Uninspiring: An Updated Presidential Handicapping

A month ago I wrote this, labeling the favorites in the Republican field, and breaking down the "legit" candidates a bit. Well, quite a bit has happened since then. So we'll look at it again, both in terms of likelihood to win the nomination, and also to topple a weak El Presidente. Without any further delay, so you can get your bets in with the best information available (all candidates, again, listed by politico:

The "I Don't Have a Prayer, But I Sure Hope This Raises My Street Cred" Group

This group all comes in at less than 1% of a chance to win the nomination, as well as to take down B.H. Obama. What do they have in common? Obama would be tap dancing if they got the nod. In order from least likely to most likely:

- Buddy Roemer (still ... uh, who?) - 10,000 to 1 for the nomination; 50,000 to 1 to beat Obama
- Gary Johnson (not looking promising in Johnson world) - 10,000 to 1 for the nomination; 50,000 to 1 to beat Obama
-Ron Paul (say what you will, but at least this man has principles he stands on) - 9,000 to 1 to win the nomination; 60,000 to 1 to beat Obama
- Chris Christie (Still not looking good in his own backyard) - 9,000 to 1 for the nomination; 45,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 3 to 1 to be a one term governor
- Herman Cain (mmmm.... pizza) 8,000 to 1 for the nomination; 60,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 1 to 1 to make a killer pizza I wish I was eating right now.

"It's a Long Shot, But, Really, Who Truly Wants This Nomination?"

This group has the distinction of one former real player, plus some others who have distinguished themselves from the "also-ran" group a month ago.

- Newt Gingrich (Mr. "Honesty doesn't always pay") - 1,000 to 1 for the nomination; 10,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 1 to 2 to not even carry one state
- Rick Santorum (Saw him on MTP ... he's crazy) - 500 to 1 for the nomination; 1,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 2 to 1 to be involved in some Christian Terrorism event.
- Rick Perry (not even in the race yet, by the way) - 250 to 1 for the nomination; 1,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 3 to 1 to call Dubya for advice
- Sarah Palin (also not in the race yet) - 250 to 1 for the nomination; 10,000 to 1 to beat Obama; 4 to 1 to have a new reality show by 2012
- Others Not Yet Named (A.K.A. "the field") - 125 to 1 for the nomination; 500 to 1 to beat Obama; smart bet is to hedge this bet with the Romney-Bachmann super team

"Wait, WHO IS SURGING?" or "It's The End of The World as We Know It"

- Jon Huntsman (the dark horse Mormon) - 100 to 1 for the nomination; 250 to 1 to beat Obama; 10 to 1 to win the nomination, select Romney as his VeeP, and thus create a Mormon super team
- Rudi Guliani (Not in the race, but polling well) - 100 to 1 for the nomination; 250 to 1 to beat Obama; 10 to 1 to not declare until California this time, and wonder why he lost again
- Michele Bachmann (no ... seriously) - 50 to 1 for the nomination; 5,000 to 1 to beat Obama; even money to make people realize she's the more dangerous, charismatic Sarah Palin

"The Favorites"

- Mitt Romney (the leading Mormon) - 25 to 1 for the nomination; 50 to 1 to beat Obama; 3 to 1 to flip flop on universal healthcare more than 10,000 times during this election cycle
- Tim Pawlenty (the bland sacrificial lamb) - 20 to 1 for the nomination; 75 to 1 to beat Obama; 4 to 1 to be undone sometime in the future by a sex scandal (no information, just a hunch based on the way things seem to be going. Is it sad that we are more likely to lose a politician to sending pictures of his Weiner than we are for embezzling money? I vote yes).
- Barack Obama (El Presidente) - 1 to 500 for the Democratic nomination; 10 to 1 to beat himself; 1 to 10 to be giggling that, as the most vulnerable incumbent since Carter (if not before) he is running in a year when the Republicans, thus far, have only been able to drum up the aforementioned people.


So there you have it folks. Bet wisely.

Best ... Idea ... Ever!

