What is it about devoted sects of music fans that makes them feel entitled to spew hateful, holier-than-thou rhetoric? I’ve recently spent a few days perusing music fan forums in the hopes of gaining new perspectives on works of art that I love. This plan, unsurprisingly, backfired tremendously.
I’ve never understood why music fans, more than consumers of any other art form, divide themselves up into supposedly neat and tidy divisions, from which they tend not to stray. It would seem highly improbable to come across a movie lover that only enjoyed 1980’s teenage slasher films and condemned the remainder of the cannon as “soulless indie propaganda.” Somehow, music fans operate in a climate that encourages metal heads to hate shoegazers, punks to hate hipsters and classic rockers to hate dancers- and it’s always been this way. No stereotypical reminiscence is complete without a discussion of musical divisions. “Real rockers” of the 1970’s felt inclined to detest fans of talented bands like Styx and Boston. Disciples of The Clash thought The Beatles were vapid and soft-core.
Perhaps this occurs because music fans wear their tastes on their sleeves (in the case of jacket patches, sometimes literally). Perhaps it is because music is digested privately and celebrated communally; people enjoy grouping themselves together in cliques and lording over those they feel are beneath them. The truth is, I don’t know why this phenomenon exists, but I find the whole ordeal rather tiresome and pointless. Exclusively following one genre of music does not earn you any brownie points for authenticity; it makes you myopic, for better or worse.
Walling ourselves off into xenophobic music communities causes us to lose track of what actually matters when it comes to music: does it sound good? We’ve grown up with this notion that your taste in music says something about your personal character: goths are depressives, metal heads are angry, pop fans are insipid. In music circles, enjoying both Jack Johnson and the Dead Kennedys is considered a cardinal sin tantamount to blasphemy. Why is it so hard for pretentious music snobs to admit that Hank Williams’ “Your Cheatin’ Heart” and Radiohead’s “A Punch Up at a Wedding” and Franz Schubert’s “The Trout” and Macklemore’s “Thrift Shop” are breathtaking works of art? Metallica’s Kill ‘Em All and Joni Mitchell’s Blue are both masterpiece albums for completely different reasons. Life isn’t one-dimensional and neither is music. If Green Day’s Dookie doesn’t sound good to you, that’s a reasonable position that can be defended by expanded personal analysis, but there is no just cause for deeming the album “juvenile and disgraceful” (an actual quote). Personally disliking the sonic quality of a song is one thing, but ridiculing a work of art because of the stylistic endeavors of its fan base or its impact on future works is silly. Take works of art at face value and analyze your personal reactions, but don’t mock others for having a differing opinion.
Over the weekend, the Baseball Writers Association of America officially inducted the Class of 2014 into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. The BBWA selected three players for induction, all in their first year of eligibility: Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas. Maddux and Glavine, long-time tag team starters for the highly successful 1990’s Atlanta Braves, both surpassed 300 career wins, a metric that for decades has signified instant enshrinement. Thomas, the power-hitting first basemen for the Chicago White Sox, fulfilled a similar checklist required by surpassing 500 career home runs. Well… that is… these numbers used to mean automatic bids.
You see, 26 players in Major League history have hit more than 500 home runs, while only 16 of those 26 have been inducted into the Hall. In fairness, 3 of these players are technically active (Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez and Albert Pujols) and thus will not be eligible for induction for years to come. Additionally, 3 of the 26 are retired, but have yet to wait the 5 years required for eligibility: Gary Sheffield (2015), Ken Griffey Jr. (2016) and Jim Thome (2018). In sum, this means that only 4 of the 20 eligible candidates with more than 500 home runs have not been inducted. It is no surprise, then, that these 4 players have been confirmed to have used or have at one point been highly suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs henceforth), a polite term for the dreaded scourge of “steroids.” In order to be inducted, a player must receive 75% of the vote from the ballots cast by the BBWA. This year, 571 ballots were cast, meaning that 429 votes were needed at minimum to be enshrined. The breakdown of votes received by the 4 infamous batters of whom I speak:
Barry Bonds 198 34.7% 2nd year on ballot
Mark McGwire 63 11% 8th year on ballot
Sammy Sosa 41 7.2% 2nd year on ballot
Rafael Palmeiro 25 4.4% 4th year on ballot
In addition to these four batters, legendary starting pitcher Roger Clemens, a probable unanimous pick were it not for steroids, received 202 votes (35.4%) in his 2nd year on the ballot.
