fours with offensive luminaries like Lorenzo Mata and Ryan Hollins starting down low.

So there is quantifiable evidence that shows that this 08-09 squad is missing defense (and rebounding too, but that's a whole other story). What about something a little less easy to quantify?

Heart. Try quantifying that. Tough, isn't it? It's not that this Bruin squad doesn't have heart, it's just that it's selective when it decides to show it. The 05-06 squad had a leader. Jordan Farmar. Whether he was a douche or not is another story, but that was Farmar's squad, and he wasn't afraid to tell you if you were messing up. 06-07? Arron Afflalo. He was the heart, the soul, and he made sure no one slacked. Last year? Well, to be quite frank, I am of the belief that there was no heart. I think we were just that good to get away with it. Kevin Love was mighty talented, Russell Westbrook flew high, and I think we got by on pure talent. Which is a perfect segue to...

2. Seniors

But this team ISN'T that talented (not yet, anyway). So naturally the leadership should fall on the mantle of our three seniors (which, oddly, is the first time we've had real seniors since Cedric Bozeman, Ryan Hollins, and THE BIG PLAY MICHAEL FEY). Unfortunately, I don't believe any of them (save one, MAYBE) have the balls in them.

I absolutely adore Alfred Aboya. I think he's a fantastic example of what a student-athlete should be. He's hard-working and intelligent. He's done more with a UCLA education (graduate school) than many do without the burdens of playing basketball. By all accounts he's humorous and dedicated, to the extent that you feel that if Ben Howland ever had a teacher's pet (it'd never happen), it'd be Alfred Aboya.

Somehow, Aboya learned not to foul every three minutes, still takes charges, developed an 18-footer, and I still think that his ability to hedge on screens is one of the most beautiful defensive feats I have ever seen (you show me another 6'9 245 pounder not named LeBron that can move that). Yes, he takes silly shots, no, he can't pass worth a lick, but if you saw what he was three years ago, hell, even one year ago, you can't help but beam.

Josh Shipp? Too cool for school. Only Josh can stare someone down with a throwdown, yet manage to miss a gimme layup (WSU) or get rejected by the rim. Still, he has played with a spark the past month. He's a completely different (and better) player when he decides to go to the hoop.

Praise aside, neither of these two is a leader in the traditional sense. Neither has the fire to refuse to let us lose. Useful players no doubt; killers? Not quite.

Ah, and then, there was one. Darren Collison. If we go anywhere this postseason, it undoubtedly will be on DC's back. He's the only one on this squad (at this time) with the game and the talk to make it happen. And I'd be more in his corner, if I hadn't seen him get smoked by Derrick Rose and Taurean Green the past few years. He's experienced, he has the talent, he has the fire. DC will have to be the man if this team reaches the level of the past three.

The seniors have really stepped up the past few weeks. We don't beat Cal and Stanford in the Bay Area that weekend without all three playing the games of their lives. But as the seniors go, so does the entire team. So if these Bruins are going to be dancing past the first weekend, they will all have to rise to a new level.

3. We miss ________ the most...

Some may say Kevin Love, for his scoring, rebounding, passing (he was pretty damn good). Others may say Russell Westbrook, perhaps the best Howland product to date. Me? I say Luc Richard Mbah a Moute.

Look, it's not that I don't appreciate Love or Russ. But we got to Final Fours without them. Hell, we went advanced further without them. But Luc? Luc is a different story. He was, in my mind, undoubtedly the backbone of all three of our teams. DC was a bit player in 05-06. Josh was injured. Aboya, while valuable, was in the shadows for all three. Take all the variables aside, all the players who came and moved on, and who's left? Luc Richard Mbah a Moute.

Moute got bagged on a lot the past few seasons. Unfairly, in my opinion. He was a revelation as a freshman. Blocking shots, rebounding, putbacks, he did it all. His game never really progressed, but really all that kept him from being a bonafide star was a consistent jumper. He guarded the best big man every game. He rebounded on BOTH ends of the floor. He cleaned the glass, and finished messy shots left by teammates. Best of all, he needed ZERO plays run for him to be effective.

Last year was really the breaking point. Love clogged the middle and hoarded boards, so it was time for Luc to drift to the outside and, well, miss. But that didn't diminish his contributions on the defensive end. He rotated superbly. He hedged, he blocked out, and he vacuumed rebounds everywhere.