Man, I wish that I had enough friends to do things like this. Seriously, check out that link. Imagine if I could just do things like draft all-time NBA teams all day. I got giddy just reading this article, even if I disagreed with some of the selections made.

The Real Reason I Hate LeBron

Just take a look at that picture and tell me what comes to you mind. I remember when I first heard about "LeBron James," right around the time that the leading sports publication in America, Sports Illustrated, decided to put him on their cover. James was nothing if not a phenom. You could look at a picture of him and see that his game was going to translate into the NBA. Nobody had a body like that at 17, and nobody had ever before had publications, well respected publications, stumbling all over themselves to anoint him the next great thing.

I was there when Kobe Bryant went to the pros and was drafted by the Charlotte Hornets (then traded to the Lakers for the great flopper himself, Vlade Divac). Bryant was, much like Kevin Garnett before him, good. He was expected to be great, even legendary perhaps. But the coverage for Bryant was amazingly tame compared to what we saw for James. Just look at that cover. "The Chosen One" it loudly proclaims. SI was informing you that as a high school Junior, two years from being eligible for the NBA draft, LeBron was already a lottery pick. Kobe was barely a lottery pick. This was unheard of. And the crazy thing is not only was SI right ... they actually might have been undershooting him. LeBron was that good. He was a no-brainer.

Perhaps part of the difference in the way they were covered was founded in where the NBA was at the time. When Bryant entered the league it was still in the middle of its' heyday. It wasn't too far removed from Bird V Magic. Michael Jordan was at his apex of influence, and other one name stars like Hakeem, Ewing, Barkley, Stockton and Malone were keeping things interesting. The league was stock full of personable, marketable stars, and it was sitting pretty with the greatest player to ever play the game (MJ), playing on the greatest team to ever play the game (the 1995-1995 and 1996-1997 Bulls, who had a combined record of 141 - 23 in those two years ... no typo). The league really didn't need Kobe, and certainly not right away. They already had a generation of stars, and they had a whole next generation lined up. Or so they thought. Sure, they hit on the one name stardom again with "Shaq," but look at the rest of the next generation they were betting on: Stackhouse, Iverson, Mourning, Larry Johnson, Kemp, Payton, Coleman, Big Dog Robinson, Kidd, Mashburn, Webber, Howard ... the list goes on and on. And most of those names have one thing in common: untapped potential.

By 2001, the league needed Kobe. It needed him in the worst way, because he was not as boring as the other big star to step into the void (Tim Duncan), but he wasn't as ... well, ghetto, as the other players who had tried to step in (Iverson first and foremost). Any NBA scholar will tell you that the leagues near demise in the 1970s stemmed from the dilemma of selling an increasingly inner city game to a suburban fan base. Look at my fathers reaction to Mike Miller's appearance, and it will give you a glimpse as to why. David Stern was able to bridge this gap in the 1980s and throughout most of the 1990s by having a bevy of marketable stars who could connect those gaps, such as Jordan, Bird, Magic, and Dr. J. But, suddenly, with Jordan gone, the rest of that generation got old. The 1999 lock-out happened. And out of the dust came the Allen Iverson generation: tattoos everywhere, no respect for the game, street ball. And the league, which had seen it's influence rise steadily for nearly two decades, began to back peddle. Still, there was Kobe, and he was a winner. Teaming up with an iconic coach with ties to Jordan (Phil Jackson), and a marketable hold over from the previous generation (Shaq), Kobe won three titles. He was nothing but upside. He played like Jordan, he talked like Jordan ... everything about Kobe was trying to imitate Michael. But then Colorado happened. And then there was no hope. And then, in its' darkest hour, the league needed a savior.

