National Bizarre Association

What is going on in the NBA??

Honestly, I love the sport and count myself as a true NBA fan. But the league has gotten seriously loopy. It's at the point where almost nothing makes sense to me anymore.

• I don't have a hard time believing Donaghy's accusations at all. I also can't believe how dismissive the press has been of this, especially considering how many of these wild accusations end up being true. It's not like he went straight to the press or coming out with a book. He filed this thing in court (for some reason). Not that everything filed in court has to be true, but its not like he's ranting angrily on a call in show or anything. A lawyer must have approved of this at some point.

But that's beside the point. Those games he alleged might as well have been officiated by Jerry Bruckenheimer. Why is it so hard to believe there was something sketchy. There was obviously something going on. That was not a normally officiated game.

A court doesn't already have to prove these accusations true. On an aside, this is the most irritating thing about most of the opinion-media in sports; when they say he's innocent until proven guilty. That's true, but its only true in the court of law. This isn't the court of law, this is the court of public opinion. I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt and I don't need to give anyone a presumption of innocence. Neither does the media. And there's good reason for this diverging level of fairness in the courts and the public/media. In the courts, someone could be found liable and made to face legal consequences, and thus the system has to be careful about being unfair because there's real consequences. But when the only consequence is the minor slandering of reputation that would happen anyway by virtue of the information being released, we don't need this. The media has to stop thinking of themselves as some moral court. Everyone realizes its just an opinion, they shouldn't have to be so careful about it. Plus, saying someone is innocent because you can't prove their guilty is a cop out and a line of argument that could be used for anything; its a really hard burden.

So when a game has such a crazy result, and an actual NBA official alleges other officials fixed the game and talked to him about it, and allowing that this person has an awful reputation, I don't see why its so dismissed. I don't buy into conspiracy theories generally, but i think the evidence adds up pretty good for this one. And I'm not a court and I'm not sending David Stern to jail, so I don't see why its irresponsible for anyone to speculate that there probably is some truth to the allegations.

• The Pau Gasol trade continues to baffle me. I think there is certainly a smell when, in a league where conspiracy theories are so justifiably rampant, a team sells off a player for well under market value to the league's marquee franchise. The KG trade was fishy too, especially since there were way better offers in the first bidding war. Then somehow Boston came back with a lesser offer months later with no competitors. But, I really don't get at all how the league could meddle in trades. Its much harder to believe than the refereeing (especially the plausible way described by Donaghy). The ref thing could, theoretically, all take place under the table (the league wouldn't necessarily have to say anything directly to the refs, or say anything at all for that matter). Rigging trades, on the other hand, would seem to require a direct conspiracy.

• How is Steve Kerr not yet been killed yet? The guy seems like a wrecking ball of a GM. He had a core of Nash, Marion, Amare with a good supporting cast and a visionary head coach perfectly suited to the team. Then he replaced Marion with Shaq, who ruined everything. Then he got rid of the coach for a guy who was fired by the freaking Bucks. They were in first place last year before the Shaq trade. They could easily not make the playoffs next year. What a disaster. And each of these moves is indefensible at the time it was made. And they're all moves where he's just hiring/trading for his old friends. But Kerr just gets the treatment of a gutsy executive taking worthwhile risks that didn't work out. It's bizarre. Well, until you realize that he's an all around good guy who knows everyone in the media. In reality, he has Isiah Thomas potential, except he's not hated, so he hasn't gotten lampooned yet.
• Speaking of Shawn Marion, I'm not one of those crazy Raptors fans who thinks TJ Ford would snare someone like Marion; but if they put together a package of Ford, and two of Anthony Parker, Andrea, Rasho, and Jamario Moon (Ok, not if the two where Rasho and Moon), the Heat would HAVE to listen, right? But he'd fit into the system perfectly (Jose Calderon, Chris Bosh, and Marion would be the perfect East coast version of Nash, Amare and Marion, and this could really work in the East). Bryan Colangelo was the guy who built the original Phoenix model we're copying, so he likely has a soft spot for Marion. And while you have to put me in the camp of thinking Colangelo might be a tad overrated and not quite the saviour to the Raptors everyone thinks he is, the one incredible talent he has is producing effective depth guys out of nowhere. Really, as long as we keep Jose and Bosh, we could give up anyone else from our roster, and I have faith Colangelo will replace them without missing a step with some unknown from god knows where. Of course, why would Marion ever want to go to Toronto, especially when he was trying to get away from that sort of team in the first place. But still, it would be perfect if it worked.
  

Derek Fisher is such a great guy, he would never commit a foul, and Joey Crawford is such a class act that he would never call an inappropriate foul

I read about 4 or 5 major sports articles on the Game 4 no-call on Brent Barry after Derek Fisher fell into him. The basic jist of each article was "yes, technically it was a foul, but [insert some absurd rationalization] not calling it a foul was the correct call".

