Neither the officials nor the announcers noticed that there were six players wearing red jerseys during the game’s final sequence. Here’s the video:

Had the officials noticed Lafayette’s extra player, the penalty would have been a technical foul. In nearly all forms of basketball today, playing with six players is illegal. But there was a time when 6-player basketball was common.

In 1892, one year after Dr. James Naismith invented basketball, Senda Berenson adapted the game for women and girls. Originally the women’s game involved nine players on a side, but it eventually settled on 6, which remained a standard for several decades.

In 6-on-6 women’s basketball, each team had three offensive players—forwards—who spent the entire game on one half of the court and three defensive players—guards—who spent the entire game on the other half of the court. One team’s guards would defend the other team’s forwards. No players were allowed to cross the half-court line.

A 6-on-6 game during the 1959-60 season between Iowa's Nevada and Ballard high schools. (From the "I Played 6 on 6 basketball in Iowa" Facebook page)

Beginning in the 1950s, states abandoned the 6-player game in favor of the traditional rules. By the 1970s 6-on-6 basketball had disappeared, except in Oklahoma and Iowa. Girls in those states continued playing with 6 players into the 1990s (1993 for Iowa and 1995 for Oklahoma).

In Iowa 6-on-6 high school girls basketball was a phenomenon and was far more popular than the boys game. The 6-player game moved much faster than traditional basketball and scores of girls high school games were often in the triple digits. Union-Whitten High School’s Denise Long averaged 62.8 points in the 1967-68 season and once scored 111 points in a single game. (The San Francisco Warriors drafted Long in the 13th round of the 1969 NBA Draft, but commissioner Walter Kennedy voided the pick.)

The CBS Morning News did a segment on 6-on-6 basketball in Iowa back in 1988:

And here’s footage from Iowa’s 1976 state championship game:

Current-day Dirk Nowitzki.

Every day Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

These three vintages possessed, in my opinion, the three most unstoppable moves in basketball history: Jordan’s turnaround; Dirk’s fadeaway; and Kareem’s sky hook.

Obviously, each of these players are among the greatest players that the NBA and basketball has ever seen.  Each player possessed certain qualities that made him special.  Yet the three players couldn’t be more different.

But interestingly enough, each player’s “Go-to” move shared something in common – it was taken from the area on the floor that is most neglected by basketball players of every age, talent level, and style:

The glorious land of midrange.

The Neglected Midrange Jump Shot

Now clearly, 99.99% of humans (or more) could never even dream of replicating the games of Jordan, Dirk, and Kareem.

But why is the midrange jump shot so neglected?

It is the only shot on the basketball floor that is UNGUARDABLE.

While watching the IU/NC State game last night (yes, it’s true…I DO occasionally watch the game that is played on a hardwood floor with ten foot baskets at the college level that some people refer to as “basketball”), I watched a young player named Victor Oladipo make two straight incredible moves to the basket…only to be denied at the rim on consecutive trips.

Image credit: Darron Cummings / AP  via Greenwich Time

Oladipo is a 6’5″ SG from Maryland.  He has crazy athleticism and can absolutely jump out of the gym.  His handle is pure, and he works hard on every play.

Midway through the second half, the Hoosiers swung the ball to him on the wing and he made a gorgeous move down the baseline for a wide open dunk.

Twice down the stretch, Tom Crean wisely drew Oladipo up an isolation with his man on the same wing.  Both times, Oladipo worked his man like a speed bag and dove into the lane.

Why was he able to get into the lane so easily (besides his crazy quickness)?  Because his defender, like all defenders, had to respect the long jumper.  After all, nothing can kill you more than 3-pointers in crunch time.  It didn’t matter that Oladipo was much quicker than his man; you have to contest shots from the outside.  This gave Oladipo the space he needed to easily get by the defender.

Once he got by his man, the defense had one goal: no layups.  His man basically turned around and sprinted towards the rim.  The help defense the rotates all the way over.

What did Oladipo do?  He played right into the defense’s hands.  Twice.

Both times, it ended poorly for IU.

But Oladipo is not alone.

Ignoring The Midrange Jumper Is “Dumb” Basketball

He, like all young players (and really 99% of basketball players in general) is enamored with two shots: the three and the dunk; the two shots that all defenses are 100% committed to stopping.

Look, I’m not one of these 60-year-old “basketball purists” that bemoans the lack of fundamentals in today’s game.  On the contrary, I love how far the game that I love has come.  But still, it bothers me.  It bothers me that so many basketball players choose to ignore such a seemingly obvious part of the game.

It bothers me when people play “dumb” basketball.

It bothers me when NBA haters criticize the pros for running so many isolation plays.  Nearly every basketball team at every level – high school, college, and the NBA – runs isolation plays for their best player when the game is on the line.

That means that when teams need a basket the most, they run isolation plays…meaning coaches on all levels agree that this is the BEST way to score.  All the NBA does is run the BEST WAY TO SCORE more often than they do in college.  That’s not selfish – it’s smart.

Ignoring the midrange jumper is just as dumb.

But what’s worse, is that not only is it ignored, it is often frowned upon.

I have heard countless coaches, analysts, and players call the midrange jumper the most worthless shot you could take.  They argue that it is almost as long as a three, only without the reward of the extra point.

What ridiculousness.

These people are ignoring half of the story – the half that is really the most important part:

YOU CAN’T GUARD THE MIDRANGE JUMPER!

We often ignore aspects of what we are uncomfortable with.  I had been a Sprint guy for seven years for the simple reason that “I had always used them for my cell phone.”  In order to defend my decision, I would simply say, “Hey, it’s the cheapest service by far.  That means it has to be the best, right?”

Then, two months ago, Verizon gave me a free phone and asked me to try it out for a few months. My new Droid Bionic has 4G speeds, which are awesome; but most importantly it has Verizon’s network.  For the first time in my life, I own a cell phone that has service nearly everywhere.

Sure, the same Verizon plan will cost me $10 more a month, but think about how often we use our phones.  Is it really worth saving a few bucks to have constant problems and dropped calls?  Of course not.

Verizon, count me in.

The Unguardable Midrange Jumper

Defenders will run at you 23 feet away from the basket.  If you get a step on them, they will backpedal all the way to the hoop.  No defender anywhere is thinking, “I’ve got to stop the 15-foot pull up.”

At the NCAA and NBA level, nearly every player on the floor can knock down an open shot.  I have seen Roy Hibbert make 20 straight three-pointers with nobody guarding him before a game.  The only reason any of these guys really miss is because of the great defense that is so often played.

But there is a shot that no defense can prepare for, and it goes completely neglected.

Think about the most unguardable offensive players in today’s NBA. Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Zach Randolph, Derrick Rose.  What do all of those guys have in common?  Say it with me…the midrange.

Ironically, Rose is the only real high-flyer of the bunch.  Not coincidentally, none of them is a fantastic three point shooter.

Conversely, think about all the great players that seem to have trouble scoring in crunch time.  LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard, Russell Westbrook, every three-point shooter not named Ray Allen.  What do they all have in common?  Say it with me…inconsistent midrange jumpers.

The message is clear, kids: learn to shoot the midrange jumper, and you shall become unguardable.  It opens up every other shot on the floor for you.

Victor Oladipo is not alone.  I really like his game.  I think that one day, he could be a great player.  But he needs to learn that midrange jumper.