Due to the great number of other sources and regurgitated argument, I will spend little time delineating the various reasons why it is a travesty that these players will likely never be inducted. Rafael Palmeiro, one of only 4 players in MLB history with over 500 home runs and 3000 hits (another former lock metric), will not be included on the ballot ever again after receiving less than 5% of the vote this year. Major League Baseball has now instituted a system wherein the all-time leaders in home runs (Barry Bonds) AND hits (Pete Rose) are not considered Hall of Famers. Players have been cheating since inception: spitballs, scuffing, corked bats, drug use. Tim Raines, who ranks 5th all-time in stolen bases, had a coke habit that could kill a small village. Does Major League Baseball seriously think that snorting cocaine between innings DIDN’T give Tim Raines a speed boost on the base paths? Give me a break. No one is seriously considering putting an asterisk next his 808 thefts.
What interests me more is the hypocrisy of the voting process. In addition to the 3 players inducted this past weekend, the Veterans Committee inducted 3 top-notch managers into the Hall of Fame: Joe Torre, Tony La Russa and Bobby Cox. All 3 of these managers were wildly successful during the steroid era. All 3 of these managers put confirmed or heavily suspected steroid users in their starting lineups. When Tony La Russa won 3 pennants with the Oakland Athletics between 1988 and 1990, his 2 star batters, Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco, admitted to being juiced out of their minds. In his two decade-long second stint as Braves manager, Bobby Cox won 1883 games, 5 pennants and a World Series title. His rosters also included heavily suspected steroid users Javy Lopez, Ryan Klesko, David Justice, Gary Sheffield, Mike Stanton and Kent Mercker. Joe Torre won 4 titles and 6 pennants in a 12 year stretch with the New York Yankees. He also fielded Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Ruben Sierra, Gary Sheffield, Jose Contreras and Jason Giambi.
Isn’t one of the arguments against enshrining “roiders” that we just can’t tell how great they would have been without the juice? This is the case against Sosa and McGwire and Manny Ramirez and numerous other legends. Why, then, doesn’t the same criticism extend to the men who managed these players and capitalized on their indiscretions? This problem seems emblematic of a greater cultural issue in the United States: the excessive willingness to demonize the transgressions of lower-level employees while rewarding the executives that either turn a blind eye or actively attempt to cover up violations. Baseball should either wipe the slate clean between 1985 and 2005 (a stupid idea) or properly allow the best personnel into the Hall of Fame, but whatever the powers that be decide to do needs to be done with consistency.
Ina Garten, the star of Food Network’s long-running program Barefoot Contessa, is an endearing woman. Watching her show, you get the feeling that Ina, though herself childless, would make a great stereotypical Jewish grandmother, spoiling her second-generation offspring with baked goodies she handmade sometime in between the morning’s challah French toast and the evening’s brisket. There’s more to Ina than stereotypes, however. Mrs. Garten is by all accounts brilliant, holding an MBA and having served as a budget analyst for the Ford and Carter White Houses. Part of the appeal of the caricature of herself that she plays on screen is that Ina is a strong and wildly successful businesswoman, who just also happens to be self-taught in the art of classical French cooking. She even gives plentiful air time to her numerous gay friends! I should like her. I should.
Where Barefoot Contessa goes off the rails for me is the setting of the show. Shot in the expansive kitchen of her Gatsby-esque East Hampton mansion, I immediately entrench myself firmly on the poor side of a classist divide. Ina spends a great deal of her time on screen sipping colorful cocktails with her wealthy Upper East Side friends who drive out to the Island for the weekend. Occasionally we sit with Ina as she prepares a wonderful meal for her adorable husband Jeffrey, a high-ranking professor at the Yale School of Management, in a race against the clock as Mr. Garten makes the week’s end three-and-a-half hour drive back to the Hamptons from New Haven. I find it hard not to recoil in horror at the glowing portrayals of this lifestyle, a wide brush applying coats of gold paint over any and all problems in the world of East Coast academics. The show is almost a cinematographic adaptation of the Wikipedia article for “Liberal Elite.”
It is a true tribute to Ina’s likeability that I feel a little ashamed to point out any of this. I adore this woman’s bubbliness, her flexibility, her ability to discuss seemingly anything with seemingly anybody- but I just don’t identify with her television show at all. Perhaps this is the point. Maybe this is the one show on the Food Network meant to entertain the upper classes, lost among the bargain bin-divers Rachel Ray and Sandra Lee. Instead of discussing the pros and cons of caviar and the perfect quantity of beignets to make for your summer soiree, I’d like to see Ina in a studio kitchen more familiar to commoners. I think she would shine in this role, teaching classical cooking techniques to midday audiences as a modern Julia Child.
