The Reign of Detrimental Change
1 Comments Published by Ian MacLean on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 at 5:32 PM.
Commissioner David Stern and the National Basketball Association have exhibited obvious concern for the decline in scoring and the dismal offenses that are responsible for dwindling final scores. The average points per game twenty years ago were 110.8. Last year that number dropped to 93.4. What's to blame for the scoring famine? The adoption of a defense-first style of play is clearly to blame. However, such a style is far from harmful to the league, no matter what ESPN would have you believe. The fact of the matter is, to the ignorant masses, high-flying dunks, triple digit scores, and other eye candy of the sort amount to entertainment. To the NBA, entertainment equals money. So what can be done to prevent the NBA's predicament from becoming a re-embodiment of the NHL's assassin?
Plenty, but Stern has unfortunately chosen to try to remedy the issue in all the wrong ways. Instead of altering the rules to create a quicker pace, the NBA has chosen to try to dismantle the elite defenses of the league. 
The officials have now been instructed to call forearm contact with dribblers and the frequent hand-checking beyond the extended foul line that are cores parts of many top defenses today. The thrills and exhilaration of superior defenses have been drowned out by the whistles of foolishly intensified rules.
The theory behind the madness is that by disallowing the hand-check, offensive players will have more freedom of movement, and will therefore be more able to score or distribute to others. The negative outcome is apparent. The games are becoming extended to three hours in length, the top defensive players in the league are fouling out incredibly early, and what was once a fascinating game is being reduced to a glorified free throw shooting contest.
The intended results are also apparent. Offensive players LeBron James and Dwyane Wade are having incredible years offensively, averaging 26.3 and 25.2 respectively this year. Each of the players are shooting much higher field goal, three-point, and free throw percentages. Wade has already attempted 148 free throws, and James has attempted 105 from the charity stripe. 
ESPN and the national media is heralding these statistics as great improvements and astonishing performances by the up-and-coming of the league. Be that as it may, no one can help but suspect the influence of the officials newfound defensive stringency.
The NBA needs to be much more considerate when changing the rules. The zone allowance and the introduction of the three-point line were both intended to generate offense, but both ended up contributing to the lowering average. Stern needs to contemplate ways to speed up the game, and he needs to cease punishing defenses and elite defensive players for offensive liabilities and weaknesses. Until that time comes, we can only pray the officials will let this rule slide as they do every Christmas with every other new rule change initiative.
The way some defenses are playing is astoundingly passionate and exceptional, especially those in Detroit, Miami, and San Antonio. To attempt to tear those defenses down simply to produce a more "entertaining" game is erroneous and nauseating. Perhaps Larry Brown had the finest suggestion for augmenting scoring when he proposed, "Why not just make guys improve fundamentally? Have guys work on their game." Quite the concept, huh?
The Big East: Battle of the Big Men
0 Comments Published by Ian MacLean on Saturday, November 06, 2004 at 7:57 PM.
The obstruction to Eastern equality was always considered to be the lack of dominating big men. In spite of this, it is apparent that this obstacle is no longer a feature of the East. The most notable off-season change being the Heat's acquisition of Shaquille O'Neal from Los Angeles, attention was immediately placed on a new debate - could the East be becoming the primary conference? While this move brought consideration to such an opinion, numerous deals had to be constructed to make such a suggestion even plausible.
Therefore the focus shifts to the newly-reigning triumvirate of the East, and their respective centers and forwards. The addition of O'Neal to the up-and-coming second-year point guard, Dwayne Wade, created a powerhouse team in Miami. Jermaine O'Neal's rise in Indiana helped rejuvenate Reggie Miller's Pacers. Undrafted Ben Wallace and the proficient talent in Rasheed Wallace coalesced with guards Chauncey Billups and Richard Hamilton to create the reigning world champion Detroit Pistons.
The Heat would be in the upper three of the Eastern Conference with or without O'Neal, due to the downfall of the New Jersey Nets. However, Shaq's presence in Miami puts the Heat in the same league as the Pistons and the Pacers, to some extent. Shaquille is obviously a large person, and he is a veteran of the league. It can be argued that many of the trips to the charity stripe that he receives are absurd, and that the Pistons found a way to stop Shaq in the Finals. Shaq's production cannot be argued, however, and he can be counted on for 30 points, legitimate or not. It should be noted that Shaq hasn't played 80 games since the 1992 season. Udonis Haslem is a promising young power forward, especially for a sophomore. His numbers from last year (7.3 points, 6.3 rebounds) are respectable. Nevertheless, the Heat are no longer considered an overachieving, second round team. Many media "experts'" are predicting (let alone more new Miami fans) a Finals trip for the team featuring the O'Neal-Wade tandem. With the expectations higher, Haslem has to deliver, and that may be expecting too much.