High flyers are a dime a dozen these days.  So are three-point specialists.

The great ones know where the game is really won.

While I was never a big fan of the NBA, I feel for the fans who may now go through a single year without their favorite team and players play. I also assume that many of those fans are looking for some kind of alternative.

Sure, you could turn to college basketball, a close counterpart, but where’s the fun in that? There’s also the NFL, but I am guessing most of you guys watch that already.

So I am here to propose you to turn your eyes to the NHL.

The NHL is actually similar to the NBA. There are five guys on the ice for each team (excluding the goaltender), the game is very fast-paced, the insane goals are the equal of a crazy dunk, there’s 82 games in the season, and you’d even be able to relate with other NHL fans who went through a full year (2004-05) without hockey due to a lockout. We’d be glad to talk to you about how much it sucks.

What the NHL has over the NBA is the quality of their fans. No offense, but going to watch an NBA, even a Chicago Bulls game, was very boring. The game wasn’t boring. It was the fans. I saw no excitement whatsoever from them, which was very strange since there’s always something going on in those 48 minutes of play.

I like to think that the greatness of a live sporting event is determined not just by the game itself but also the people in the stands you share that experience with.

For some reason hockey brings out that craziness in people. Not the insane type, but the way they react to happenings of the game. I am lucky to be able to see and experience some of the greatest fans who take shelter at the “Madhouse on Madison,” but I have been to other arenas, such as St. Louis*,  and their fans (as you might guess) are ardent hockey fans who are eager and honest about the positives and negatives of their team

*I’ve never been to a better sports city than St. Louis. The fans there are the most respectable and die-hard fans I’ve ever seen.

So, while I am not trying to get you to completely ditch the NBA, I just want you to give a chance to the sport that has brought me happiness. I think, if you watch it with an open mind, you will fall in love with hockey and continue to watch it even after the NBA begins again.

Here are the raw numbers: 48 points, 6 rebounds, 4 assists, 4 blocks in 41 minutes. As impressive as those numbers are by themselves, they do not even begin to tell the story of just how close to perfect a basketball game Dirk played last night.

Here are the most impressive numbers: 12-15 from the field, 24-24 from the free throw line. Feel free to re-read those numbers a few times to ensure that they sink in.

As Bill Simmons tweeted: “48 points, 3 missed shots total (FG + FT). We need a stat like ‘points per miss’ to see if that’s a record for a 40+ point game.”

For the evening, Dirk’s “points per miss” (or PPM as we’ll refer to it henceforth) was 16. 16! 16 points for every missed shot. That is astounding, and it is a terrific way to appreciate what was one of the best single-night shooting performances on any level of basketball ever.

And as I went to bed last night, Simmons’ tweet had me thinking. Just how useful of a stat would PPM be? So I decided to get up this morning and investigate it a little further.

Image source: AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez via ESPN.com

Points Per Miss (PPM)

First off, let’s assess what we’d hope to ascertain by comparing players’ PPM values.

By analyzing the number of points a player is able to score for every shoot he misses, we are assessing one component of his offensive efficiency. There are a number of ways to do this already, and PPM would simply add another layer to how we view a player’s worth to his team.

Specifically, because a missed shot equates to a missed scoring opportunity that could have perhaps been capitalized on by another player, PPM should give us some measure how efficient a player turns the shooting opportunities he takes for his team into points.

Points per game is an oft-cited stat, but it provides little in the way of efficiency. A player could score 40 points per game and lead the league, but if he just does it because he chucks up half of his team’s shots, his team probably is not very good or balanced on offense. Another player who scores only 25 points per game but who is highly efficient at turning shooting opportunities into points is maximizing his own scoring chances while, theoretically, not wasting his team’s scoring opportunities shooting lower percentage shots (by comparison) than what his teammates could get.

Obviously it is all relative, and the composition of a team goes a long way to determining who should be shooting and how often, so in no way am I positing that PPM can be anything close to a be-all, end-all comparative stat. But I do think it can be both fun and illustrative, especially at the superstar level, so let’s dig into the numbers.

Plus, looking at the average PPM numbers for the greatest players in history of the game will give you even more of an appreciation for last night’s ridirkulous performance in Dallas.

PPM in 2010-11

Here are the top 23 scorers in the NBA this season (based on total points scored during the regular season) ranked in order of their PPM:

As you can see, Dirk’s performance last night should not come as a complete surprise considering that he led the top scorers in the NBA in points per miss. More on the big German in a minute.

First, a few observations about the above chart:

• Paul Pierce is much higher than I thought he would be, and this makes me appreciate his game more. Pierce took almost 300 3-pointers this season, but still managed to shoot almost 50% from the field while shooting 86% from the line. Not only does this show how well-rounded Pierce’s game is, it also shows the impact that a balanced offense and a good, pass-first point guard can have. The Celtics have many good players, so one player does not have to chuck up shot after shot for them to have a chance to score. Instead, the C’s can work the ball to get good, high percentage shots, and Pierce took great advantage of this. Ray Allen was not among the league’s top 23 scorers, but his surprisingly high PPM (2.521) for a guy who shoots a lot of threes is a testament to the Celtics stars’ shooting ability and keen shot selection.
• Kobe Bryant is below Al Jefferson. That’s not good. It is illustrative, I think, not only of Kobe’s modus operandi as a high volume shooter but also his declining skill set and athletic ability. His inability to get to the basket and get easy shots, most notable during the sweep against Dallas, results in him taking more difficult jumpers and therefore missing more shots than he used to. For comparative purposes, Kobe’s career PPM is 2.140.
• Some (though certainly not all) of the guys near the top of the list are older vets while the guys at the bottom of the list are younger players. This suggests to me that PPM is a decent indicator of a players’ relative strengths in the area shot selection, which is partly a function of experience. At the top of lists are vets like Dirk and Pierce while young guys like Blake Griffin and Monta Ellis are at the bottom of list. I’m not saying it’s a perfect indicator of shot selection, but it’s in the stew, so to speak.

Now back to Dirk.

A big part of Dirk’s offensive efficiency is his superb free throw shooting, which this PPM stat takes into account*. Dirk is an 87.7% free throw shooter for his career, which is outstanding, especially for a guy who stands 7-feet tall. And free throw efficiency should play a part in telling the story of a player’s overall offensive efficiency, which is one reason I like this stat.

* – I should mention at this point that I realize for this stat to be better there should probably be some kind of weighted adjustment to more accurately incorporate field goal attempts, worth two or three points, and free throw attempts, worth one point, into the same stat. I’m not smart enough to figure out exactly how that should go to make this stat more accurate, but I’m open to anyone’s ideas in the comment section.

UPDATE: After taking into account the bevy of excellent reader comments below, we have updated the PPM formula.

Let’s take a guy like Shaquille O’Neal. He was clearly a very efficient offensive player, but think how much more efficient he would have been had he converted just 60-65% of his free throw attempts, or if he had never been fouled in the first place and could have instead had more non-free throw attempts at the basket. Shaq getting fouled and going to the line for two shots resulted in at least one missed shot almost half the time. A guy like Dirk, on the other hand, has no shooting black holes like Shaq. Therefore, his efficiency at turning scoring chances into points is even better than a guy like Shaq’s because Dirk has no weakness that consistently turns into missed shots and, most likely, into the other team’s possession.