It was in this context that the league, the media, and everyone anointed LeBron. "King" James. Straight from high school to the pros, the most ridiculous talent you've ever seen, we were told. A cross between Michael and Magic, we were promised. The person who will remind you why you loved basketball to begin with. And, skeptical as we were, LeBron hit the ground running. He was smooth in interviews. His hometown team, the ever struggling Cleveland Cavaliers, won the draft lottery and took him number one overall. The league couldn't afford for LeBron to miss ... and he didn't. He was an all-star caliber player from the moment he stepped onto the court. Just look at his stat line, at the age of 19, in the NBA, and compare it with the rookie years of the other Hall of Fame calibur players to come straight to the NBA from High School:

- James: 20.9 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 5.9 apg, 1.6 spg, 0.7 bpg
- Bryant: 7.6 ppg, 1.9 rpg, 1.3 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.3 bpg
- Garnett: 10.4 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 1.8 apg, 1.1 spg, 1.6 bpg
- Howard: 13.2 ppg, 11.1 rpg, 1.0 apg, 1.0 spg, 1.8 bpg

A look at these stat lines will show you that James was, by far, the most NBA ready player in the group. What's more, he was light years ahead of Kobe Bryant, widely considered to be the best to ever jump straight to the pros. Watching LeBron's stat line grow, there was the feeling of limitless potential. Cleveland had a terrible team, yet LeBron somehow guided them to the NBA finals in his fourth year in the league. He became a triple double threat (Magic Johnson's famous stat) while being capable of scoring 30+ a game (Michael Jordan's famous feat). By the time he was 25, entering the playoffs for the fifth straight year out of his seven in the league, there were a few things which were clear about LeBron in particular, and the NBA at large:

- The league had recovered, in large part due to LeBron, from its' identity crisis. Gone were the Iverson, Marbury, and Artest generation making headlines. In was a slew of superstars who, like LeBron, did interviews well, seemed to have good media sense, and were photogenic for middle America. In fact, the names of Wade, Durant, Rose, Howard and James seemed poised to take the NBA back to where it had been in the 1980s and 1990s.

- LeBron was already, seven years in, one of the fifty greatest players in the history of the game. In all honesty, he was probably already in the top 25. Nobody had ever combined his various skills, and he would have entire games where he made the opposition look silly. I'll never forget the first time I watched him pull down a defensive rebound, dribble, faster than anyone else, down the court, slice through his opponents, and throw down a monstrous slam dunk. Jordan was like watching a figure skater bob and weave, and he was unlike anything anyone had ever seen before, but LeBron was quite figuratively like a figure skater who was built like a line backer. His combination of speed, size and agility made him unstoppable when he wanted to be.

- There was no doubt that LeBron was about to usher in a new era of championships, one where Cleveland dominated.

Surprisingly for a Bulls fan, I was okay with this. Here's the dirty secret: I loved LeBron. Michael Jordan spoiled me, and I loved LeBron for the same reason I love Tiger Woods: both were the absolute best at what they did, no questions asked. What Michael taught me was that if you were gifted, and if you could be the best, then there was no excuse for half-assing it and not being the best. With LeBron's skill set I just assumed that everything was in play: him averaging a triple double, him scoring 3,000 points in a season, him winning handfuls of titles, him eventually starting the debate, with his play, that he was better than MJ.

And so that was my opinion of LeBron heading into last year's playoffs. Cleveland was the outright favorites to make the NBA finals for the second straight year. And I was rooting for them, and thankful for LeBron, because he had brought back my game. The NBA, my first sports love, the league which I spent most of my childhood memorizing stats from and following, was back. And people were following it too. I could once again have debates (for instance, when I argued heading into that year that Kevin Durant would end up being the more dynamic player of his generation). I could once again enjoy watching the game. And I, above all else, enjoyed watching LeBron. Because, again, anything was in play.

Unfortunately, the fall out started in the playoffs that year. LeBron ran into a wily veteran Boston team, and they did what all wily fighters do: they landed the first punch. I wasn't too surprised, and I figured that this was where LeBron would do what he had done against Detroit a few years back: he would take over and save the day. That's what separates the good athletes from the great, and the great from the iconic and legendary: they take over. Michael Jordan did it in a way that nobody else ever could, but all the greats do it. Magic did it. Larry Bird always did it. Even Kobe does it. I had seen LeBron do it before, and so I just assumed he wanted it. I was wrong.