The Pacers are the Eastern Conference Finals runners-up, and the reigning regular season league champs. Playing the starring role in Indiana, the 3-time All-Star who finished 3rd in MVP balloting, Jermaine O'Neal is a solid shooter and low-post threat. Expect him to be a nightly double-double performer (averaging 20.1 points and 10 rebounds last year).
What is a minor problem in the secondary big man for Miami, is a terrible dilemma in Indiana's situation. Jeff Foster, Austin Croshere, and Scot Pollard are all 3-6 point players, and pitiful rebounders. Croshere is a three-point threat (which won't help the Pacers down low), and Foster and Pollard create huge gaps in offensive production when on the floor at the same time. When it comes to who starts at center for the Pacers, it's a question of who will hurt the team the least.
The World Champion Pistons have the best situation in the middle. Ben Wallace's offense has been improving, as he can now hit a short-to-mid-range jumper. His intelligence on the floor is also developing, as he now attacks the basketball with an open lane in front of him. His defense is as impenetrable as always, and he will likely still average 3 rebounds and 1.5 steals. Ben's rebounding statistic has dropped slightly since the addition of Rasheed, but at least the team is no longer such a poor rebounding team.
Rasheed Wallace is a veteran scorer and rebounder, and his presence on the defensive end in partnership with Big Ben creates a sort of offensive black hole around the rim. He can hit a shot from virtually anywhere on the court, but that doesn't mean he will. He favors the outside, unfortunately, but if he applies himself down low, he can score at will with an impressive library of moves and turns. He has frequent scoring bursts, sometimes 5-9 points at a time, and they create a high-energy atmosphere which the Pistons thrive in.
On the tall end of the bench, Detroit depth has the clear advantage. Featuring a revived former All-Star in Antonio McDyess and veterans Derrick Coleman and Elden Campbell, any injuries in the Motor City should be an easy fix. They're main concern is Dice's health, because with him, they have a constant interior 1-2 punch. Indiana's bench is less-than-stellar, likely featuring Pollard and Croshere (and devoid of 6-9 Al Harrington.) Miami's secondary line-up includes Christian Laettner, who will provide 4-7 points, and Michael Doleac, who can barely contribute at all.
Both Miami and Indiana could use a stronger number two, though something can be said for Haslem's future. Where we are now, at the start of the season, the Pistons have the best big men in the East. Individually, Wallace X2 is solid, yet no where near the greatest, but together they are pace to add two more rings to their collective hardware.
Please respond with all death threats, expressions of bewilderment, and extreme demonstrations of praise. Good night!
Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action
In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action “Inherently Limited And Divisive.” “[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’” (Lynne Duke, “Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,” The Washington Post, 4/8/92)
In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action “Divisive.” CNN’s KELLY WALLACE: “We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.” SEN. KERRY: “That’s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don’t end it. He’s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I’ve always supported it. I’ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn’t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let’s not have any politics here. Let’s keep the truth.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 1/30/04)
Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States
Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. “I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,” Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (“John Kerry On The Issues,” The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)
Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. “The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)
Flip-Flopped On Funding For Our Troops In Iraq
Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With “Whatever Number” Of Dollars It Took. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)
Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package. “Passage of the bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in fiscal 2004 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. It also would provide $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90 percent of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has been forgiven by other countries. Separate provisions limit reconstruction aid to $18.4 billion. It also would provide approximately $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care.” (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Later Claimed: “I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)
John Kerry's Flip-Flops Vol. 1
4 Comments Published by Ian MacLean on Thursday, November 04, 2004 at 7:00 PM.
Flip-Flopped On Iraq War
Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)
In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)
Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)
Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)
Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act
Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)
Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)
Oh, and MY personal favorite:
Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists
In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.” (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)
In 1996, Kerry Said, “You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.” (Timothy J. Connolly, “The ‘Snoozer’ Had Some Life,” [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)
But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)
That's all for now.
