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?

Ranting...

Some quick hit thoughts that I don't have time to put into a full blog post:

- first, if I've been sending you the email version of this blog, and you aren't getting the video links, just come to the blog itself (link should be at the bottom of the email) to see the video.

- With heartfelt condolences to Peyton Manning, I have a big announcement to make. Peyton, you may want to sit down. Man, this is hard. After careful consideration, I'm taking my hater talents to South Beach. No longer will Peyton Manning and his Colts be number one on my most despised sports teams list. They've been there since 2000 (give or take) but they have been shockingly and dramatically usurped by the stellar efforts of LeBron "I flop so embarrassingly often that Vlade Divac is blushing right now" James, Eric "I'm always shocked when a call goes against us, and I have a face that makes you want to punch me" Spolestra, and the rest of the Prima Donnas in Miami. First, I'd like to talk to Peyton directly. Peyton, you had one heck of a run. I mean, eleven years, and not just eleven years in the running, but eleven years uncontested, on top. Nobody came close. I think that it's important for you to know that LeBron really can't carry your jock when it comes to that record. But somehow I have more respect for you now that I do for LeBron. And the breaking point came tonight when he shoved off the Mavericks player, threw himself to the ground, then celebrated when the Maverick was called for the foul. All LeBron does is complain after every call. Even you couldn't complain after every call. His season of ruining his reputation, whining constantly, proving that he didn't have the fortitude to do it all ... you just couldn't compete with this, not at your advanced age. But we'll always have the last decade plus. You'll always have a special part of my heart.

As for you Miami ... Peyton (and all Colts fans) can tell you that nobody can focus their great dislike quite like me. You guys earned it. Thanks for taking professional basketball and making me actually wish I was watching Iverson instead. Also, thanks for moving Kobe up the list of greatest of all time just by being a bunch of whiny little kids. I never wanted either of those things to happen, but your disgraceful performance this year has accomplished it. You've earned it.

- I can't believe how well Fox News and their propaganda infiltrate society. If you haven't caught it, Fox News has been pushing the angle of Obama as an "Absentee President." The basic premise is that he is never in Washington, and always out in the 50 states doing town halls, meeting with people, or overseas meeting with foreign heads of state. So the other day a family member, whom I love very much, stated that they were just not a fan of Obama's because he spends too much time traveling and not enough in Washington. Um ... ARE YOU SERIOUS? I started to get upset with this person until I realized this was just Fox News propaganda crap, and that it was my job to educate this person. Seriously, Bush, Bush Senior, Reagan ... all spent a ton more time on actual vacations than Obama. Dub-Ya might have spent half his presidency in Texas. My family members response was "well I'm sure he was working in Texas." Um ... don't you suppose that Obama is able to work when he's out and about?

I guess my point, before I get too worked up, is that I would think it is a good thing that the President of the whole damn country is going out to visit the whole damn country, not just remaining confined inside the Washington DC echo chamber. And I'd think it's a good thing when the President, who is the Commander in Chief and lead diplomat, goes overseas to meet with people. I'd think this is a part of his job description. I'm far from an Obama apologist, but this is getting really damn dumb. I can't believe that anyone still takes Fox News seriously. And for the love of this country, if you don't like Obama please defend it with real reasons. That's all I ask.

- There is something strangely comforting about the idea that the NFL, NBA, and MLB could all be striking/locking out at the same time by this winter.

- Man the Cubs suck. I'm not even sure "there's always next year" makes me feel better. This team might be so bad that it needs three or four years to be relevant again. Can we fire Hendry yet?

- I'm really excited that Bill Simmons' new project, Grantland.com, launches tomorrow. Sounds like it'll be right up my alley.

- Finally, it'd be sweet if Dallas decided they wanted to beat Miami and the refs, but if they can't it'd also be great if someone just tackled LeBron. Or at least took his man card for that flop. I hope ESPN throws that all over the place.

Political Cannibalism

This Politico article has a basic premise that I've been espousing since the "Tea Party" became a "movement" during the last election cycle: that the Republican base was unwittingly setting itself up for that rare form of political cannibalism which will enable it's "movement" to be remembered historically for all the wrong reasons. Basically, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (a "moderate" only when compared to the next person) and current Minnesota Congress Woman Michele "the crazies are coming" Bachmann (a "fascist" only when compared with 99.9% of other elected officials in this country) are both playing nice about the race being big enough for both of them, even though they will be competing for A) the same donor dollars, B) the same votes in states like Iowa and South Carolina, and C) the same votes in a potentially splintered, multi-candidate general election.

