SB Nation User Blog: -ken

OT: From Banned to Mod

-ken — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:52:41 -0000

How I became the first person Dave ever banned from Blazer's Edge

A cautionary tale

It was a few years back when it all happened but I remember it like it was yesterday. Dave had written something like 30,000 words praising the Blazer’s latest effort. I especially remember how he went on and on about how the two young guys, Zach and Darius, were the final pieces and now we would be headed to the playoffs. Last night’s game, he said, was a great indicator of how far the team had come since they only lost by 37 points. Once Paul Allen finally took his advice, he asserted, and made John Canzano the head coach, there would be no holding the Blazers back from championship city.

What really caught my attention, though, were three paragraphs about Sebastian Telfair and how he had shown such amazing brilliance the night before. “Telfair is truly one of a kind,” he espoused, “I marvel at his amazing skills. He truly is the next Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and Manute Bol rolled into one”

I was confused. I wrote him, and as I recall, this is what I asked, “Dave, I don’t mean to question you, but don’t you think it might behoove us to look at Chris Paul in the next draft? He does seem to have some talent and Bassy is so small and inconsistent.”

“SILENCE, PEON!” He roared back at me. (I realize it isn’t possible for a guy to roar in print but he went ahead and did it anyway.) “YOU DARE QUESTION ME? YOU DARE INTERRUPT ME WHEN I AM BUSY SCANNING THE INTERNETS FOR NEW PICTURES OF SALMA HAYEK? YOU DARE QUESTION THE FLASHES OF BRILLIANCE I SAW FROM TELFAIR LAST NIGHT?”

I meekly wrote back to him, “No sir. It’s just that, well, Telfair only played 47 seconds last night. He had one assist, 6 turnovers and shot 1 for 12 from the field. I just wondered where you saw the brilliance is all. And, well, there’s this Chris Paul guy…”

“THAT WILL BE ALL,” he answered me back in a huff. “DON'T BORE ME WITH MEANINGLESS STATS. YOU ARE HEREBY BANNED FROM BLAZER’S EDGE FOREVER!”

Well, after a couple of months of begging he finally reinstated me and I’ve toed the line ever since. And that is the more or less true story of how I became the first person to be banned from Blazer’s Edge.

EDIT: I discussed this with Dave a while back and he remembered it slightly differently than I did. He had some silly recollection of running a test banning using me as a guinea pig or some such nonsense. I'm pretty sure my recollection is closer to the truth.

Making your teammates better (or not)

-ken — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:12:29 -0000

If you haven't already done so, I strongly encourage you to read this article on Shane Battier. If this article is to be taken completely at face value - and it certainly rings true for me - Battier is a prime example, if not the prototype, of a player who makes his teammates better by just being on the floor.

This got me to thinking about our own team and who makes their teammates better. I think number one is Steve Blake. By spreading the floor with his three point shooting, by spotting the open man and knowing when to get him the ball, and by protecting the ball at all times, Steve makes his teammates better. Brandon is an obvious and I believe Oden has huge potential (yes, I still hate the word) in this regard.

There is a flip side. I think Outlaw and Bayless might be the worst at making their teammates better. (This is a far different thing than saying I wouldn't want either of them on my team.)

League wide I believe Zach Randolph might well be the "star" player who is the worst at making his teammates better.

When I think historically of helpful players, the players who come to mind are ones who I personally love but who might have been overshadowed by their team's stars. Players like Sean Elliot, Toni Kukoc, and Joe Dumars.

I'm not going anywhere in particular with this. I do think it brings up a million other questions, though. It's mostly established fact that you need two stars to win a championship, do you also need one or more of these "no stat stars"? Who are the best and the worst in history as far as helping teammates be better? Is this a definable trait or, like art, is it just something you know when you see it?

Who would you rather have (re)join the current Blazers, Zach Randolph or Shane Battier?

OT - Most Memorable Olympic Moment

-ken — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:08:55 -0000

While watching some Olympic coverage today I started remembering some moments from the past. A few of my most memorable moments:

Those of us over a certain age will never forget the grace and beauty of Nadia Comaneci scoring one perfect ten after another in 1976. The country (world) was so captivated by her performances that a piece of music that ABC used to montage her routines, "Cotton's Dream", aka "The Theme from the Young and the Restless", was renamed, "Nadia's Theme" and became a huge hit song in the US. (How many of you, as I did, thought Nadia actually performed to that music? I would have sworn she did. She didn't.)