For his career, Shaq averaged 23.7 points per game. Dirk averages 23.0 points per game. Yet Dirk has a 2.386 career PPM while Shaq has a 2.127 career PPM. The difference in their case is mostly due to free throw shooting.

PPM and the All-Time Greats

And while we’re on the subject of all-time greats, which certainly both Dirk and Shaq are, how do their career PPM numbers stack up against the best scorers in the history of the game? Here are a handful of the best players ever and their career PPMs.

Update: I should explained this better when I originally posted. The above list is not top 10 all-time or anything close to it; I just chose a handful of players that I thought would make for interesting comparisons. I need to expand this list to be more inclusive of all NBA greats when I have a bit more time. For example, as a commenter points out, Magic Johnson’s career PPM is actually 2.671, higher than both Kareem’s and Dirk’s, and is yet another measure of just how incredible Magic was.

What is interesting about the table above is that Dirk comes in ahead of Bird, Jordan, and so many others. Does this mean Dirk is a better player than Jordan or Bird? Of course not. But it does mean that he is as efficient a scorer as those two were, if not better. Scoring efficiency only tells one part of the story on one side of the floor, which is why PPM can only be considered a small piece of the puzzle when comparing players, but it is a good way to give one of the most unique scoring talents in NBA history is due.

Mavericks coach Rick Carlisle said last week that Dirk was one of the ten best players of all-time. Most people disagree with this assessment, and I do to. However, had Carlisle instead said that Dirk is one of the ten most efficient offensive players of all-time, I don’t think anyone could argue.

Something else I also found interesting is that the only player of those I analyzed that is above Dirk is Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Update: and Magic), the NBA’s all-time leading scorer. This is interesting to me because while Dirk and Kareem are different in so many obvious ways, there is one way in which they are very much alike, and it is the reason why they both have such highly efficient offensive games: their go-to shot could not/cannot be guarded.

Dirk Nowitzki’s step-back jump shot is simply unguardable; heck, in many ways any Dirk shot is unguaradable because of his size, high release, and ability to make shots at weird angles. The turnaround or step-back shot is especially tough because Dirk becomes even more unguardable by creating additional space. And he is such a good shooter that he rarely misses. The same was true of Kareem and his sky hook. There was no way to defend it.

Few players in NBA history have go-to moves that literally could not be stopped. This is why Kareem is always someone I think of when trying to compare Dirk’s game to someone else in the NBA history. The truth is that there isn’t anyone in NBA history that I consider to be a lot like Dirk (no, not even Bird), and we should all appreciate his unique greatness now while it is at its peak.

Final Thought on PPM

To wrap up this relatively brief but hopefully fun look at this Bill Simmons-suggested stat, my final thought is that I like PPM, I think it’s fun, and it seems to do a good job of organizing players in terms of their abilities in this specific area, but it faces that same limitations that most single statistics do. It only tells us one aspect of one part of the story, so no argument should begin or end with PPM.

Mostly though, it illustrates just how incredible Dirk Nowitzki’s performance last night was. The guy renowned by almost everyone as the greatest basketball player ever, Michael Jordan, had a career PPM of 2.342. Last night, in one of the biggest games he’s ever played in, Dirk Nowitzki’s was 16.

As I said in my tweet last night: un-fucking-believable.

What do you think of Points Per Miss as a stat? Is it useful? Can it be improved? What does it suggest to you about a player’s abilities?

Chime in below.

(Also, if anyone wants to take Simmons up on researching the top single-game, 40-point PPMs in NBA history, go right ahead. Email me and we’ll post it. I didn’t have enough time so I made my analysis more general.)

Update: Andy Bailey tackled Simmons’ specific question. Not surprisingly, Dirk’s game is head and shoulders above any other high scoring game in playoff history. (Though I think MJ’s 63 against the Celtics is missing.)

There were are least five times when I laughed out loud. Seeing as how it’s 7:00 am, I’m still wiping the sleep out of my eyes, and it’s a five-minute video, I’d say that’s a pretty good ratio.

And yes, the “Hypothetical Dunker” is the dude from Man In a Box.

**********

Moose was tired of the “street ball” that was played in today’s game and wanted to give fans an opportunity to watch fundamental basketball. Many people were angry with the idea and spoke out against it, including Charles Barkley, who is never shy with words and called it “blatantly racist.” Moose got a lot publicity over his idea and even had a hilarious segment on The Daily Show.

It has been almost a year now and it appears that there will be no All-American Basketball Alliance.

It isn’t really a surprise that this league never got off the ground. I mean, no white owners would’ve wanted to own a team because if would have looked horrible for their business. (I am presuming they would have only allowed white owners because white coaches were only allowed to coach.) Plus it would ruin some players’ reputations, saying that they would only want to play with white players.

Obviously I am against the idea of a whites only basketball league, but I do understand Don’s desire to watch more fundamental basketball, the dearth of which has nothing to do with race.

As many older fans, he probably grew up watching a more basic and fundamental style of basketball, and he would like to see more of that incorporated in today’s game.

But pro basketball has been a more fundamental game now than in years past. Sure, we’re not talking about Jimmy Chitwood and the Hickory gang running the “Picket Fence”, but it has improved dramatically since the mid-90s to early 2000s, when some star players cared more about scoring off the court then on it.

Currently the Spurs, who are known as one of the most fundamental teams, have the best record in the NBA; and the Celtics, known for their tough defense and team play, are tied for first in the East. The NBA currently has many hard working, fundamental, and do-it-all superstars like Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitizki, and Kevin Durant.

Beginning with the player dress code in 2005, the NBA has done an excellent job of cleaning up its image, outside of a few problems here and there. The biggest problem currently infecting the NBA are a few ignorant stars and over-inflated egos. (See: James, LeBron) With social media outlets like Twitter allowing fans to tell their favorite players how talented they are and how much they love and adore them, I don’t see this problem improving anytime soon.

If some basketball fans still aren’t happy with the NBA’s style of play, I suggest you watch college basketball. They play more of a team game where coaches have more power over their players and can keep their egos in check.

Luckily the game of basketball avoided this whites-only league disaster. Let’s hope it goes the way of short-shorts and is never seen again.

Please don’t think that’s what I’m doing here. This is not a blind defense of Reggie Miller.

Am I a die-hard Pacers fan? Yes. Is Reggie Miller my favorite player of all time? Absolutely. Do I think he was the greatest player of all time? Absolutely not.

However, I am firmly convinced of one thing: Reggie Miller is the greatest SHOOTER of all time.

At the beginning of this season, people came to the realization that Ray Allen was going to pass Reggie Miller on the all-time three point list at some point. Almost immediately, the bandwagon of people that decided they needed to trash Reggie to prove how great Ray Allen was started rolling. Unfortunately, it was even led by my favorite writer, Bill Simmons.

Now I understand that Bill is completely biased towards Ray Allen and the Celtics. I have read his ‘Book of Basketball’ three times now, and the Celtic-worship is impossible to deny. However, the fact is that the league has basically been dominated by two teams since it was created: Boston and LA. To deny that Boston has a prominent place in the history of the league would be ludicrous.

All of that said, he’s wrong about Ray Allen.

Now before we get started, let’s just get one thing out of the way: Neither Reggie OR Ray was/is a genuine superstar. Real superstars should guarantee a playoff berth no matter how bad their teammates are (contrast Chris Bosh to LeBron James and you see what I’m saying). Does that mean they weren’t great players? Absolutely not. Reggie and Ray are incredible shooters that absolutely would have made a good team great or a great team terrifying. Anyone who ever thought that either of them could be the main guy on a championship team just hasn’t watched enough basketball.