But it’s not my role to dictate the career goals of others. I can only lament the unfortunate wall placed between the general populace and the lofty Long Island excess of the delightful Ina Garten. I keep watching- hoping Ina has a moment of self-reflection that would allow the show to be more accessible to the lower classes, but I’m continually disappointed. In the meantime, at least it’s entertaining to watch these luxurious escapades.
Let’s get this out of the way at the front: Boyhood is not Pulp Fiction or Psycho or the Godfather. This movie is not quite in the pantheon, but it is damn close.
Boyhood is Richard Linklater’s endearing look at the physical and emotional maturation of a young boy through adolescence and early adulthood. Shot with a static cast over the course of 12 years, the movie is certainly an incredible feat of production. Ellar Coltrane, my early pick for this year’s Best Actor Oscar, shines in the titular role as Mason Jr., fusing his own real life development with that of his character. Patricia Arquette is masterful in her portrayal of Mason’s single mother Olivia, a character meant to symbolize the redemptive flexibility of the human spirit, overcoming abusive husbands, financial ruin and several cross-state moves en route to a Master’s degree and two successful children. Mason’s dynamic elder sister Samantha, played by Linklater’s daughter Lorelei, acts as the perfect counterweight to Mason: hypercompetitive, energetic, reactive. Ethan Hawke rounds out the cast as Mason Sr., the children’s deadbeat-turned-attentive super dad.
The greatest accomplishment of this film, aside from the sheer technical difficulties of such a long-term project, is the consistent growth of every character. The years go by in a flash, seamlessly advancing with simple cuts, with each scene acting as a snapshot, a time capsule. Mason develops from a misbehaving 6 year old craving a father figure to an accomplished photographer, ever-mellow with a realistically cynical worldview. Samantha mellows as well, replacing adversarial, pre-teen temper tantrums with long-term relationships and a prideful mentorship of her younger brother. The emotional turmoil of their parents’ relationship subsides with the aging wisdom both acquire: Olivia joins elite academic social circles and struggles to find happiness in the vague vanity of her surroundings, while Mason Sr. opts for a simpler life, remarrying into a religious family and abandoning his rabid liberalism for a more conservative life outlook. Linklater’s screenplay effortlessly gels the development of these characters; no change seems out of place, every relationship is symbiotic.
There are, of course, minor flaws with the movie. Interspersed among truly amazing scenes there are a few inorganic lines, one or two editorial miscues and a symbolic foreshadowing that is either brilliant or ham-fisted, but nothing in between. The scene that sticks with me the most is Mason’s discovery of his mother crying on the floor of the garage. Without giving too much away, the emotion of the scene overwhelms and Linklater’s decision to leave the garage door down halfway, so that only young Mason could see underneath at eye level, is beyond fitting. I would have ended the movie 3 minutes sooner, with Mason walking into his college dorm room. The natural resting point of the movie for me would have been for Mason to kick the door shut behind him, placing a definitive end to the childhood that gives the film its name. However, Linklater thankfully manages to find another fitting end to the movie, which I will not spoil.
As I left the theater, I found myself discussing with a friend the seeming impossibility that this film had not yet been made. This is the best compliment I can give the director: for a concept that feels like it should have been made decades ago, Linklater executes the film masterfully.
Rating: 96/100
For a breakdown of my judging criteria, visit: https://crawford2632.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/what-makes-a-movie-great/
With twenty minutes left in Dazed and Confused, drunken teenagers tap their keg in the middle of the woods on the outskirts of their small Texas town. This scene is really symbolic of the whole movie.
My question for Richard Linklater: what is the point? Quentin Tarantino, my favorite director, considers this one of his 20 favorite films of all-time. I tried to enjoy it, I really did, but I just cannot figure it out. The ensemble cast of would-be stars is disjointed, with far too many unmemorable names and faces to keep track of. Ben Affleck, as confusingly inconsistent as Nicholas Cage, cannot act his way out of a paper bag in this performance.
I’m not really sure who the protagonist is supposed to be. The freshmen tortured by the seniors? The nerds tortured by the jocks? Troubled footballer Randy “Pink” Floyd? Linklater is not clear about this point, but even if he were, would it matter? I have no emotional investment in these characters, all of them are flat.