In 1972, Mark Spitz won seven gold medals and set as many world records. Also from 1972 we had the horror of seeing 11 Israeli athletes kidnapped and murdered. Those of us who heard Jim McKay's broadcast that evening will never forget the words, "They're all gone."

Although not, strictly speaking, an Olympic moment, I'll never forget watching the original (and only) "Dream Team" play in the Pan American games in Portland in 1992. And who could forget the "miracle on Ice" of 1980?

My personal favorite moment, though, was this one, from 1996, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seF7noys9QQ

When the Olympic flame was passed to Janet Evans, most of the people watching assumed she would light the Olympic torch since there was no one standing between her and it. As she ran up the stairs, I had a sudden insight and turned to my wife and said, "Ali's going to light the torch." She thought I was crazy.

Evans ran up the last few steps and Ali suddenly stepped out and the place went crazy. Truly a goose pimple moment.

What are your favorite (or most indelible) memories from the Olympics?

EDIT: I found a more complete video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TaITzi64Sw&feature=related

Potential - for and against...

-ken — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:52:05 -0000

So, there I am, minding my own business and reading (re-reading, actually) Dan Simmons novel, "A Winter Haunting" (if you haven't read Dan Simmons, you need to. Great writer and has written something in almost every genre) when Mr. Simmons references that great philosopher, Linus van Pelt, who made this observation:

via eclecticemily.files.wordpress.com

He (Dan Simmons, not Linus) then went on to state, "Potential... was a burden before it was realized, and a constant specter after it had been failed to be realized. And every day, every hour, every small decision made, eliminated the remaining set of potential until... that potential was fast dwindling toward zero."

The word potential is used fast and free around the NBA world (and probably most sports worlds) and has been appended in Blazerland in the last few years to such disparate players as Ha Seung-Jin, Sebastian Telfair, Joel Freeland, Martell Webster, Travis Outlaw and Sergio Rodriguez. It also has been applied to LaMarcus Aldridge and Brandon Roy.

The first definition in my dictionary of the word potential is "possible, as opposed to actual." In my own world, electricity, potential realized is not usually a good thing; in the NBA world it can be a very good thing. (Unless the sentence is something like, "Rasheed Wallace has more potential to blow up on court than any other player...")

I'm not certain where I am headed with all of this. I just know that I am truly tired of the word potential. We've been hearing for years about how much potential certain players have. Here's a fact, you can't eat potential. I don't know what that means, but it is undeniable. I want to see certain players fish or cut bait. I want these players to do their business or get off the pot. I want to see how many metaphors I can mix in one paragraph.

Dan Simmons went on later in the book to liken potential to an inverted cone. The more time that passes, the smaller the cone of potential becomes. I don't know how true that really is but it rings true for me. Here's what I know for sure: In the last couple of years, the Blazers have spent their lottery picks on players with more (apparent) reality than (presumed) potential. I like that trend. Maybe I can pare this down to one declarative sentence...

A lottery pick, especially a high lottery pick -say 1 through 7 - should not be spent on a player with more "potential" than proof.

OK, that sentence had potential but I think it fell short, maybe someone can do better?

Ready

-ken — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:25:17 -0000

"I'm ready for more
The feelin' now that I'm beside you
We'll open the door
Do anything that we decide to
And I know that there's something that's just out of sight
And I feel like I'm finally seeing the light
Holdin' on (team) I know it's right
I know it's right
We're ready!

-"We're Ready" by Boston

We Blazer fans have spent a lot of virtual ink telling ourselves, each other and the world just how great we are, how great a team "we've" assembled and how our GM has the rest of the league "Bepriched, Bothered and Bewildered". That's well and good, "The Future is (indeed) so Bright We've Gotta Wear Shades" but I somehow feel we just might be getting a little bit ahead of ourselves.

The truth is that outside a couple of near miraculous runs the Blazers have accomplished nothing more than a .500 season. Whether or not KP is a genius of a drafter, whether or not Nate McMillan is in fact any more than a good developmental coach, whether or not Roy, Aldridge and/or Greg Oden are destined for greatness are all questions that remain to be answered.