First of all, it was a foul. Fisher fell right on top of him. Ran right into them. Berry had to go home and take a pregnancy test. The refs might be excused late in some important games to let some contact go on a final shot, but this leniency would never exclude calling such an obvious and egregious foul. Of course it wasn't a shooting foul, it was a foul on the floor, which would have nevertheless resulted in a chance for 2 game tying free throws.

Secondly, why is everyone drinking the NBA Kook-Aid and buying that it shouldn't have been called for some reason. I'm notoriously anti-conspiracy theory, but you don't really need one here; the ref had a personal vendetta against the main player on the other team, evidenced by a very insane public meltdown. Why he's working the game I have no idea, and its suspicious to say the least, but apart from any conspiracy theories, when a ref with such a publicized personal vendetta makes such an insanely obvious non-call, why does the media excuse this call? This is especailly perplexing when they have bend over backwards to invent some bizarre rationalization about why this obvious fould shouldn't have been called.

Final Note: I had enough of reading that Berry, Greg Popovich, and Tim Duncan agreed there shouldn't have been a call. Of course they didn't agree; they said they agreed because the call couldn't be changed, and its best for the team not to dwell on it or have a media circus around the issue.

"What If" Penguins could fly?

There are many reasons why the Red Wings have owned the Penguins in this Stanley Cup Final. So, its really unfair to pick on Marc Andre Fluery for being outplayed by Chris Osgood. Besides, Fleury has actually been very good this post season, and not that bad in the Final.

But still, I'm definitely on the "Marc Andre Fluery is overrated" bus. Hell, I might even be driving that bus. He's not that bad a goalie, but he's definitely the wrong type of goalie for this team. Considering he was a 1st overall pick, wouldn't you assume a team should be set in net with a franchise netminder. Fleury isn't going to be that goalie.

Strangely, because he had a fantastic tournament, but the World Juniors in Halifax really predicted his turbulent first few years in the NHL. He was spectacular, athletic, wild, and untamed. His puck playing disaster that led to Canada's loss in the finals is far more representative of his early NHL years than his acrobatic saves and hot streaks. But, as it turns out, being wild an untamed is a far bigger liability in the big leagues than an uncommon athleticism and an ability to make spectacular saves.

Teams that do the basics well (get good shots from the point with a good crowd in front, produce and convert rebounds, force a goalie to move around) prey on goalies like Fluery. The Detroit Red Wings are the epitome of this sort of team. Johan Franzen and Tomas Holmstrom's presence and touch around the net around the net, Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg's puck movement, and the Red Wing Defencemen's ability to get pucks on the net, seem like the perfect team to exploit Fleury's uncontrolled and showy acrobatics.

I also just watched Fluery knock someone's helmet away with a stick. Prodigy 23 year old goalies that are successful usually compose themselves more like 35 year old classy veterans, and not like spiteful 16 year old juniors. Compare Fluery's composure with another young prodigy netminder who had a similar propensity to let in bad goals this spring; Carey Price. At least, Price composed himself like a man and took himself and the game seriously. Its things like this that make me think the 20 year old Price will mature quickly, where I wonder where the already lengthy Fleury learning curve will finally pay dividends for the Penguins. As soon as I saw the helmet incident, I knew this was a bad sign for the Penguins; Fluery wasn't going to be able to control himself tonight, which will lead to his other glaring weakness; letting in horrible fluke goals at the worst possible time.

I heard people talk a lot about the Penguin's inability to convert on that late 5 on 3 in Game 4, and appropriately so. However, that go-ahead goal that Fleury let sneak past him short side was a weak goal in a close, must-win game. I just watched him let in one of the worst goals I've ever seen to let a reeling Red Wings back into Game 5. People will likely remember the incredible save he made where he almost did the splits to reach the puck on a two-on-one. And justifiably so, since he's one of the rare goalies who can make that save. But a save like that is required of a goalie once every 7 or 8 games, if that often. Those saves make great stories, but for winning Stanley Cups, avoiding awful goals is more important because it is required every game. Fleury has failed in this easier task in two straight games.

These chokes remind me a lot of that goal in the Canada-US game years ago. That was a "choke" goal; someone losing their nerve in a big moment and trying to do way too much, resulting in disaster. Fleury has let in two similarly choke-ish goals in two of the only must win games he's played in this year.

Fluery sort of reminds me of those goalies you loved as kids ; they made highlight reel saves, wore equipment that looked cool to a 9 year old, and looked great on playing cards. Only, these types of goalies didn't win you Stanley Cups. And the older you get, the gayer that "cool" equipment looks. At least Fluery ditched those cartoon-ish yellow pads, so maybe there is hope for him after all.

In a team full of young prodigies and high draft picks, and that seems likely to fall short this year, they must be wondering "what if" making Marc Andre Fluery the 2nd goalie ever to be drafted 1st overall had turned into the sure-thing young goaltender they banked on, rather than a mistake prone, unfocused, out of control goalie.