Wait, what? Multi-candidate general election. Of course there are always more than two candidates (and, yes, I know that even two candidates is multi-candidate, but it's not even six AM yet, stick with me), but this year could be wackier than normal. And, strangely enough, Bachmann might be the key to that wackiness. First, a history lesson. The year was 1901, and the United States was in the prime of one of our most beloved traditions: killing our leaders. The most recent victim was a fairly popular Commander in Chief: William McKinley. But out of that tragedy came one of our great triumphs: Teddy Roosevelt, who, at 43, became our youngest president, and also our most likely president to ride into the battle field, atop a horse, no matter what else was going on (well ... at least since George Washington ... or Andrew Jackson ... Jackson was a bad ass). Roosevelt finished out that term, then won reelection, then decided he'd had enough and essentially bequeathed the presidency to William Howard Taft, also known as the only President to be so fat that he got stuck in a bathtub.

Taft, by all accounts, was a serviceable politician, and he would later gain distinction as the only person to ever serve as President of the United States and on the Supreme Court of the United States. But he ultimately let Roosevelt down, which led to a contested nomination in the year 1912 for the Republican party (note to Democrats: this is one reason you don't want to fight Obama; also see Carter, Jimmy). Roosevelt came swooping back in to save the day, only the Republican base (largely consisting of back room, cigar smoking men in top hats if my mind's eye serves correct) didn't want to be saved. Roosevelt was too progressive, and too much his own man. Taft was easily controllable, especially when stuck in a bath tub. Taft was their man, and he won the nomination.

But Roosevelt never went down without a fight. He instead started his own party, the Progressive party, the Bull-Moose Party (please note: if I ever run for political office I will do my best to do it under the Bull-Moose Party), and he ran for President too. This was a more common concept in 1912 than it is today, but it is also the only time in the last century that a third party candidate factored into the general election (apologies to Ralph Nader).*

*at this point I should also apologize to the "fourth candidate" of 1912, Eugene Debs, who ran as the Socialist candidate. Not socialist like "Obama's a socialist." A real socialist. Contrary to our Republican conspiracy theorists, they do exist, and back then we did let them run for POTUS.

So the stage was set. The incumbent, William Taft. The previous incumbent, Mr. Popular, and all around American, Teddy Roosevelt. The boring intellectual Democrat (an Al Gore before his time, if you will), Woodrow Wilson (who, to this day, is our only President to have his PhD). What a fight! The Republicans hadn't lost to the Democrats in quite some time (I don't know if you've heard of this thing called The Civil War, but in most places it needs to be called The American Civil War. It happened in the first half of the 1860s, and the North had a Republican President, and the North, aka "the Union," won. Henceforth, a run of Republican Presidents that makes Karl Rove froth at the mouth).

The results looked a little something like this:

- Taft: 23.2% of the vote, 8 electoral votes
- Teddy Roosevelt: 27.4% of the vote, 88 electoral votes
- Woodrow Wilson: 41.8% of the vote, 435 electoral votes

Look at that Electoral College vote total! Woodrow Wilson annihilated the competition! Now look at the percentage of the vote. If Taft had run unopposed, or, more likely, if Taft had bowed out for Roosevelt, they would have had 50.6% of the vote. And would have taken a lot more states. And, you know, would have won. The Republican party split into two factions: a progressive faction and a conservative faction. The result was one of the greatest electoral whoopings of all time. Political Cannibalism.