With that behind us, let’s look at the three reasons that the bandwagon (led by Bill Simmons) has used to claim that Ray Allen > Reggie Miller.

Myth #1: Poor Ray Allen was stuck on terrible teams for the majority of his career while Reggie was able to flourish on the powerhouse Pacers.

This is just blatantly wrong. Now remember, neither Reggie or Ray was ever the type of player that was good enough to be the main guy on a championship team. But let’s actually compare the two. For the first 6 years of his career, Reggie never played on a team that got out of the first round of the playoffs. Ray Allen made it to the third round in year #5.

In years 10, 11, and 12, Reggie’s Pacers teams made deep runs into the playoffs, either losing to Jordan, the Knicks on the bogus 4-pt play, or the Lakers who were just better. In years 10, 11, and 12, Ray Allen WAS stuck on the SuperSonics in the deep Western Conference, but he was good enough to make it to the second round once.

In years 13, 14, and 15, Reggie was stuck on very young Pacers team that was built around Jermaine O’Neal and Ron Artest. They never got out of the first round. Ray, in those years thrived as the #3 or #4 option on a championship level team.

So if you are scoring at home, their early careers were both bad; Reggie had an edge in the middle; and Ray had an edge at the end. That means that neither one had a significant edge over the other, right?

This also takes into account that Reggie never played with one of Bill Simmons’ pyramid guys in his prime (Chris Mullin was beyond washed up when he played for the Pacers). Ray, on the other hand, has played with both KG and Paul Pierce.

But really, I want you to think about those 90s Pacers. Were they really THAT good? Rik Smits as option #2. Dale Davis as option #3. Mark Jackson at point guard. Who is scared by that? Are they really considerably better than Sam Cassell, Glenn Robinson, and Ervin Johnson? Are they any better?

I could make the strong case that Reggie actually made MORE out of his team than Ray Allen ever did.

No, the myth that Reggie got to play for better teams is just that – a myth.

Myth #2: Ray Allen, statistically, is going to end up blowing Reggie out of the water.

This is true, but you have to understand that the stats lie quite a bit. Believe me, I spent about two hours comparing Reggie’s and Ray’s pages on basketball-reference.com. You know what I found out? If you compare their careers up to age 35 with each other, their shooting stats are nearly identical:

PPG. Ray Allen 20.4 Reggie Miller 21.1

3Pt% Ray Allen 39.8 Reggie Miller 39.9

FT% Ray Allen 89.3 Reggie Miller 88.4

You get the idea…there really is no statistical evidence that says that either one is considerably better than the other. The only stat where Ray Allen is actually going to blow Reggie out of the water is THE OVERALL NUMBER of threes he made. And there is a huge reason for that: for the first seven years of Reggie’s career, the three-pointer was not what we know it to be today.

For instance, did you know that the league leader in three pointers made in 1987-88 would not have cracked the top 25 in 2007-08? Did you know that no one had ever made more than 200 threes in a season until 1994-95, but it has now happened for ten straight years? To be honest, to compare the two players by one thing – the number of threes they made – is a little like comparing today’s baseball players with those of the past. It’s simply not fair.

This one is my favorite. I asked my dad (who knows things) who he thought were the five greatest 3-pt. shooters of all time. He answered, “Larry Bird and Reggie Miller are 1 and 2 in some order. Then I would say that Rick Barry, Pete Maravich, and Ray Allen round out the top five.”

Now obviously, we could never prove anything about Rick Barry and Pete Maravich because they either didn’t have a three-point line, or they got them in the ABA. But the Larry Bird statement was interesting. If you asked ANYONE who the top three-point shooters were, I’m sure Larry Legend would be in there. Bud did you know that his CAREER HIGH for threes in a season was 98? That’s barely over 1 a game.

Of course, since it’s the Legend, Simmons casually throws it out and says, “If it was more of a weapon, Larry would have used it, and would have been one of the all-time leaders in the category…but he didn’t need it to be dominant.” That’s fine. And I can’t disagree. But you can’t turn around and say that Ray Allen is better than Reggie, just because he made more threes than him.

Here are some things we do know:

For the first fifteen years of his career, Reggie NEVER finished outside of the top ten in three pointers made. Ray Allen has finished eleventh or worse three times. Isn’t it safe to say that had Reggie come into the league in 1996, after the three-pointer was already a huge weapon, that he would have considerably more threes than what he does?

Without getting too Hollinger-esque into the numbers, consider this.

If Reggie Miller came into the league in 1996 and finished fifth every single year (his average was 4.9th place), he would have had 2401 three-pointers instead of 2037 after year 14. Only 33 behind Ray Allen’s mark after fourteen years. And that’s assuming he never finished higher than 5th when in actuality, Miller finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th three times in every single season since 1996 after the three point line was considered useful.

One more thing I would love to see is Reggie Miller running off screens in the NBA TODAY, i.e. when you aren’t allowed to touch the offensive player. Anyone that remembers Reggie running through grabs, punches, and tackles in those New York series understand what I mean. In the 90s, you were allowed to play defense. Today? Not so much. HUGE advantage for Ray Allen right there.

What does all this mean? The two players are remarkably similar shooters, and their stats are eerily identical. Either way, we can’t use the total number of threes to say that Ray-Ray was better than Reggie.

Myth #3: Reggie Miller was historically overrated because of his heroics against the Knicks.

True. Reggie Miller IS historically over-rated because of his heroics against the Knicks. But you know what else? He is incredibly UNDER-RATED for his heroics against everyone else! You all know about those Knicks’ battles. 25 points in a quarter. 8 points in 9 seconds. The game-tying three in 1998 with 5 seconds left.

People seem to forget that he was the ONLY guy in the 90s that stood up to Jordan and actually played well. No one talks about his game-winner in game 3 of the Bulls-series in ’98. They forget that Jordan once said that the Pacers’ series was the real mountain that the Bulls were trying to climb.

A turn-around 35-footer against the Nets to force OT. A two-handed dunk over 4 players to force Double-OT in the same game.

40 points against the Allen Iverson-led Sixers.

The game winner against the Pistons in the 2005 Eastern Conference Semis.

18 in the 4th against the Bucks to finish with 41.

I really could go on-and-on with phrases like “7 points in 22 seconds”, “ding-dong the witch is dead”, and others that only Pacers’ fans really know about. And this doesn’t even include any of his regular-season clutch shots.

That’s the thing, most of the world only remembers him for the NY series and not everything else.

But you know what? Why are we holding his playoff greatness AGAINST him anyway? Does that make any sense whatsoever? What if I told you to think about Michael Jordan, but you weren’t allowed to think about ANY of his game-winners. Good-bye “The Shot.” So long Bryon Russell. The three-point barrage never happened. Just think about the regular season Michael Jordan that played in the first 47 minutes.

Is that fair? Of course not. But that’s what people are trying to do when they think about Reggie. Just like all of those memories ADD to the Jordan legend, the Reggie moments ADD to his legend.

The Bill Simmons’ Bandwagon would have you believe otherwise. They want you to listen to bogus stats like “Reggie Miller only shot 33% on clutch threes from 1996-2005.” Of course, they neglect to mention that more than half of that time period was AFTER Reggie’s prime.