We miss that. Have you watched Drago play defense? He rotates when he feels like it. He flops. He boxes out when he wants to. He would rather tap a loose ball to someone else than secure it with his own hands. Sure, he can shoot the three. And yes, he's a very talented player, and actually quite a useful one, better than I ever could have anticipated. But he's the exact opposite of Luc Richard Mbah a Moute. And Luc took us to three straight Final Fours.

4) Jrue Holiday

But alas, Luc has moved on. And been unexpectedly successful. A new era has come, and no one has produced quite as much controversy as #21, Jrue Holiday.

In case you've missed it, here's the spark notes version of Jrue Holiday's brief but controversial collegiate career:
Holiday is billed as the best UCLA guard recruit since Baron Davis --> makes a favorable first impression --> develops difficulty scoring, has one bad defensive outing --> message board posters and fans rip him and think we'd be better without him.

Jrue Holiday is the truth. Maybe not right now, but he WILL be the best guard Ben Howland has produced (except for maybe Russell Westbrook, who is such an athletic freak that who the heck knows will happen). But mark my words, Jrue Holiday will be a successful point guard.

You see, basketball is more about scoring points. It's about passing and sharing, rebounding and defending, anticipating loose balls, and playing help defense. And Jrue Holiday does everything. Ok, so his shot is pretty poor right now. He's obviously lost confidence from the perimeter. He isn't getting the calls when he drives to the hoop, and he's having trouble with his jumper. He's even played defensive without his usual sense of urgency at times. He also has a passive expression on his face and it never looks like he's trying.

But looks are deceiving. You can take the boisterous, overzealous player every time. You know, the one that beats his chest, screams at the sky, and stares down the opposing student section. I'll take the one that puts up and shuts up. Count Jrue as #2. Just because the game is easy for him doesn't mean that he doesn't care.

If you've watched #21, you've realized that he's the best passer Ben Howland has ever had. He makes the type of passes that leave you scratching his head. Do you realize how many turnovers Mike Fey would have this year? He'd be wandering aimlessly when a bullet pass hits him squarely in the paddles (hands) and lands out of bounds. I can't tell you how many times Holiday has made a pass this year that has left me shaking my head.

But that's not all. When in the proper frame of mind, Holiday is a jaguar, stalking around the court. You're not getting around him. He anticipates on help D, he LEADS the Bruins in blocks, and he rebounds like a 6'6 wing. He makes all the little plays that help his team win.

His offensive game obviously needs a little work. I didn't think his jumper was going to be great to begin with, but I'm more shocked at his inability to get to the rim and finish. His handle is good, but out of control at times. The talent is obviously there, but he feels uncomfortable.

And here's the reason why: he's not a shooting guard. He's a point guard. Holiday has played out of position. His natural inclination is to set up others for easy buckets, and get his own when necessary. That, unfortunately, is not the natural role of a 2-guard.

Even worse, DC and Shipp NEED the ball in their hands to be offensive contributors. Darren Collison would be a helluva 2-guard if he had the height, because he's not that great of a passer. Josh Shipp's game is either shoot the ball or... shoot the ball. Where does that leave Holiday? Letting the other two ISO.

Okay, so now what? Well, Jrue will have the opportunity to go pro this offseason and make lots of money as a lottery pick. Is he ready? No. He still has much to improve on offensively, and he could become a real force if he comes back.

But that's where the fan differs from the player. The REAL question is: should he go? And the answer is yes. He has lottery money waiting for him. It's not that he could get exposed and his offensive game will stagnate. It's that players work for the opportunity of making it to the league. When they have the chance, they should take it.

This is one of my biggest beefs with college sports fans. They love their players, but complain and whine and belittle them by saying they're not ready for the league. But if someone offered you $2-3 M after taking your last history final 1st year, would you take the money and run? It may never come back. Of course you would. Why is it any different?

The end goal of an aspiring NBA basketball player isn't to earn wins for UCLA. No, the goal is to make it to the NBA and have a financially successful career. That's what we're all doing, right? You didn't go to UCLA to raise its academic reputation. You went to get a degree to help your career in the future.

Anyway, the bottom line is that Jrue Holiday is legit. Anyone who says otherwise is foolish. Forget the hype, watch the player. And let the kid be.

5) The future

This point really boils to the other four freshmen.