The biggest problem I have with this movie is that it doesn’t hold my suspension of disbelief. The famous scenes of paddling and air-raid drills make me cringe; I refuse to believe that people behave this way. The shtick of organized, mass class warfare appears unrealistic. Maybe I’m too urban to understand this movie. I am from the suburbs, as the characters in this film are supposed to be, but it seems I have more of a connection to city life than any of these characters. Maybe I escaped my blue collar, low-class white enclave in time to avoid these social situations. Maybe I was too distant, both in terms of physical and metaphorical miles, from my high school classmates to tap into the supposed teenage truths unearthed here. Maybe I grew up in an age of excess instant entertainment. I’ve never been bored enough to break a mailbox with a trashcan or throw a bowling ball through the rear window of an unsuspecting resident’s car. If this movie accurately portrays the amorality and vacuity of small town America in 1976, it certainly explains something about the current state of adult Baby Boomer culture. Rather than a reminiscent time piece, Dazed and Confused reads more like an historical tragedy.
Highlighting an otherwise dead cast, Matthew McConaughey shines in his breakout role as a pathetic twenty-something stoner who frantically clings on to his disappearing youth. The soundtrack continually steals scenes, countering the lifeless characters with romping, upbeat 70’s rock. In the end, not even Alice Cooper and Foghat can salvage a film with no substance. This is That 70’s Show, but without humor.
The movie does indeed feel like the 1970’s, with perfect wardrobe design and the grainy film texture of stoner hangout classics like Animal House. It’s too bad the technical achievements are overshadowed by such a depressing screenplay.
I’m going to be blogging movie reviews, so in order to keep my ratings consistent, I have taken it upon myself to delineate my criteria for great movies. These five categories are not exhaustive, but paint an accurate-enough picture of my thought process when viewing and judging a movie.
Screenwriting: Do I believe the dialogue? Does it sound organic? Do I find myself realizing in the moment that this is a script? Is the premise even worth a movie? Does the movie know what it is?
Acting: Does the actor bring the character to life? Does the actor lift the quality of the screenwriting, or vice versa?
Directing: Is the tempo of the dialogue natural? Do scenes flow with ease? Does the setting enhance the visual effect of the movie? Are there glaring changes I would make?
Technical: Does the film, for lack of a more prestigious term, look good? Does the audio quality fit with the theme of the movie? Do attempts at complex editing pay off?
Impact: Do I ever want to watch this movie again? If not, is it momentous enough to only need one viewing? Did the movie break new ground in cinema? Is it wildly influential?
With LeBron James leaving the Miami Heat for his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers, I began to think about the concept of true hometown teams. The premise of this exercise is to extend the fantasy draft concept to regional allegiances. Each NBA team is only given players whom have an affiliation with the region the teams play in. This concept usually only includes players tied to the state, but in cases where metropolitan regions cross borders, as with Charlotte, Atlanta and Memphis, players are taken from outside the home state of the team. Allegiance has to be substantial. For instance, Oak Hill Academy would wildly inflate the talent base of the Wizards. Therefore, only home high schools and childhood hometowns are considered. In this exercise, the Lakers receive players from the traditional Los Angeles proper, while the Clippers receive the remaining players from Southern California. The Nets receive all players from Brooklyn as well as New Jersey, while the Knicks receive players from the remaining boroughs, Upstate New York and southern Connecticut.
Atlanta Hawks
PG Eric Bledsoe
PG Norm Nixon
PG Walt Frazier
SF Mike Mitchell
SF Dale Ellis
SF Gerald Wallace
F Shareef Abdur-Rahim
PF Josh Smith
PF Horace Grant
PF Larry Kenon
PF Charles Barkley
C Dwight Howard
C Elmore Smith
C Dale Davis
C Ben Wallace
Starting Five: Walt Frazier, Dale Ellis, Josh Smith, Charles Barkley, Dwight Howard
Rotation: Norm Nixon, Gerald Wallace, Horace Grant, Ben Wallace, Dale Davis
This team would have to play big. Josh Smith is terrible taking elbow jumpers, so maybe he should play on the block. Ben Wallace subbing in for Dwight Howard is a defensive guru’s dream come true. This team could make a lot of noise.