They tell you to stop thinking about Reggie’s clutch moments. Why? Because actually, Ray Allen has so few of them.

They give you cute stories like, “Ray Allen was 0 for 12 one night and they still gave him the ball with the game on the line. He missed, but I believed 100% that he was going to make it. That’s how good he is.” My response? Reggie never went 0 for 12 in a playoff game.

The love to talk about Ray Allen’s 8 three-pointers in Game 2 of the NBA Finals. Of course they fail to mention that he then missed over 16 straight.

At the end of the day, Reggie and Ray are remarkable players. They could absolutely push your team over the top if you had the right pieces in place. I would have loved to see Reggie Miller play as the 3rd option just one time in his prime. I will never be able to.

But that’s ok. From where I’m sitting, Reggie is still better than Ray. Statistically, they are equal. If anything, you could say that Ray Allen was more blessed with good teammates than Reggie. But when it came down to the final shot, game on the line, live or die, I’m taking Reggie Miller every single time. Anyone would. Well, anyone that refuses to listen to people that discount clutch as important.

**********

* – Reggie Miller shooting over Ray Allen photo credit: Robert Scheer Photo via IndyStar.com

Fact: Phil Jackson coached two of the three greatest guards and one of the five greatest big men of all time…at their peak.

Sounds like the perfect time to have a sports debate.

Unfortunately, that’s the problem. From the surface, it looks and sounds like a great topic of conversation.

• Is Phil Jackson one of the greatest coaches of all time, or was he just the luckiest?
• Could those great players have done it without him?
• Could any clown coach Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Shaquille O’Neal to multiple titles?

The questions go on and on; and yet, as the questions pile up and the arguments and opinions get more and more interesting, the basic facts remain: no one has won as many titles as Phil, but no one else got to coach three of the all-time greats.

Because we as sports fans love to argue, we are invariably forced into one of two corners. In debate, we call it the “lesser of two evils” form of propaganda. If you can force someone into thinking there are only two options when there are actually numerous other choices, your chances for getting them to adopt your opinion are much greater.

The average Joe can get into a great deal of trouble if he does not have the foresight to see through this basic trap. For instance, his girlfriend might ask him, “Which color do I look the best in, red or green?” If he falls for it and actually answers the loaded question with anything other than, “Oh honey, you look great in everything” (the third option that she really wanted him to answer), he will find himself trying to explain why she doesn’t look good in the other color.

There was a third option all along, but it just wasn’t made readily available. Therein lies the solution to the Phil Jackson conundrum.

When talking about the Zen Master, three questions usually stand out more than any others. Unfortunately, the answers to all of them cannot be answered with a simple “Yes or No.” The solution is that tricky third option, which isn’t as fun to debate, but again, is the real answer.

So let’s go through each question one by one, and really decide, once and for all, how great of a coach Phil Jackson really is.

Question #1: How much credit can we really give Phil Jackson for winning 11 titles when he coached three of the greatest players of all time?

The short answer? A lot.

As my friend Jerod once said, “It’s not like he coached them to one or two titles apiece. HE HAS ELEVEN!”

If you dig deeper into this question, a lot of the findings will probably shock you. For instance, how many titles have Shaq, Kobe, and Air Jordan won without Phil Jackson? None. But you knew that already. That’s why you argue that Phil just got lucky for picking up those teams at the right times. And you know what? You might be right.

But what about in 1994 when Jordan was gone and the Bulls basically had Scottie Pippen, Toni Kukoc, and ten Butler Bulldogs? They had a net loss of TWO GAMES from their previous championship season. No seriously. Some dude named Pete Myers was in their starting lineup that season.

And then there’s this: In the 64 year history* of the NBA, there have been no more than 12 teams that won an NBA Title without a dominant big man/post presence (depending on how you feel about guys like Dave Cowens, Wes Unseld, and a few other random guys). Six of those twelve aberrations were coached by one guy -  Phil Jackson.

*Seriously…go through the list. Mikan, Petit, Russell, Wilt, Reed, Kareem, Walton, Unseld, Moses Malone, Parish/McHale, Hakeem, Robinson/Duncan, Shaq, the Wallaces, Duncan, Shaq, Duncan, KG, Gasol. Nearly every team was built around a guy down low. The Bad Boy Pistons, Jordan’s Bulls, and a few watered down years during the ABA are the only times an NBA team has won without a legitimate post presence. I don’t think this is a coincidence. This is also why I think this year’s Miami Heat will continue to have trouble as long as Chris Bosh is their “post presence.”

Now you could choose to give all of the credit for this to Michael Jordan and decide to go down with that ship. And you know what? That’s fine. He is the greatest of all time for a reason. If any guard could ever take down the big men, it would have to be him. But just remember how many times he did it without Phil (never). And think about guys like Oscar Robinson, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Charles Barkley who either never won a title, or didn’t get one until they got a big man.

Hey, someone had to utilize the triangle right? Someone had to create a system for a team to flourish without any bigs. It wasn’t Auerbach, Riley, or Larry Brown. It was Phil Jackson. At the very least, you have to give him credit for winning six of his eleven titles in a completely unconventional way.

Question #2: Phil Jackson is more of a motivator than anything else. He could never coach a young or bad team. He just thrives with great players. Doesn’t this make him an overrated coach?

I need you to take a bit of a leap of faith with me on this one, but let me encourage you once again to not fall into either of the two traps. There is a third answer, and it’s a doozy: coaching is not necessarily…coaching.

I’m a high school history teacher who loves basketball. A while ago, our girls basketball coach suffered a death in the family and had to miss a game, so they asked me to fill in. Of course I jumped a the chance to coach because I love the game so much.

My first and only game started off relatively smoothly. Our team was much better than the opponent, and I even drew up (and the girls executed!) the “Valparaiso Inbounds Play” to end the first quarter with a three at the buzzer. In the second quarter the opponent came out in a 3-2 zone, and I called timeout to adjust the offense. To make a long story as short as possible, I proceeded to draw up a play that involved the guards making skip passes from one wing to the opposite corner in order to stretch the zone. As I talked in the huddle, the girls looked at me with uneasy faces. I soon discovered the reason: they couldn’t make that pass. For one reason or another, high school girls are just simply not physically strong enough to make a sharp pass from one wing to an opposite corner. A play that I had run for my entire life just wouldn’t work. It was a different game.

Now here is where you say, “Well, a good coach could figure out how to beat the defense,” and I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But just answer these two questions: Are Geno Auriemma and Pat Summitt good coaches? If so, does that mean they could coach in the NBA?

Of course, the answers are yes and no. They are great coaches, but they coach in a game where 99 percent of the players can’t even touch the rim. To expect them to coach in the NBA with any success would just be impractical.

The fact is that in basketball, there are several different kinds of coaches.* Some guys can develop young talent – think Scott Skiles. Other guys can turn young up-and-comers into contenders – think Larry Brown. But then you have guys that can turn contenders into champions. Surprisingly, there aren’t very many of this last type. Let me just read the stats again:

• Phil Jackson – 11 rings
• Red Auerbach – 9 rings
• Pat Riley – 5 rings
• John Kundla – 5 rings
• Gregg Poppovich – 4 rings
• No one else more than two

**In my opinion, there is only one guy in history that was not a “one -category” guy and could coach any team to success.  Obviously, that one guy is John Wooden. Two other guys that are close and I might put money on to be successful are Coach K and Bobby Knight. Nearly everyone else is built for one type of team.