Please don't misunderstand, this is not a "reality check" post. I am as excited about the future as anyone, more than most. I just feel that before we can sit here and wring our hands about other teams' fans hating us for our smugness and our awesome team... well, that team should have given us something to be smug about. It's an awesome thing to be able to once again feel great about our beloved team. It's going to be even sweeter once that team has proven their greatness.

What I'm trying to say is that potential ain't going to cut it any more. I know the Blazers aren't bound for a championship this year and I will continue to urge patience as the team improves and learns to win. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, it's time for all that potential to begin to be realized. It's just past time for us to urge "one more year" for a given player (any player, I'm not playing favorites) to have time to develop.

We've gone through some painful stages. We've been there for the tearing down stage. We saw a brief, floundering change of direction and then a real teardown. We saw one disgruntled player (and manager) after another shown the door. Then we saw a glimmer of hope. We saw the beginnings of a real team being built. We saw a real miracle that brought us Oden. In the draft just past I believe we saw the beginning of the end of the rebuilding era. Now it's time to see more.

Now it's time to see results. Real results. It's time for the marginal players to step up. Martell, Travis, I'm looking at you. This is the year. Do it or not, now is the time. Roy, it's time to take the next step and solidify your role as a leader. Lamarcus, it's time to shine, time to show some toughness and show that you are for real. Greg, I hope you are all that we all believe you are. You get a grace period, but not a long one.

As far as the rest of the team, including the coaching staff and management, it's time to gel. Experiments and "flyers" are no longer acceptable. Rebuilding is just about done; winning and striking fear into the rest of the league is indicated.

For us fans, we have a role to play as well. It's time for us to expect more. It's time for us to demand more. It's time for us to be more supportive of a winning team and not just unconditionally supporting an improving team.

This should be the year that sees the Blazers back in the playoffs, quite possibly to the second round. I personally will be disappointed, though not crushed, with anything less.

I think we're ready.

This guy will win you a championship.

-ken — Mon, 26 May 2008 22:29:08 -0000

This could be a fan post about Tim Duncan, Shaq or Kobe, but it isn't. It's undeniable that you need a Jordan or an Olajuwan, or a Magic (the Pistons' latest championship team possibly excepted) but it's just as undeniable that you need another guy.

I'm not even talking Pippen, Drexler or Wade here, I'm talking about the fifth or sixth or seventh guy. I'm talking about a guy named Kerr, a guy named Horry, or Fisher or Ainge. Or maybe I'm talking about Bowen or Paxson, or, or... Rodman.

There is so much talk about the Blazers needing a star point guard or small forward but the simple truth is that there's only one basketball to go around and the guy who will (help) win you a championship is the guy who knows how to stay out of the way until his particular skill set - whether it's as a three point specialist or as a spark plug or as a defensive stopper - is needed. Then he steps up, wins you that one critical game, and watches someone else take the credit.

Given that you need no more than three stars (I think the Blazer team that boasted 10(!) lottery picks proved that more is not necessarily better) to win a championship, I believe that instead of looking for more fire power we should be turning our attention to these secondary players and their roles. As I see it, this team has three possibles for this role:

1) Martell Webster. I have long said that Martell will never be more than a fifth or sixth man on a good team. This, my friends, is not a bad thing. If he can develop any kind of a dribble and improve his defense and drop his shot more consistently, Martell can and will be as valuable to a championship team as Bruce Bowen or Steve Kerr.

2) Steve Blake. Blake, in some ways, fits the bill to a "T". He will never hurt you, he does his job very well without getting in the way of the primary men and he isn't afraid to step up when and as needed. I see Blake as more of a backup than a starter but as a potentially valuable piece of the puzzle either way.

3) James Jones. Again, I see Jones as more of a sixth or seventh man. I think he is the shakiest of the three in this conversation as I think he is more of a one trick pony than the other two (provided Martell continues to improve and begins to find trhe bottom of the net). Although I like Jones and he has had an undeniable affect on the team, I just don't see him as the guy I'm talking about.

Will one of these guys be "this" guy? Or will it be someone else?