Boston Celtics
PG Michael Carter Williams
G Vinny Del Negro
F Jeff Adrien
PF Marvin Barnes
PF Noah Vonleh
C Matt Bonner
C Patrick Ewing
C Marcus Camby
C Nerlens Noel
Starting Five: Michael Carter Williams, Vinny Del Negro, Marvin Barnes, Patrick Ewing, Marcus Camby
Rotation: Jeff Adrien, Matt Bonner
This team is awful. I’m frankly disappointed that Boston has not produced more talent. Throw the ball to Ewing every time down the court and hope to hell Vinny Del Negro doesn’t mismanage timeouts.
Brooklyn Nets
PG World B Free
PG Lenny Wilkens
PG Stephon Marbury
PG Mark Jackson
PG Kyrie Irving
SG JR Smith
SF Rick Barry
SF Roger Brown
SF Bernard King
PF Tom Heinsohn
PF David West
PF Rudy LaRusso
PF Connie Hawkins
C Shaq
C Al Harrington
Starting Five: Lenny Wilkins, JR Smith, Rick Barry, Connie Hawkins, Shaq
Rotation: Bernard King, World B Free, Tom Heinsohn, Mark Jackson
This team is full of egos. I think it would self-destruct into a brawl within 20 games. If they could hold it together, though, the talent runs deep enough for a serious challenge to the all-time title.
Charlotte Hornets
PG Chris Paul
PG John Wall
PG Steph Curry
SG Michael Jordan
SG Lou Hudson
SG Ray Allen
SG Walter Davis
SG Sam Jones
SF David Thompson
SF James Worthy
F Bobby Jones
PF Kevin Garnett
PF Bob McAdoo
C Walt Bellamy
C Brad Daugherty
Starting Five: Chris Paul, Michael Jordan, David Thompson, Kevin Garnett, Walt Bellamy
Rotation: Sam Jones, James Worthy, Bob McAdoo, John Wall, Ray Allen
Ding ding, this might be our winner, folks. You wanna talk about Lob City? CP3 throwing oops to MJ AND David Thompson? Shut it down, we’re going home.
Chicago Bulls
PG Tim Hardaway
PG Derrick Rose
PG Isiah Thomas
SG Dwyane Wade
SG Doug Collins
SG Hersey Hawkins
SF Andre Iguodola
SF Corey Maggette
SF Mark Aguirre
PF Antoine Walker
PF Dan Issel
PF Terry Cummings
C Jack Sikma
C George Mikan
C Anthony Davis
Starting Five: Isiah Thomas, Dwyane Wade, Mark Aguirre, Terry Cummings, George Mikan
Rotation: Tim Hardaway, Derrick Rose, Hersey Hawkins, Dan Issel, Doug Collins
I have absolutely no idea how this team would function. I have the feeling that Isiah and DWade would be at each other’s throats in no time and Derrick Rose would probably break his knees trying to referee the fight. This team looks good on paper, but the Second City is finishing well below their moniker.
Cleveland Cavaliers
PG Antonio Daniels
SG Larry Jones
SG Michael Redd
SG Kevin Martin
SG Ron Harper
SF Lebron James
SF John Havlicek
SF Clark Kellogg
PF Gus Johnson
PF Charles Oakley
PF Jerry Lucas
C Nate Thurmond
Starting Five: Antonio Daniels, John Havlicek, Lebron James, Jerry Lucas, Nate Thurmond
Rotation: Michael Redd, Kevin Martin, Clark Kellogg, Charles Oakley
This team is dangerous. Putting aside Daniels, there are 4 bona fide legends in the starting line-up, with sharpshooting Michael Redd and the enforcer Charles Oakley coming off the bench. Lebron could run the point on this team and make room for Redd in the line-up. Watch out, Midwest.
Dallas Mavericks
PG Spud Webb
PG Mookie Blaylock
PG Deron Williams
PG Kevin Ollie
SF Ricky Pierce
SF Larry Johnson
PF Willie Naulls
PF Chris Bosh
PF Tony Battie
PF Darrell Arthur
PF LaMarcus Aldridge
PF Dennis Rodman
PF Kenyon Martin
PF Kurt Thomas
C Greg Ostertag
Starting Five: Deron Williams, Larry Johnson, Dennis Rodman, Chris Bosh, LaMarcus Aldridge
Rotation: Spud Webb, Kenyon Martin, Kurt Thomas, Greg Ostertag, Darrell Arthur
This team is all sorts of discombobulated. This is the NBA equivalent of Frankenstein’s monster. Rodman would be useless playing Small Forward and Deron Williams would launch 10 threes a game. The bench is a hodgepodge of journeymen- I’m going 38 wins.