Look no further than Doc Rivers. As little as 4 years ago, he was considered one of the worst coaches in the league, a guy who every Celtics fan wanted to get fired. Give him great players, and he instantly becomes a championship coach. Could he coach a bad team? No! But has he been great with great players? Yes!

My point is this:

Maybe Phil Jackson couldn’t necessarily turn a bunch of scrubs into a .500 ball team, but that doesn’t mean for one second that Scott Skiles could have coached the Bulls and Lakers to 11 titles. Judge coaches for what they do, not what they haven’t done. The facts say that no one in history has more rings than Phil Jackson. The facts say that no one in history is as successful in game 7s as Phil Jackson. The facts say that no other coach in history has ever come close to having three 3-peats, let alone four of them.

Question #3: Either Phil Jackson is the greatest coach of all time or he’s the luckiest coach ever and incredibly overrated, right?

Again, the answer does not have to be either/or.

As sports fans, we love to be controversial. We love to make bold statements. We love to draw lines in the sand and force people to either join us or be against us. But we must return to the two facts that I started this article with: no other coach has as many rings as Phil; and, no other coach got to deal with Jordan, Kobe, and Shaq.

Why can’t we just leave it at that?

Was Phil Jackson lucky? Sure he was. Is that really any reason to say he’s not a good coach? Wasn’t Red Auerbach lucky to get Bill Russell, and Bob Cousy, and John Havlichek, and everyone else? It’s not like he was sitting there coaching scrubs to eight consecutive rings as Phil Jackson haters would have you believe.

Has Phil Jackson been more successful than any coach in history? Yes! No one else comes even close to having his track record in the playoffs, or in game 7s, or in anything else. Does this mean that Phil Jackson is a “better” coach than a guy like Larry Brown, who has repeatedly taken mediocre teams and over-achieved with them? Well, that’s tough to say. Again, I would argue that they each are the best coaches in their category, and that neither of them could probably do the other’s job.

But let’s remember this: the ultimate goal of every sports team is to win a title. When it comes to rings, Phil Jackson has to use his toes. That’s enough for me.

Phil Jackson is the Greatest of the Greats….what a lucky guy.

**********

You’ll undoubtedly agree.

Image source: Imgur via Reddit

And why do I think this person is from Indiana? Well, because I’m from Indiana and used to make this exact same choice. In fact, a high school relationship ended over a few conversations just like this.

Needless to say, I’d probably choose differently now. Probably. But I applaud this Larry Bird wannabe. I’ve been there man. Stay strong. There is plenty of time for sex, but you should get in all the basketball you can while you’re young.

By the way, the comment thread is pretty entertaining for this one. Read it here.

Excitement is building in East Lansing as the Spartans prepare to face their first real challenge of the season against Gonzaga, at 8 p.m. on ESPN.

The Spartans will showcase their talented line up that is gathering more and more comparisons to the 2000 championship team. Coach Tom Izzo is among those making such comparisons.

In an interview with ESPN.com Izzo was asked if he would ever coach someone like Mateen Cleaves again. Izzo answered saying that he may be doing that right now. The player Izzo is talking about is junior point guard Kalin Lucas.

As Lucas continues to emerge as a premier point guard, his similarities with Cleaves become more apparent. Lucas, like Cleaves, is a Michigan native and Lucas is now in the leadership role Cleaves once held. Lucas came out of the gates quick this season, scoring 21 points and one highlight reel layup against Florida Gulf Coast.

Tonight Michigan State takes on Gonzaga, for the first time since the “Goran Suton triple overtime missed layup fiasco.” (The image of Adam Morrison’s mustache is still burned in my mind from that game.)

However, both teams have changed greatly from their last meeting. Gonzaga is in a transitional year with only one returning starter, in Matt Bouldin. Michigan State is a potential Final Four team this year.

Forwards Raymar Morgan and Delvon Roe saw limited time in the opener against Florida Gulf Coast due to lingering injuries. The two forwards should be ready for more minutes againsts Gonzaga, but still may be out of the starting five.

Freshman center Derrick Nix put up a double-double with 11 points and 14 rebounds in his debut. Nix and fellow freshman center Garrick Sherman will be utilized to take on some of Morgan and Roe’s minutes.

The trio of Kalin Lucas, Durrell Summers, and Chris Allen will be counted on as the primary scorers. Lucas and Summers combined for 38 points in the opener and have been the sparkplugs for the offense. Allen struggled with his shooting in the opener, but is still a viable outside threat.

Sophomores Korie Lucious and Draymond Green are the x-factors coming off of the bench. Against Florida Gulf Coast, Lucious looked very confident in his jumpshot and has been playing aggressive. Green helped score second-chance points by controlling the offensive boards.

Gonzaga will challenge Michigan State bu the Spartans should win this game. The key word being “should.” Gonzaga has a size advantage against State and the undersized Spartan forwards will have to play big. This game is not a complete lock but if the Spartans play as they did their first game they will come out with a win.

Prediction: Lucas and Summers are too much for the Zag’s backcourt to handle and Michigan State takes the win 86-78.

In what has been dubbed the Cleveland “Season of Expectations,” the Cavaliers finally got their first win of the season. In an almost “must win” game (in the eyes of many fans), the Cavs beat the Toronto Raptors 104-87, and five Cleveland players scored in double digits.

The NBA’s reigning MVP, Lebron James (who scored 38 points in the home opener, and had a triple double in the team’s first road game) scored 24 points, had nine rebounds and five assists.

Mo Williams contributed 20 points, Zydrunas Ilgauskas had 15 points, Daniel Gibson scored 14 points (going 4-8 in 3 ball attempts) and Anderson Varejao added 13 points.

It is obvious the the Cavs team chemistry is improving. In this game, they displayed great ball movement, the team went 10 of 18 on 3-ball attempts, and both Williams and James had 6 assists.

And, although he is showing encouraging by practicing and traveling with the team–Delonte West still did not play.

Which of these two great basketball games is the best?

The time has come to attack this question, otherwise known as The Great Debate, systematically and with facts, proof, and evidence.

I would like to present to you the war between EA Sports and 2K Sports: NBA Live 10 vs NBA 2K10.

NBA 2K10 Analysis and Ratings

Every gamer knows very well that during the transition from PS2 to PS3 and Xbox to Xbox 360, was the point when we would really see who the true game developers would be. They would showcase their amazing graphics, game fluidity, and overall computer designing skills.

Well, I can bravely say that 2K came close to destroying EA sports in the NBA category during that period, with the release of NBA 2K7 beating Live 07 in nearly every aspect, and pretty much the same with 2K8, and 2K9.

And then there was 2K10…

Let’s look at the specifics:

NBA 2K10 Gameplay Rating: 8.9

This is 2K’s known area of dominance.

While playing this game, I felt that the pick and rolls were incredibly natural (Especially with CP3!). The dunks look simply amazing and are much better, surprisingly, with the bigger guys (Shaq, Dwight, Amare .etc).

The three point shots are fluid and look balanced. Like always, for the most accurate shot, you must release the ball at the highest point (Ray Allen is incredibly WET!).