We'll start with the stud... Malcolm Lee. He is going to end up similar to Russell Westbrook in terms of productivity and explosiveness. In limited minutes, he's proven to be an excellent rebounder for his size, a great defender, and energetic on the offensive end. You could actually tell Westbrook had offensive refinement in his first season, even with his struggles. I think Lee is a little behind where Russ was offensively, but is a much better rebounder. I'll bet Malcolm Lee becomes the next face of UCLA basketball.

Jerime Anderson has grown into a very solid, heady point guard. He probably will never reach the Collison/Farmar standard, but then again, I never thought DC would be this good either. At any rate, he's an impressive defender, a very underrated leaper, and a solid initiator. The Bruin PG spot will be in good hands for the next few years.

Drew Gordon is Mr. Energy, and I love it. I'm not sure he has the size needed to bang with the true bigs (but they're a dying breed anyway), but he certainly has the tenacity. Gordon obviously won't back down, and he's got a little cockiness to him. He will also replace Josh Shipp as the most-hated Bruin by opposing fans for the next 3 years. He also earns bonus points for elbowing Daniel Hackett in the face.

J'Mison Morgan. Well, who knows. Anyone who has anything definitive to say is either intimately involved with UCLA basketball or is blowing hot air, because BoBo has only played against scrubbies. Can't draw any conclusions there.

6) HERE. NOW. UCLA

Back to the present. What do we need to do to make a run in this tournament?

First and foremost, we need to care. We didn't care against USC. They absolutely deserved that win, and that's an extremely painful thing for me to say. But the Trojans earned it, they showed up and wanted it, while we were content to launch 3-pointers and give up rebounds and second chance points. Just because we're UCLA and have been to three straight Final Fours doesn't entitle us to anything. This is where I'm particularly disappointed in DC, and I'm not even talking about the SC game with his bum back. He is the leader, and he can't let us lose close games to ASUx2 and WSU (in particular). His quotes have obviously been indicating that all that matters is winning a national championship. Which is great and I appreciate that, but we've gotta get there first.

Secondly, we need to defend and rebound. We need to rotate, hedge, and box out. We need to grab loose balls and rebound, create steals for easy transition buckets (which is the most underrated part of UCLA basketball - the ability to create turnovers and score easy buckets). If we ever developed the defensive mentality of the past few squads, this could be our most successful team.

And that's the most befuddling part of this squad. It's quite obvious in our blowouts that this team has talent, particularly offensively. Drago and Roll give us legitimate 3-point shooters that we've never had before (Brian Morrison notwithstanding). DC is the best penetrator we've ever had. Holiday is the best passer of the Howland era. Shipp has been the best he's ever been in the past few weeks. We don't get a whole lot of O from down low, but we also made it to Final Fours with Ryan Hollins and Lorenzo Mata as our centers. As long as we attack the rim, we'll make up for a lack of inside presence.

Thirdly, and lastly, the seniors have to take us there. With all the hype surrounding the freshmen and the emergence of Drago, it's been easy to forget just how many games Josh Shipp, Darren Collison, and Alfred Aboya have won. It's their team, it's their time.

7) So how far do we go?

Well, this is a tough question, isn't it. VCU is a good team, enough to become a popular upset pick. But before everyone rides that bandwagon, realize that we are UCLA. We win games. We win lots of games, and we do it with heart. I honestly believe that if we want it badly enough, we are going to end up back in the Final Four.

The truth is that we've been spoiled by the last few seasons, where we breezed through everything. Fans have become frustrated, disillusioned with this season, which is understandable. But the road isn't always easy. It's how we stick with it that counts.

Okay, all the wishy-washy talk aside, is it a legitimate possibility to go far? The answer is a resounding yes. Check those Kenpom rankings again. We're #9 for a reason. We have the upside and potential to beat a lot of very good teams. That said, this #6 seed is a tough one to swallow, though we really didn't beat anybody good enough to convince the committee otherwise.

VCU has been hyped, but we are more talented and better. If UCLA comes out focused, talent should prevail. Villanova is a good team, but I honestly feel that we're better. Scottie Reynolds is a very good player and Dante Cunningham would provide our bigs a bit of a hard time. But we're not so shabby ourselves. The obvious pitfall there is the travel to Philly in Nova country, which will be extremely difficult, and not a fact to be taken lightly. But in the end, basketball is played on the court. Better teams win. Although I must admit, with this squad, road travel frightens me more than usual.