Denver Nuggets
PG Chauncey Billups
PG Charlie Williams
PG Reggie Jackson
G Michael Ray Richardson
SF Scott Wedman
PF Pat Garrity
C Joe Barry Carroll
C Dale Schlueter
Starting Five: Chauncey Billups, Michael Ray Richardson, Scott Wedman, Pat Garrity, Joe Barry Carroll
Rotation: Reggie Jackson, Dale Schlueter, Charlie Williams
Stretched thin. Somehow I doubt that Chauncey has enough in him to carry this team ’04 Pistons style. The Nuggets are destined for the lottery.
Detroit Pistons
PG Magic Johnson
SG George Gervin
SG Jalen Rose
SG Jason Richardson
SF Glen Rice
SF John Brisker
SF Shane Battier
SF Wilson Chandler
F Dave DeBusschere
PF Dan Roundfield
PF Chris Webber
PF Derrick Coleman
C Al Horford
C Mel Daniels
C Chris Kaman
Coach Rudy Tomjanovich
Starting Five: Magic Johnson, George Gervin, Dave DeBusschere, Chris Webber, Al Horford
Rotation: Shane Battier, Glen Rice, Jalen Rose, Jason Richardson, John Brisker, Derrick Coleman
This is a very talented team; I’m having daydreams about the run-and-gun fastbreak potential. Nicknames also run deep; I can hear Marv Albert now: “Magic to Ice for the oop!” With Battier playing lock down D off the bench and two incredibly solid big men down low, this is definitely a playoff team.
Golden State Warriors
PG Jason Kidd
PG Phil Chenier
PG Damian Lillard
PG Gary Payton
G Brian Shaw
SG Phil Smith
SG Isaiah Rider
SG Jon Barry
SF Keith Erickson
SF Willie Wise
SF Cliff Robinson
PF Antonio Davis
PF Drew Gooden
PF Kurt Rambis
C Bill Russell
Coach KC Jones
Starting Five: Jason Kidd, Gary Payton, Isaiah Rider, Kurt Rambis, Bill Russell
Rotation: Damian Lillard, Phil Chenier, Keith Erickson, Antonio Davis, Drew Gooden
This team would be a defensive nightmare for the opposition, but much like today’s Chicago Bulls, I’m not quite sure who is going to score the points. My best guess: throw it to Russell on the block every play and hope Kidd and Payton make backdoor cuts.
Rotation: Jimmy Butler, Damon Jones, Emeka Okafor, Kendric Perkins
The Glide really deserves better. With Jordan and Perkins, this team is destined to shoot 60% at the line.
Indiana Pacers
PG Oscar Robertson
PG Scott Skiles
PG Mike Conley
G Slick Leonard
SG Dick Van Arsdale
SG Eric Gordon
SG Bonzi Wells
SG Gordon Hayward
SF Larry Bird
SF Glenn Robinson
PF George McGinnis
PF Zach Randolph
PF Shawn Kemp
C Brad Miller
C Clyde Lovellette
Coach Mike Woodson
Starting Five: Oscar Robertson, Eric Gordon, Larry Bird, Zach Randolph, Brad Miller
Rotation: Shawn Kemp, George McGinnis, Glenn Robinson, Gordon Hayward
Sleeper team! Talk about a thug roster. Larry Legend, The Big O, Zeke AND Shawn Kemp? We’d need ESPN to mic every player just for the trash talk. This team is a better center away from being unstoppable.
LA Clippers
PG Darren Collison
PG Russell Westbrook
G Steve Kerr
SG Reggie Miller
SG Bill Sharman
SG James Harden
SG Paul George
SG Klay Thompson
SF Kawhi Leonard
SF George Yardley
PF Bob Rule
PF Taj Gibson
C Brook Lopez
C Bill Walton
C Mark Eaton
Coach Paul Westphal
Starting Five: Russell Westbrook, Reggie Miller, Paul George, Taj Gibson, Bill Walton
Rotation: Kawhi Leonard, James Harden, Bill Sharman, Darren Collison, Steve Kerr, Mark Eaton, Klay Thompson
I really like this team. Bill Walton, maybe the best passing big man of all-time, dishing to a collection of sharp shooting wings. Steve Kerr, Klay Thompson and Reggie Miller would light up the scoreboard with threes and Westbrook, Harden and Leonard would terrorize opponents with the slash and kick. Biggest concern? Just like their real life counterparts, defense.