Although everyone loves offense, the defensive side of the ball will be a bit more crucial to game players, unlike 2K9. The CPU seems to be a bit more up to the task on defense to make you feel like a rookie, so in response the “human” has the ability to call more defensive plays than in any other 2K game.

Let’s also not forget the classic “energy meter”. There is an energy meter next to the name of every player on the court, basically representing the stamina/energy left.

So overall, you should be able to appreciate the smooth and modern gameplay of 2K10.

NBA 2K10 Features Rating: 9.0

Complementing the smooth and free flowing gameplay, 2K10 also adds a mix of classic and modern features.

One of these features, like in previous versions of the 2K series, is the Living Rosters update, which allows the game to update itself with every real-life trade acquisition, injury, signing, and release. It also even updates things like changing jersey numbers as well.

Another feature is the NBA Today mode, which allows you to actually play games that will be played in the real world on that same day with updated rosters, hot streaks, and rotations.

Then there is my favorite game mode (out of both games): My Player mode.

My Player mode allows you to create a fresh new player or you can choose a default one from the Xbox Live/Playstation Network. In this mode you will be able to run your player through various drills, practices, and scrimmages as his ratings continue to increase, and eventually you will be able to have your player enter the NBA.

But, if you are not as skilled, you just might be sent down to the D-League and have to work your way up to play with the big boys. No doubt in my mind that this game mode puts the cherry on top.

NBA 2K10 The “Other” Rating: 8.0

The one thing that 2K always has me smiling about is their track selection. This game has one of the sickest soundtracks I’ve ever listened to on a sports game.

Here are a few of the songs featured on the NBA 2K10 soundtrack:

• Kenan Bell – Like This (favorite)
• The Game – Champion
• Kanye West – Amazing
• Akala – The Edge

And there are plenty others..

In conclusion, NBA 2K10 is a great game for those of you who want to do more than just play a single game over and over again, as you can explore the various game modes, which are complemented by the smooth game play.

NBA 2K10 Overall Rating: 8.6

——————–

NBA Live 10 Analysis and Ratings

Here we go EA!

You’ve shown us you can basically kill in almost every sporting category (except for MLB…Playstation bought it out). You’ve shown us that Madden’s voice on a video game can keep us entertained for over 10 years. You’ve shown us that Mike Tyson and Ali can actually fight eachother, and you’ve shown us that hockey fights can be better than actually playing a hockey game.

You’ve also shown us that FIFA..well, it’s probably your most bought game worldwide. Self-explanatory.

Yes EA, you’ve dominated in all of the previous categories. But, there is a force to be reckoned with on the basketball side of the gaming industry. Can you eventually take over this industry segment?

Maybe, maybe not.

But are you getting closer? Why, yes EA. Yes you are.

NBA Live 10 Gameplay Rating: 8.8

Those of you who are used to playing Live 09, good luck. The new installment of the Live series will take some time to get used to, and I mean that in the most positive way. Live 10’s gameplay is a bit more optional, meaning that it is much less predictable than Live 09.

For example, in Live 09, you would be in the middle of the air going for a layup and around 80% of the time the defender would be able to forecast how you would finish. In Live 10, there is a new feature which allows the player to change the direction or style of his/her layup, jump shot, or dunk.

So, imagine LeBron taking it to the rack and Dwight Howard is coming from the right; well, with the left analog stick you can switch the ball from the right hand side to the left..then you can finish it with a jam or a pretty layup (YOU DECIDE!)

As for the dribbling, it is extremely improved.

With Live 09 you could break down the defender by holding down the R2 Button and with right analog stick movement (right trigger for 360). But, with Live 10, you can simply hold the R2 Button down, and the dribbler will begin to dazzle you with his dribbling skills, then top it off with a sick crossover or step back with the right stick.

The offense in general has slown down a bit more, which allows the user to have more control of what he/she can do.

The defense is pretty much the same, except the game causes more turnovers than usual.

Oh yeah, there is a also a new feature which offers off-ball control as well. Love it!

NBA Live 10 Features Rating: 8.7

All of you who loved the NBALive365 and Dynamic DNA, prepare to fall in love again. Very similar to 2K’s Living Roster, NBA Live has a new feature called Dynamic Season.

Dynamic Season is a whole new breed of its own. Instead of being a free-for-all multiplayer affair, Dynamic Season is a single-player mode that allows you to play through a real NBA season as it happens. So if LA is playing BOS tonight, you could actually play that game, and then later that night compare your stats, to the actual games!

My personal favorite mode in Live 10 would have to be the Adidas Live Run. This is a refurbished and upgraded version of Live 09’s 5-on-5 online mode.

Live Run is a bit different though. Instead of choosing two teams and having to play a whole NBA game, you can actually have two teams of five online players. And guess what, now you can choose any NBA player you want!

Imagine having CP3, Kobe and Wade on the same team..can you say devastation?

EA may not have added as much as 2K, but they did improve nicely in each of their previously added Modes/Features.

NBA Live 10 The “Other” Rating: 9.3

Okay, this is the category that made up my mind.

EA has always been about authenticity and originality. They have always been about making you feel like, “Hey, maybe this is digital guy really is Chauncey Billups”.

Well this year, EA did it again.

I might as well begin with “The Hangar”, which is where you first play ball as soon as you start the game. It is basically a humungous basketball court with all of the NBA greats balling inside, and the best part is, you can listen to ESPN Radio as you work on your jumpshot. Amazing!

Then there is the gear. NBA Live 10 is adding all new (or old) retro jerseys to every team, along with new style jerseys such as the Miami Heat’s “El Heat” jerseys. Sick!

Then they have added over 500 shoes to the game, with guys like Bron and Kobe rocking their new kicks throughout the year.

Then last but not least is….the CROWD!

Yes, the crowd.

EA has really outdone themselves in one of the minor categories, which in the long run will definitely pay off. By listening to real crowds from NBA games, EA has added MVP chants when D-Wade takes the court in Miami, they have added boos whenever Vince Carter gets the ball in Toronto, and so many other life-like sounds that will make the gamer believe he is actually playing a fresh game every day!

Big Props to EA!

NBA Live 10 Overall Rating: 8.9

——————–

I appreciate your patience for reading this, and don’t let this make up your mind, but only help you on choosing which game to buy (both rock!)

But…

In the end, I can happily say that EA has brought themselves back into the game!

Respectable links to watch vids:

NBA Live 10:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u0HbSG–jI
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDhbHtY7AhM

NBA 2K10

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj4omrp0V1Y
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n4EBuWJe3k

**********

You contact the author of this post at: devonnba4193@aol.com

I don’t know why basketball fights tend to differ so dramatically from those in other sports; like baseball, where everyone just gets into a comfortable clinch; soccer, where the players simply run away, or football, where it seems no one really fights at all. Unless you play at Miami. In basketball, for some reason, they fight for real.

Don’t know what Rick is talking about? Behold, the beauty of international basketball brawling:

Video: Mexico-Uruguay Basketball Brawl

Yeah, there have been some pretty intense NBA fights, but I don’t really recall anything quite this intense where players were picking up chairs and throwing them at eachother. The game was called after the fight, with Mexico up 68-60 and about :40 seconds left in the third period. The two teams meet up again on Sunday. Well that should be fun.