I'd like to think that nobody in this country, even "Tea Party" people, are dumb enough politically to allow this to happen again. But this discussion serves a purpose, brought back to our initial discussion of Bachmann and Pawlenty. The party is as split as it has been since that 1912 election. In the aftermath, the "Bull-Moose" party faded into the annuls of history; the Republican brand outlived it. I've got news for all the "Tea Party" people out there: a Bull-Moose like level is the best that you can hope for. I've been saying since you started climbing out from underneath rocks that this was the best you could hope for: being one paragraph in a history text sixty years from now for my grandchildren to read. But the key is not just to have a movement; anybody can do that. The key is to have a candidate who has the hubris to push the envelope against all odds, and against all logic. Teddy Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents, but he either: A) refused to consider that his candidacy would indirectly support Wilson, B) considered this, but didn't care, or C) knew this, and determined that Wilson met closer with his ideals than Taft. He's not here, so I don't know which it is, but I do know this:

1. The "Republican Base" is about 45% of all people who vote
2. The "Tea Party" could pull 10% of that vote if they had a candidate crazy enough to stir them up
3. If that happens, it makes it impossible, and no longer just unlikely, for a Republican to win this year.

Bachmann has been put in the drivers seat in Iowa with Huckabee leaving the race. If she wins Iowa she gets credence in the race. If she does that she gets more money donated. If that happens she sticks around longer, and gets even closer to pulling the trigger on her own run, regardless of the party nomination. If the nomination is someone like Pawlenty I don't see this being viable, but if the party nominates the "Massachusetts liberal" Romney? I could very easily see a backlash from "Tea Party" people who think they are doing what's right for their country. And from what I've seen, heard and read, most of those people are dumb enough not to realize that their support of Bachmann/Palin as the "Tea Party" candidate is actually every bit as potent as voting for Obama.

So, in short, all Democrat boosters should work hard to build up Bachmann's candidacy. Not that Obama will need it, but it's always good to have insurance. It is, after all, the 100 year anniversary of Teddy Roosevelt throwing an election to the Democrats. I'm sure he'd be proud to have Michele Bachmann pick up his mantle.

With a Whimper

I'm so very tired, and this day was so long. But ... Shaquille O'Neal has announced he is retiring. I know that my legions of fans would be disappointed if I didn't at least chime in for my two cents worth, so here I am, and here they are.

- Shaq was unparallelled in NBA history with his mix of size and skill, but he also might have been unparallelled in sports history in his mix of size and skill. If you think of the sports in which size is some sort of an advantage (namely basketball, football, and perhaps hockey) can you think of another behemoth of a man who also had a skill set like Shaq's? Put it another way: there have been defensive linemen who were near 400lbs, but none of them were ever three down players. Shaq was a three down player, because he was so good in his areas of expertise (namely interior scoring, defense and rebounding) that his areas of weakness (perimeter game, free throw shooting) were non-issues in his prime. The closest I can think of regarding Shaq comes from a sport where size isn't as big of an issue; baseball, where 6'10" Randy Johnson intimidated from the mound as a behemoth who took care of business. But that's still nowhere near Shaq's class.

- Shaq won four titles, and probably should have taken down two more (2004 when Detroit shocked Kobe/Shaq, and last year when LeBron quite on his team). But he only won one NBA MVP. Are you telling me that Shaq was the most valuable player in the league only once in his career? This fact isn't as bad as MJ only taking down five when he should have had eight or nine, but it is in the same boathouse. Shaq was the best player in the league for the first two Lakers title teams (2000 and 2001) as well as Miami's first referee gifted championship year (2006). He should have three MVPs, which would greatly change the tenor of his discussion. With three MVPs and four championships he would be in the all time great discussion.

- So ... where does Shaq rank? Without going to my office to dig for my paperwork on this, I'd say top fifteen for sure. If I could find the time to finish my top 50 ranking you'd know for sure where I'd put him, but for now I'm comfortable placing him in the top 15 players of all time, with only the following centers ahead of him: Russell, Chamberlin, Olajuwon, Abdul-Jabbar. I think only those four. I'd take Shaq ahead of Robinson, Ewing, and all the lessers from Kareem and Wilt's eras. I don't even know where I'd put George Mikan in that mix, but I'd take Shaq over him as well (even though Mikan might actually be the best comp for Shaq, given his unique size and skill advantage over his competition at the time).

At any rate, it's too bad that Shaq had to go out this way, with a whimper. But, as I discussed last year with Ken Griffey Jr., it's an all too common way for players to go out, especially all time greats. It's just too difficult to walk away from anything when you are on top. When you don't have many more options, it's much more realistic. Shaq could have come back for Boston next year, but what's the likelihood it would have ended any better? I wouldn't be betting that the chance would have been very good.