LA Lakers
PG Andre Miller
PG Baron Davis
PG Gilbert Arenas
G Dennis Johnson
SG Michael Cooper
SG Gail Goodrich
SG Freeman Williams
SG DeMar DeRozan
SG Reggie Theus
SF Tayshaun Prince
SF Jamaal Wilkes
SF Paul Pierce
PF Sidney Wicks
C Tyson Chandler
C Darrell Imhoff
Coach Byron Scott
Starting Five: Dennis Johnson, Gail Goodrich, Paul Pierce, Sidney Wicks, Tyson Chandler
The Clippers are better than the Lakers, just like in real life! I love Paul Pierce with all my heart; he’s my favorite NBA player and now he’s coming to my Wizards, but he can’t carry this team. DJ and Goodrich can score with the best of them, but this team is simply ill-assembled.
Rotation: Otis Thorpe, Raja Bell, Steve Blake, Anthony Mason, Eddie Jones
Here comes the ill-advised three!
Milwaukee Bucks
PG Devin Harris
PG Nick Van Exel
PG Terry Porter
SG Latrell Sprewell
SG Bill Hanzlik
SF Caron Butler
SF Don Kojis
SF John Johnson
PF Carl Landry
PF Joe Wolf
PF Steve Novak
C Jim Chones
Starting Five: Devin Harris, Latrell Sprewell, Caron Butler, Carl Landry, Jim Chones
Rotation: Nick Van Exel, Steve Novak, Terry Porter, Bill Hanzlik
Over/under 2 days before Caron punches Spree square in the jaw?
Minnesota Timberwolves
G Whitey Skoog
SG Dick Garmaker
SG Devean George
SG Alan Anderson
F Mark Olberding
F Vern Mikkelsen
PF Arnie Johnson
PF Kris Humphries
PF Kevin McHale
C Joel Pryzbilla
C Randy Breuer
Starting Five: Whitey Skoog, Dick Garmaker, Vern Mikkelsen, Kevin McHale, Joel Prybilla
Rotation: Oh who cares, this team blows.
New Orleans Pelicans
PG Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf
SG Marcus Thornton
SG Joe Dumars
SF Danny Granger
SF Orlando Woolridge
PF Karl Malone
PF Paul Milsap
PF Greg Monroe
PF Willis Reed
PF Glen Davis
PF Elvin Hayes
C DeMarcus Cousins
C Al Jefferson
C Robert Parrish
C Bob Petit
Starting Five: Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, Joe Dumars, Karl Malone, Willis Reed, Robert Parrish
Rotation: Bob Petit, Elvin Hayes, Orlando Woolridge, DeMarcus Cousins, Al Jefferson, Danny Granger, Paul Milsap
Holy depth, Batman. If you get past the awkwardness of playing Malone as a wing 3, this team has the bench talent to go all the way. Sleeper team.
New York Knicks
PG Bob Cousy
PG Tiny Archibald
PG Gus Williams
G Calvin Murphy
G Richie Guerin
SG Charlie Scott
SF Ron Artest
SF Julius Erving
SF Chris Mullin
PF Lamar Odom
PF Elton Brand
PF Dolph Schayes
C Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
C Joakim Noah
C Bob Lanier
Starting Five: Bob Cousy, Calvin Murphy, Julius Erving, Bob Lanier, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Rotation: Tiny Archibald, Joakim Noah, Elton Brand, Lamar Odom, Chris Mullin, Ron Artest, Charlie Scott
The Kareem-Joakim love affair has finally come to life! Having Hall of Famer Tiny Archibald replacing Houdini at point off the bench is a problem I’d like to have. Deep playoff push ahead.
Oklahoma City Thunder
PG Mark Price
SG John Starks
SG Charles Beasley
SF Willie Murrell
SF Richard Dumas
SF Mike Farmer
SF Ron Boone
PF Blake Griffin
PF Wayman Tisdale
PF Antoine Carr
PF Shelden Williams
C Ekpe Udoh
Starting Five: Mark Price, John Starks, Ron Boone, Blake Griffin, Ekpe Udoh
Rotation: Sam Bowie, Rip Hamilton, Cuttino Mobley, Kyle Lowry, Bob Davies, Dion Waiters, Michael Kidd-Gilchrest
Playing the Pearl at the point seems to make sense with this line-up. I fear the relationship between Sheed and Wilt; the first time Wilt tried to pad his stats at the cost of the team, Sheed would strangle him. Having the two biggest ball hogs in history as your first and second options can’t bode well, but talent alone probably pushes this team into the second round of the playoffs.