As Rick reminds us in the open of his post, other sports never really seem to fight as intensely as basketball players…unless you play at Miami. I was living down in Miami when the ‘Canes had their epic brawl with FIU and then-Hurricanes announcer Lamar Thomas was fired for his unabashed excitement:

“Now, that’s what I’m talking about,” Thomas said as the brawl raged out of control. “You come into our house, you should get your behind kicked. You don’t come into the OB playing that stuff. You’re across the ocean over there. You’re across the city. You can’t come over to our place talking noise like that. You’ll get your butt beat. I was about to go down the elevator to get in that thing.”

Don’t remember that one?  Here is a little trip down memory lane for you, with an ironically hilarious song providing the musical accompaniment:

Video: Miami-FIU Football Fight

What a great way to start the morning, huh? Just remember, you don’t come into the MSF playing that stuff. You come into our house, you should get your behind kicked!

Virtually identical, I couldn’t find any serious differences in numbers and percentages while I scoped the official Minnesota Wisconsin box score from last night. I read up on the game, watched the highlights and still couldn’t find a serious statistic or problem that would point to how Wisconsin fell to the Gophers at home, after taking an 11 point lead before the half. It had to exist in the intangibles, and it does.

Since he left Kentucky, the SEC has suffered, but the Big Ten has added one of college basketball’s best minds to match Tom Izzo. There’s a reason that he will be in the Hall of Fame one day. Tubby Smith knows how to create a team that wins. He has done that in Minnesota and we can look towards the Wisconsin game for why.

Every good coach has to “sell his system”, when the W’s come, the troops get on board. Tubby Smith has his entire team on board with his system. Not just his assistants, not just starters, not just the sixth man; I mean the whole team. That’s because everyone is involved.

Bo Ryan worked a rotation of primarily 7 players, maxing out starters with each one close to 40 minutes for the Badgers last night. While some of the best squads in the country are primarily looking at 7 player rotations – Duke, Wake Forest, Michigan State, UConn. The minutes lean heavily on 5 starters and two players coming off the bench, for the most part.

7 players came off the bench last night for Tubby Smith. That means 12 players got minutes in a hard fought, OT battle, in the heat of conference play. 9 players saw more than 15 minutes in the game. The whole team got a win. Not just 7 guys and there’s value in a having a long bench in college basketball and it extends beyond conventional sports thinking

Putting guys on the floor, and having a deep bench doesn’t just keep legs fresh and defense active, it creates intangibles. It creates a new definition for team game. Tubby Smith has 9 players averaging 15 minutes, more than 5 points and 2 rebounds. No those numbers aren’t staggering but at the minimum everyone is contributing, positively. To have accountability and 9 players that you can trust on the floor isn’t something every coach in the country has or wants to risk.

That’s a decision by the coach, to get every member of his squad on board, to get every man minutes, to create a culture of belief around your program. Taking risks on young players in college, at the peak of their development breeds confidence and hunger in a team and a locker room. When virtually every player on Minnesota’s team has contributed something to their start, players are all in. It shows, too. They’ve won 16 games and they are 4 wins away from the magic 20 and gaining that invitation to dance in March.

We all know that college basketball is an emotional game. One that champions a team game played with commitment, toughness, and a never-die attitude. The Gophers showed that last night overcoming a huge second half deficit. They showed swagger and depth on the road. They showed that their record is not a fluke, and that they have the moxie to challenge Tom Izzo’s team for the Big Ten title. (By the way, Feb. 4 is the date when the two see each other again in East Lansing.) All this, thanks to a new face on the sidelines. Tubby Smith has created a team in the Barn that is enjoying unseen success, and challenging the hockey team for headlines due to selling his brand of team basketball.

Far-fetched? Maybe, if you’re a numbers guy, or one that just believes in talent. Though, for those who have been part of a scrappy locker room, jumped around in warm-ups as part of confident bench, or get a little choked up during “Rudy”, it makes sense. When your coach calls your number more often than not, you’re that much more willing to fight for that team, that fight will win games in college basketball.

]]> http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2009/01/minnesota-basketball-tubby-smith-has-a-whole-team-running-towards-tourney/feed/ 0 http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2008/10/indiana-big-ten-network-verizon-dallas/ http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2008/10/indiana-big-ten-network-verizon-dallas/#comments Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:24:41 +0000 Jerod Morris http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/?p=357 I woke up this morning disappointed that there would be no more Chicago White Sox games to watch this season, although I am still proud of their season and optimistic for the White Sox future. However, my disappointment was quickly transformed into pure, unbridled joy when I was scrolling through the recently updated channels on my Verizon cable at home.

What was it that gave me such a huge pick-me-up?

Well, the title of this post probably gave it away: the Big Ten Network is here in Dallas! This, of course, means that I will be able to watch every Indiana Hoosiers basketball game this year (as I now live in Dallas). I grew up going to IU games in Assembly Hall, I went to Indiana University, and after a few years away I moved back to Indiana last year. Naturally, I rarely if ever missed a game when I lived in the Hoosier state. I have also lived in Miami, Fl and now Dallas, and for some reason these unenlightened sports fans are not as passionate about their IU basketball as I am. I suppose the rational part of my mind understands this, but it didn’t provide any solace during those winter nights when my Hoosiers were playing and I had to listen to it online sitting in front of my computer if the game wasn’t nationally televised.

It did give me a chance to enjoy the soothing sounds of Don Fischer, but still; I want to see the games! Now that the Big Ten Network is here in Dallas (and in HD!), I will get to enjoy pretty much every game of the 2008-09 IU basketball schedule.

The TV schedule does not seem to be set, as the Peegs.com schedule usually displays it, but I don’t recall any game last season that was not either on the Big Ten Network or nationally televised. (One depressing caveat I just realized: most of the “national” CBS games are usually played concurrently with other games and shown regionally. So I will still have to figure out a solution to this problem. Perhaps the college basketball package is still in my future.)

Regardless, nothing will rain on my parade of Cream and Crimson joy tonight. I was already pumped up for the 2008-09 season of IU basketball. We may not win more than 10 games (although I, for one, think that we will) but it is the first step forward into the Tom Crean era and away from the horrific BS of the Kelvin Sampson era of Indiana basketball. A part of me would like to issue a petition to create a moratorium on the phrase “Kelvin Sampson era of Indiana basketball.” That slimeball liar should not have the privilege of seeing his name in the same sentence as Indiana basektball; he sure as hell should not have had the privilege of coaching Indiana basketball.

Now that the White Sox season is over, and leaves all across the Midwest are changing colors, falling, and whistling in the ever-cooling Fall and soon-to-be-Winter wind, you will start to see much more coverage of the Indiana Hoosiers here on Midwest Sports Fans. And to my unlimited delight, I will not be forced to provide commentary based on radio broadcasts, box scores, and IndyStar recaps. I am a White Sox fan, I am a Browns fan, and I am a Dolphins fan. I love all three of these teams. But the excitement I feel for all three of these teams combined will never equal my passion for Indiana University basketball. Thank you Verizon and the Big Ten Network for bringing Indiana basketball here to me and thousands of other IU fans living in Dallas.

We now have a coach in Tom Crean who will give us something to cheer for well into the future, without (God we hope) the fear of having the rug yanked from under our feet as during the era of the-former-IU-coach-who-will-no-longer-be-referred-to-by-name. And thanks to the Big Ten Network, I will be able to watch and cheer the much anticipated debut of the Crean and Crimson Hoosiers.

[tags]indiana hoosiers, basketball, tom crean, big ten network, verizon cable[/tags]