Beyond the first weekend, Duke is a very good team, but we can handle them. Pitt would be a real tough challenge, because Blair could eat us alive inside. But possible.

Anything is possible.

Fun Thoughts

I haven't written here in a while. And this isn't going to be in the traditional column format. But I have a lot to get off my chest, so without further ado, here goes...

Baseball

Aaron Rowand signs a 5 year, $60 million contract with the Giants

This is a solid baseball move by the Giants. No, Aaron Rowand isn’t worth 60 million; nor is he worth five guaranteed years. But in this age of inflated contracts, who is? Don’t expect Rowand to match last year’s impressive numbers – he was in a much more productive lineup (Rollins, Utley, Howard, and even Burrell would instantly become the Giants best hitter) and a bandbox of a ballpark (Citizens Bank is one of the best hitters’ parks in baseball). He’s not really a middle of the lineup anchor, and would be best suited in a complementary run-producing role, as opposed to the focal point of the offense.

But this Rowand signing makes sense for a lot of reasons. First, the Giants need a bat – they need to start somewhere, and they didn’t have to give up a young arm to acquire one (trading for the aging Hideki Matsui would have been a poor decision). Moreover, Rowand is a gritty, tough player, the exact type of player the Giants have lacked for the last several years. His maximum effort performance will set a good example for a Giants team transitioning to younger players over the next several seasons.

Lastly, and this may be the most overlooked factor when evaluating this decision, is his defensive impact. In a market where it is expensive to acquire big name hitters and nearly impossible to acquire quality pitching, defense is a cost-efficient way of improving a club. Omar Vizquel, Bengie Molina, and Aaron Rowand will anchor one of the best defenses up the middle. And with the subtraction of the beloved #25 in left field, Dave Roberts should be able to team with Rowand and Randy Winn to patrol the spacious outfield with ease. Winn, incidentally, has become the best defensive right fielder the Giants have had, with his ability to play the high wall effectively. If the Giants resign defensive whiz (whoda thunk it!) Pedro Feliz and give time to Kevin Frandsen over Ray Durham at second (the weakest defensive link on the team), this will be a very good defensive club.

Brian Sabean declines to trade Tim Lincecum for Alex Rios

Sometimes it's the moves you don't make. In a non-move tied to the signing of Rowand, Sabean made one of his best decisions in a while by declining the standing offer of Tim Lincecum for Alex Rios.

Rios is a very nice player, don’t get me wrong. He has the potential to be a perennial All-Star, and would instantly become the Giants’ best bat. He is also a very well-rounded player – an excellent defender with above average speed, solid plate discipline and decent power. He’s entering his peak offensive years, so I would expect some of those doubles to turn into home runs as he becomes a consistent 30-20 threat.

That said, I don’t think Rios is an impact anchor for the lineup. While he is a very good player and will likely continue to improve, his ceiling is much lower than Lincecum’s. Lincecum has the chance to become an impact ace in the league, and it’s difficult to trade away that type of potential. There are concerns about his size, durability, and unorthodox motion, but the bottom line is that the Giants have two starting pitchers (Cain and Lincecum) that other teams would die for. Because pitching is valued more than hitting, I think that the inclusion of Lincecum would only make sense if the Giants were getting a superstar in return (i.e. Hanley Ramirez).

Sabean did the right thing, in my opinion, by holding onto his big chip here. Lincecum’s value should only continue to rise (barring injury). I think that Sabean should continue to be open about listening to offers – if he has the opportunity to replenish the farm system with top prospects or acquire a superstar position player, he needs to listen. But selling Lincecum now, for Rios, would be both premature and conservative.

Dan Haren traded to Diamondbacks for six prospects

On the other side of the Bay, we have a GM who has always been ahead of the curve. Until now. The A’s, for the first time in nearly a decade, will not have a realistic shot at contending this season. Usually, Beane makes a move before the situation turns this dire, but injuries and circumstances have placed him behind the 8-ball.

I like the Haren trade, but I don’t think it’s a sure thing that it will pay off. When I heard about the Mulder trade (for Haren, Kiko Calero, and Daric Barton) – I was 95% sure it would swing in the A’s favor. I didn’t think Mulder would implode, but Barton looked like a future star, Calero was a solid addition, and I thought Haren would mature into a very good starter (Blanton-esque though, not the ace that he has become).