Phoenix Suns
PG Fat Lever
PG Steve Colter
PG Mike Bibby
PG Jerryd Bayless
SF Sean Elliot
SF Richard Jefferson
PF Paul Silas
PF Mark Alarie
PF Channing Frye
PF Brad Lohaus
Starting Five: Fat Lever, Mike Bibby, Richard Jefferson, Paul Silas, Channing Frye
Rotation: Let’s move on.
This team represents Phoenix perfectly: ill-planned and shoddily executed. There’s no water in this desert.
Portland Trail Blazers
PG Terrell Brandon
PG Damon Stoudamire
SG Chico Vaughn
SG Danny Ainge
SG Terrence Ross
SG Ronnie Brewer
SF Dave Gambee
SF Kyle Singler
SF Mike Dunleavy
PF Terrence Jones
PF Richard Washington
PF AC Green
PF Kevin Love
C Mel Counts
Starting Five: Damon Stoudamire, Danny Ainge, AC Green, Kevin Love, Mel Counts
Rotation: Terrence Ross, Terrence Jones, Mike Dunleavy, Kyle Singler, Ronnie Brewer
Another Kevin Love team that won’t make the playoffs!
Sacramento Kings
PG Kevin Johnson
SG DeShawn Stevenson
SF Matt Barnes
SF Bruce Bowen
PF Mel Hutchins
PF Darnell Hillman
C Jim Eakins
C Bill Cartwright
Starting Five: Kevin Johnson, DeShawn Stevenson, Matt Barnes, Darnell Hillman, Bill Cartwright
Rotation: Bruce Bowen, Mel Hutchins, Jim Eakins
I really want this team to be good- KJ and Dr. Dunk would be so much fun to watch, but the Kings suck.
San Antonio Spurs
SG Devin Brown
SG David Wesley
SF Robert Reid
PF Bo Outlaw
I have a headache.
Toronto Raptors
PG Tyler Ennis
PG Cory Joseph
PG Steve Nash
SG Andrew Wiggins
SG Nik Stauskas
PF Anthony Bennett
PF Tristan Thompson
PF Andrew Nicholson
C Robert Sacre
C Jamaal Magloire
C Kelly Olynyk
C Joel Anthony
C Samuel Dalembert
Starting Five: Steve Nash, Andrew Wiggins, Anthony Bennett, Tristan Thompson, Jamaal Magloire
Rotation: Samuel Dalembert, Joel Anthony, Nik Stauskas
This is the “upside” team. Hopefully Wiggins turns into Jordan 2.0 and Anthony Bennett loses some weight. Still only a 35 win team at best.
Utah Jazz
G Ariel Maughan
SG Steven Kramer
PF Fred Roberts
PF Danny Vranes
PF Tom Chambers
C Scot Pollard
C Travis Knight
C Shawn Bradley
Starting Five: Ariel Maughan, Steven Kramer, Fred Robert, Tom Chambers, Shawn Bradley
Rotation: White guys.
Can we condense this league already?
Washington Wizards
PG Steve Francis
PG Ty Lawson
PG Allen Iverson
G Dave Bing
SG JJ Redick
SF Dominique Wilkins
SF Adrian Dantley
SF Kevin Durant
SF Grant Hill
SF Carmelo Anthony
SF Elgin Baylor
C Ralph Sampson
C David Robinson
C Alonzo Mourning
C Moses Malone
Starting Five: Allen Iverson, Elgin Baylor, Kevin Durant, David Robinson, Moses Malone
Rotation: Dave Bing, Dominique Wilkins, Carmelo Anthony, Adrian Dantley, Alonzo Mouning, Ty Lawson, Ralph Sampson, Grant Hill, JJ Redick, Steve Francis
The Eastern Conference Finals every year would be the Wizards v. the Hornets and I’ll take this team to win the title. There are simply way too many scoring threats and too much depth on the bench- the Small Forward position on this team runs 5 Hall of Famers deep- the line-up possibilities are endless. Four Hall of Fame Centers playing in various low-post combinations would be a nightmare for any opposition, and if they double team the bigs, just kick it out to KD and Redick for open threes. This team is scary.
Before the Deluge 