Heat Index

You know, it's not a lock for the Heat to win it all. Someone made reference to the '69 Lakers. Talk about a loaded team. So the Celtics, who finished fourth in their division with a 48-34 record, took out the mighty Lakers in seven.

 

During football season, my ESPN intake goes down considerably. I'll watch what I can of GameDay and whatever college games are on. But on Sundays, it's NFL Network and the Ticket. No ESPN. I might catch a few minutees of PTI during the week and maybe a minute or two of SportsCenter. That's really about it.

 

And maybe A-Rod winning a title in Seattle would have meant more than him winning one in N.Y.

But nobody ever talks about that.

Or considers that while winning in Miami (in some minds) may not equal winning in Cleveland . . . it sure beats being a Dan Marino or an Ernie Banks or a Charles Barkley and never winning.

We used to rip people for chasing dollars and not caring about winning.

Now we rip people chasing winning because "it's not the way he should be winning."

What the fuck is wrong with everyone?

 

If you want to be what LeBron has stated he wants to be -- the best ever -- then yes, there are parameters. Why wouldn't there be? The best of all time wouldn't chase a championship at age 25 like some 40-year-old hockey vet who just wants his name on the Stanley Cup.
Look, LeBron as a free agent can take whatever offer he wants. LeBron as an aspirant to the throne of Jordan, Magic, Russell, he's got to follow a different set of rules/

 

That's just using a tautology. "The best of all time can't do that because the best of all time can't do that."

You know what makes the best basketball player of all time? How good they are at basketball.

 

No, not really.
The best of all time is made by what he accomplishes.
No one would look at Hank Aaron and say, "Wow, that's a guy who looks like the best home run hitter who ever lived.'
The best of all time wouldn't feel the need to hold the court by stacking the pickup game by force. The best of all time would say, "You can put the four worst players in this gym on my team and I'll still beat you."

 

Since it's the NBA, you forgot one of the most famous combinations: Sam Smith, formerly of the Chicago Tribue, and Michael Jordan. "The Jordan Rules" made Sam's career. In broadcasting, Howard Cosell first became famous because of Muhammad Ali.

 

Mizzou, you can't be serious, not if you actually watched the few seconds of Soledad's O'Brien interview that touched upon race. She asked if he thought race had anything to do with the reaction. He said he thought it might've played a part. To say LeBron "came out and screamed racism" is totally inaccurate.

 

Then how come neither Russell nor Magic nor Jordan ever said it? Because it's utter nonsense. Not only could none of them win with the four worst players in the gym, they also could not win without Hall of Fame or borderline-Hall of Fame teammates.

And they know it.

Somehow "the way Jordan did it" became the blueprint on how it must be done if you dare want to be mentioned in the same stratosphere with the almighty MJ. Guess what? LeBron's not Jordan. Sure, he would like to be. But he'll have to settle with joining every other NBA players who isn't Jordan, either. He would have to settle for that in Cleveland, and he'll have to settle for it in Miami.

"I was trying to beat those guys" is the tired refrain I keep hearing from Jordan. Well, Michael, how about that 0-8 playoff record against Larry Bird? Gee, Magic, let's count the number of titles you won without Kareem as a teammate.

Which makes me wonder what separates this from a typical fanboi board.

 

People who call out inaccurate statements and offer well-reasoned opinions in legible English?

 

It's been stated before, but how does anyone expect LeBron to beat the West's top team while elevating the game of four "lesser" players? How do you beat the Celtics, Magic and -- if Bosh went to Miami anyway -- the Heat, with an also-ran supporting cast?

As for the Heat Index, to play devil's advocate, ESPN is throwing its best available (and relevant) talent at a long-term story with national interest. Sure it might be overkill, but at least they're using resources to provide total coverage on what they think is the biggest story of they year. Annoyances with SportsCenter aside, is this really so bad?