I’m not as excited about this trade. While Carlos Gonzalez, the headliner, is a top prospect, I’m not sure his hitting approach fits the A’s style. He’s much more of a free swinger. Still, it’s hard to pass up on one of the best prospects in baseball. I’m highly partial to Brett Anderson, as he’s a member of my minor league farm system in my Dynasty league, but he could turn into a potential Blanton type (good control, innings eater, smart pitcher). Dana Eveland has bounced around a little bit, and I don’t know a whole lot about the other prospects besides Chris Carter’s big-time power potential.

But I think the key here is the depth of the prospects the A’s received. When making a trade like this, it becomes important to obtain as many quality prospects as possible, and hope that a few of them pan out. It can be difficult to project minor leaguers, so it becomes important to acquire as many quality ones as possible, to improve the odds of success. Beane understands this concept well; it’s one that Brian Sabean has absolutely no clue about. Beane recognizes that the farm system has to stay well-stocked to provide consistent opportunities at success (for a small-market team anyway), whereas Sabean complains about his farm system, but doesn’t have the foresight or stomach to replenish it (by refusing to trade his big names).

The next step is to trade Joe Blanton. There is little reason to keep him around anymore. Likewise, if Rich Harden and/or Huston Street demonstrate good health, Beane could pull the trigger on these two as well. Acquiring young players with lots of potential (i.e. Matt Kemp) would be worth dealing away someone like Blanton.

Johan Santana trade proposals

First off, the Red Sox proposal is highly overrated. Jon Lester is a nice pitcher, but he’s nothing special (and not nearly as good as Hughes or Buchholz). Likewise with Jacoby Ellsbury – from his skill set and minor league production, I see his ceiling as a Kenny Lofton/Johnny Damon type. How exactly is that worth the best pitcher in baseball – especially when you’re only getting one of those two!

The Yankees offer is (in my opinion) better. Hughes has the potential to be an ace, Cabrera is serviceable, but it doesn’t look like there’s any depth in the other prospects being offered.

If I’m the Twins, I wait until May or June when some team is flipping out about its playoff chances, and pounce for a big package.

Miscellaneous

Steroid scandal

There’s really not much to say here, except that I’m shocked… that Bret Boone never tested positive for steroids. His home run totals absolutely blew up in a pitcher’s park for two seasons, then he dropped off the face of the earth. Plus he was about 5’9 with Marcus Giles-type power. How the hell did he not take steroids?

Other than that, the Mitchell Report really shouldn’t come as much of a shock. There were many players – both good and bad – who took steroids. To be honest, I derived a lot of pleasure from just reading a lot of names I hadn’t heard in a long time (Mike Lansing, Josias Manzanillo, etc.). It’s not that I don’t care who used steroids. But in my opinion, the entire concept of the game, and everyone’s stats were skewed by the widespread use. Both a “clean” player and a “dirty” player will be affected by the usage in the game.

However, before I completely disregard this report, I do recognize that there are two important points:

First, this is important for the public. Seeing that Alex Sanchez has taken steroids is not going to rock the world. But seeing roughly 90 players, both All-Stars and journeymen lefties, take steroids, highlights the rampant use of performance enhancing drugs. This will effect some change, for the better, in baseball.

Next, I loved seeing Roger Clemens in the report. Seriously, Roger Clemens has to be one of the five worst people in baseball. At least Barry Bonds shows up for work everyday. He may be disliked, but let’s see here. Clemens: 1) is hated as well and 2) doesn’t even show up until halfway through every season. Not only that, but he destroys the team chemistry by requesting his personal flights back to Houston, is a mercenary in the worst sense (goes from Boston to Toronto to New York to Houston to New York – all bad, bad cities), and gets paid roughly $1 million to throw 5 innings. Oh, and he used steroids too.

I think the major conclusion is that there was steroid era in baseball, and that all statistics were a byproduct of that culture. I don’t think anything should be asterisked, or that these actions should be completely held against certain players (Bonds, Clemens were Hall of Famers even before their steroid use). To asterisk or throw out statistics would be an injustice; would we do the same for statistics before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, or before the mound was lowered after Bob Gibson’s dominant season? Or the dead ball era in the early 20^th century, or the Black Sox cheating scandal? How about Pete Rose’s betting on baseball – surely that influenced some outcomes? Barry Bonds is a jerk, Ty Cobb was a blatant racist – do we judge those two the same?

The point is that the game of baseball has changed over time. There have been several “eras”; the steroid era is one of them. Records should not be changed, asterisks should not be given. It is simply a part of the history of the game.