What followed was shocking to me. LeBron James, by far the best player in the league and on the court, allowed himself to play some of the worst games of his career. Then, with his season on the line, he quit on his team. Go back and watch the tape of games five and six from last year. He plain quit on his team. He didn't give an effort. This was the guy who could take a rebound, and in four dribbles be dunking on the other side of the court. The guy who could move on defense like Michael and Scottie used to. The guy who got every call when he went to the hoop, and could almost single-handedly foul an entire front court out. This is the moment that was set for him to ascend to the top, and to claim his crown as the best in the league. And, instead, he quit.

In the aftermath it was hard to ascertain exactly what happened. Rumors floated that a teammate of his, Delonte West, had slept with his mother, and that had threw off LeBron's mojo. Whatever it was, Kobe did have the killer instinct, and he outlasted Boston for his fifth ring. Suddenly, the "is he in Jordan's category" discussion was there, only it was involving Kobe, not LeBron. Somehow Bryant, who had all but been left for dead in NBA circles following Colorado, was reinventing himself as the person he always wanted to be: the cold-hearted assassin on the floor who wanted nothing but to win. You know, just like MJ. It took him a long time, but assisted with LeBron fading in a way Jordan never did and never would, Kobe cornered the discussion on the next best thing market.

The rest happened so fast, and is so well reported on that we'll just look quickly at each subsequent point of LeBron's personal character assassination:

LeBron quits on his team against Boston

The Decision: LeBron stabs Cleveland in the back on national TV

The Party: the Heat anoint themselves champions WWE style

LeBron returns to Cleveland, but never apologizes for the way he left


LeBron becomes a Divac-esqe flop machine against the Bulls

LeBron celebrates with Wade prematurely, prompting the Mavs to come back

The rest, as they say, is history. For the second straight year, LeBron quit on his team. It was evident in all he did. He no longer went to the basket. He had the chance to post up 5'9" J.J. Barea ... and passed it. It was like he was playing hot potato with the ball. He didn't want to be there. I said, in the aftermath of "The Decision," that we learned LeBron didn't want to be Jordan; instead, he wanted to be Pippen and let Wade be Jordan. That held true through the playoffs. But in the finals we learned he didn't even want to be Pippen. He barely wanted to be Kukoc; sometimes he wanted to be Jud Buechler. Then, in his post game press conference, he basically called out middle-America. The people who buy into him and make him the icon he wants to be. He told them they'd still have to have their crappy lives. He basically said he was rich and fine, they were not, so there. It was the final move in a character assassination unlike anything I've ever seen. At least Tiger had the infidelity thing to drag him down, and Kobe had Colorado. LeBron had nothing but himself. He did it to himself. He could have stopped it at any point by simply not buying into his own hype to the point where he thought he was bullet proof. But he did not, could not, would not ... I'm not sure. Instead, in the aftermath, LeBron is now a shadow of himself. Much like Peyton Manning, LeBron is too talented to not win a ring. In the NBA, where individual talent can make all the difference, he might even win a few rings. But it will no longer matter. Even if he rebounds his image like Kobe did there will always be the "yeah, but do you remember when..." with him.

And that's the real reason I "hate" LeBron. I use that word in jest, because obviously I don't "hate" many people, least of all him. LeBron is an entertainer; I am a consumer. His turn from baby face to heel has been unfathomable. Even Vince McMahon wouldn't dare turn a character this fast, but LeBron did. But we, as the collective NBA fans, didn't need another bad guy. We've spent the last decade plus with "bad guys." We had the Artest melee, we had Colorado, and we had boring yet consistent Tim Duncan. Shaq, who was at least entertaining, is gone. We needed LeBron to bring good back into the sport. And now, no matter what happens, we have to root for him. He has actively decided to be the bad guy. He has actively decided to burn his bridges, and tell us he is better than us. It's like "professional wrestling," it really is. LeBron, simply put, had the potential to be the change we wanted in the league. And he let us down. As Obi-Wan says to Anikan at the end of Revenge of the Sith, I say it to LeBron today:

"You were the chosen one. It was said that you would destroy the Sith (er, bad basketball) not join them."

Why LeBron? Why?