Curt Schilling campaigning for John McClain

I hate this guy. Here’s what ticks me off about him.

1) I have to hear his opinion about subjects (politics) that I don’t want to hear his opinion about. He doesn’t have any specific credentials for what he’s saying; it’s only because he’s famous that he gets to be heard. Likewise, I would not want Dick Cheney analyzing the chances of the Kansas City Royals this year.

2) He’s self-serving. Everything has to be about him. Even when Mike Lowell, a decidedly solid individual, decided to resign with the Red Sox, Schilling made it a huge deal by lavishing his own spin on it.

3) He is a stupid businessman. Signed with Boston for well under what he could have gotten. 1 year, $8 million. Weight bonus clauses? C’mon. I respect that he gave Boston a hometown discount… except that he did it out of stupidity. They would have paid him more, if he wasn’t so egotistical as to represent himself. And Boston isn’t exactly hurting for cash… it’s not like the money saved is going somewhere else.

I feel like Schilling will run for office when his baseball career ends. I will never vote for him.

Shut up Curt.

College Football

Karl Dorrell firing

It was time. It was pretty apparent that UCLA would probably be mired in mediocrity, with the occasional good season thrown in. I think Dorrell did an adequate job, but the bottom line is that he simply wasn’t good enough to take the program to the next level. He had his positive moments, but you can’t go 6-6 with 20 returning starters, even with a plethora of injuries.

I think there were two major problems during the Dorrell era. First, he was unable (until the end of tenure, ironically) to attract top talent. I have always thought that the team simply didn’t have the talent to compete with the top programs. Second, he couldn’t keep his team focused to win important road games. Our road record was dismal, and we lost to teams that we should have beaten. That’s a no-no.

Dorrell did okay. Okay is not good enough at UCLA. He got blamed for much more than he should have, but the truth is that it’s difficult envisioning the Bruins becoming a national power under his leadership. His time had come.

UCLA head coaching search

I don’t really know what to think here. Chris Petersen would have been fun, but he doesn’t want to leave a growing, rabid fan base (Boise St.?) for a fickle, horrible fan base (UCLA). Mike Leach runs an interesting offense. As does June Jones. Both have head coaching experience; not sure how either would fit in with the UCLA climate. Steve Mariucci would be a great hire, but I’m not sure his priority would lie with the long-term health of the program (I still remember him bailing from Cal after one season).

Going to the more realistic candidates… Norm Chow would undoubtedly be a great schemer and very familiar with USC, but I’m not sure about his leadership and recruiting qualities. DeWayne Walker has done a great job with the defense, but would need a big time (Chow-like) coordinator to run the offense. Rick Neuheisel frankly comes in with too much baggage for my liking, and could potentially ruin the clean infrastructure Karl Dorrell built. John Harbaugh? Please.

Who knows – let’s just get it done.

Minority candidates

There’s been a lot of talk about the lack of minority coaches in college football. But, evaluating the UCLA coaching search, you can start to trace the origins of this trend. I don’t doubt that there are some racial undertones that play a significant role. However, consider the Bruins’ current search.

1) Alumni want a proven leader with head coaching experience.

2) There are very few minority candidates with any head coaching experience.

3) Thus, there are no minority candidates considered for the position.

Pretty easy to see why this vicious cycle keeps repeating.

College Basketball

UCLA Player Evaluation

This being the fourth year of my rabid watching of UCLA basketball, I think I’ve got a pretty good handle of the strengths and weakness of our players. First, the ones with a shot at the NBA.

Darren Collison - The All-American candidate and potential lottery pick makes us go. He's lightning quick, a force defensively, with excellent penetration and solid finishing skills. He's definitely gotten bigger and stronger, being able to take more contact on his finishes. DC is money from 3. The real question mark here is his that knee will hold up - if he's unable to regain his full explosion, we won't be nearly as effective.

Russell Westbrook - Russ has the most NBA potential of any player on our team. He is an athletic freak, with an improving jumper and an excellent mid-range game. Russ has a very nice hesitation move to create separation, can get to the basket at will, and is a natural scorer. Think a developing Gilbert Arenas (great finisher and athlete, big-time scorer, but inconsistent from 3... oh and #0). If he gets big minutes at the 2, he'd quickly become one of the nation's top scorers. Luckily, his point guard and distributing skills have improved immensely as well; when he stays under control as the lead guard, he can be effective at creating for others. The wing position allows him to be more explosive. Lastly, and most importantly for a defensive-minded UCLA squad, he has the ability to be a shutdown defender. Just ask Stephen Curry.

Josh Shipp - I'm not sure what to make of Josh. He's an excellent finisher, particularly in the lane, and is tough enough to take contact. He's a solid, if unspectacular, rebounder for his size, particularly on the offensive glass. He has a great nose for the ball, but can be a bit selfish at times and has questionable decision-making. Shipp is not very quick laterally, and I think he lacks the desire to compete on defense all the time. While his jumper from 3 has improved, he's still fairly streaky.

Luc Richard Mbah a Moute - Luc does the little things amazingly well; the ultimate glue guy. He's still struggling to gain some consistency on that jumper, and he disappears at stretches. I'm not really sure how his game translates to the NBA; he doesn't shoot well enough to be a 3, and he's not big enough for a 4. He does have excellent ball-handling skills and is a versatile passer. Luc doesn't need the ball to run through him to be effective, and he's an excellent defender with his length and agility. Personally, I feel he's much more effective as a 4 than a 3 in college. If he can knock down the jumper with consistency, he'll find a permanent home in the NBA.

Lorenzo Mata - Hey, it's a bit of a stretch. But conceivable. And who would have thought that a few years ago? He's great defensively, though too short to stick in the NBA. Takes charges well, rebounds actively and has pretty good ups. His offensive game is a work in progress, but his hook shot (sometimes, not always... sometimes) is remarkably reliable. The quintessential garbage man.

Kevin Love - I love his intensity. His passing skills are tremendous for a big man, and his outlet passes have been as good as advertised. Love has a very polished low post game, and can handle the ball and shoot it very well for a big man. That said, there are some glaring deficiencies that can keep him from reaching his full impact in the NBA. First, his defense is a bit of a problem. Love's lateral movement is a bit slow, and he falls for a variety of upfakes (to be expected of a freshman). He doesn't have very good jumping ability, particularly on the second time. He rebounds extremely well, but it is mostly a byproduct of his physical nature and good positioning. These are lethal qualities when used in conjunction with his outlet pass. But on the offensive end, he's going to need to learn to take it up strong and finish, as he gets swatted from behind a lot from his inability to elevate to the rim. He certainly has the acting skills down on foul calls.

And the rest ...

Alfred Aboya - Every team needs someone like Aboya. Someone to take charges, rebound, and physically pound the crap out of the other team's opposing big men. Do yourself a favor and watch Aboya do two things: 1) take charges, and 2) hedge on a screen. He is so unbelievably athletic and physical on the point guard coming off the pick, that I have never seen anyone defend so well defensively on that play. It is truly a joy to watch. Appreciate him.

Michael Roll - Mike Who? Oh, Mike Roll. A good shooter, his main problem is his release. It's a bit slow and keeps him from being a true gunner. Fans are way too hard on him, expecting him to shoot upwards of 50%, which simply isn't realistic. He's okay defensively, a good passer, and doesn't usually mess up. He's an efficient player, but won't be carrying the load on a given night. He'll benefit most from working on his midrange game - he's learned to bait the defender with an upfake on his 3, but hasn't been able to convert often on the resulting shorter jumper.

Nikola Dragovic - The Serbian gunner can't really defend worth a lick, but he sure loves to shoot those rainbows. We'll see how much time he gets...

Chace Stanback - I think Chace could be a nice player down the road. He has a good feel for the game, though, like most freshmen, he tends to press a bit. He seems to have good ballhandling skills, and adequate length to be a disruptive defender. His progression will definitely be linked to his in-game playing time.


James Keefe - Well, he's getting 8. Other than that, I'd like to see some improvement on that jumper. If he could step back and hit it, it would open up the floor for everyone else. He's got the Jordan Farmar hands up defense, which usually is code for "I can't really keep up with you off the dribble." In all seriousness, as long as he's active defensively and hits the glass, his offensive game will develop just fine.

That's all for now!

Basketball

Warriors run

Captain Jack is the heart... Monta can run for days... Big Al looks like a turtle... Croshere a white boy... Biedrins can shoot free throws?... Buke was a great find... Barnes does a little of everything... Mbenga/Bellinelli/O'Bryant/Wright/Hudson... and BA-RON IS KING.

Thanks Mully and Nellie.