"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a
concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and
immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be
grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no
longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy
to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had
to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he
didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply
by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a
respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed."
-----------------
I really liked law school, for several reasons. First, although UCLA
Law was one of the 15 or so Top Ten law schools in the country (and much
better than USC Law), it was not nearly as academically challenging as
Haverford College. As a result, I had plenty of time to play in
basketball and softball leagues. We had some pretty good teams in each
sport, and won both lawyer leagues and city leagues in each. When I
wasn't multi-tasking with hoops and competitive softball (realize that
"multi-tasking" wasn't even a word then), the excess time was filled
with a Thursday night poker game.
And this was real poker, largely 7 card stud, high-low, not Texas Hold
'Em. For those of you who have not played both, 7 card stud is to Texas
Hold 'Em as Chess is to Checkers.
Anyway, in those Thursday night games, I was introduced to the very
powerful Corman Outcome Theory, brought to the game by eminent poker
philosopher, and all around good guy, Marc Corman. His theory is that
one can always determine what choice was proper after the hand is
completed. If you decided to stay in the hand, and challenged what
seemed on its face to be a stronger hand, the Corman Outcome Theory
taught that whether you won or lost determines whether it was the right
choice. The theory was both simple and elegant. More importantly, it
allowed absolutely certainty, since its clever use of hindsight meant it
was always right. In some ways, the Corman Outcome Theory is as
powerful as Catch-22.
Just as with the Corman Outcome Theory, the narrative of Game 5 of the
Finals, and in fact, of the entire series, has been remarkably driven by
the outcome. This series has been seen as a referendum on The Decision
-- Lebron's choice to leave a city that had nurtured him for the siren
song of South Beach. Since most of America didn't like either The
Decision itself, or how it was handled, most of America (including
Democrats) roots for a team from Texas owned by Mark Cuban whose best
player is from Germany.
Because the Heat lost Game 5, Lebron's performance in Game 5 has been
highly criticized -- even though the Heat lost for a reason largely out
of Lebron's control. When I was coaching at Claremont in the early
90's, one of our really good teams (I think we went 22 - 7 for the
season), went to league rival Redlands and got smoked by about 10
points. Checking the stats after the game, we learned that Redlands had
gone 18 for 25 from 3. That is essentially equivalent to 108% from 2.
You know what? We were not winning that game. If Redlands had instead
gone 13 for 25, still an incredible over 50% from 3, we would have won
by 5. If they had gone 10 for 25, a very good 40%, we would have won by
14. How does this relate to Game 5? The Mavs went 13 for 19 from 3 --
the equivalent of shooting over 100% from the field. For those of you
who watched the game, you may remember at least 4 3s from Dallas that
were total prayers. Two from Terry, including the dagger with 33
seconds left, the other a one hand just-beat-the-shot-clock heave over
Mike Miller. Also one from Dirk that was a total moon shot to the
ceiling and back like something from The Earth to the Moon by HG Wells.
And a similar shot from little Hey Whey, who after missing all his 3s
since the Laker series ended, went 4 for 5 from 3. He must have dreamed
Steve Blake was covering him. All four prayers answered, nothing but
net.
The outcome drives the narrative. If those shots don't go, the Heat
wins. If the Heat had won, the narrative would have been about Lebron's
maturity and all around game. The narrative would have been that
despite all the pundits' predictions that the Heat could not win without
Lebron scoring 30, he knew that his best skill, for all his physical
skills, is his court vision and passing skills -- which led to his 10
assists even though, other than D Wade, the guys he is passing to just
aren't that good. The narrative would have been Lebron's recognition, in
spite of all the criticism, that the Heat needed his all-around game
more than just scoring, and Lebron was right.
One advantage of taping the game is that I have now watched the 4th
quarter twice. Lebron took only 2 shots, a missed 18 footer, and a
missed 3 late. But he didn't pass up any shots that he should have
taken, and virtually every time he attacked the rim, he was doubled --
and made the right pass every time. Also remember that Spoelstra had
him play point guard for the entire quarter, so that he often was
assigned the job of bringing the ball up against pressure, getting the
ball to D Wade. D Wade, not Lebron, then ran the pick and roll play
called by the coaching staff.
The one time when Lebron attacked the rim and didn't make the right pass
was when he was called for a charge coming down the baseline against
Tyson Chandler. That was a bang-bang play, close to an "and one",
especially since Chandler was not outside the restricted area. Any
other official than Joey Crawford would have likely called it the other
way -- but Crawford was the ref making the call, the basket was waved
off, and the Mavs got the ball and went on to win. The score when that
call was made? 102 - 100 Mavs. If the call goes Lebron's way, and he
makes the free throw, the Heat retake the lead with 2 minutes left --
and we may have listened to a different narrative the last two days.
Other thoughts:
1. Worst Call of the Finals: I think the officials have generally done
a good job. However, the play where D Wade absolutely ran over a
stationary Brian Cardinal, and the blocking foul was called on Cardinal,
was brutal. It was so bad that the Basketball Gods had to step in to
correct the injustice. After some deliberation, they imposed a hip
injury onto D Wade, thereby balancing the scales.
2. Mario Chalmers: Has any one ever made the same impossible shot twice
in the space of 3 games like Chalmers? Each time, it looks like the
Heat designed the play to get Chalmers the ball at a full sprint so he
could shot a 40 footer as the buzzer went off. Maybe it is the Best
Coaching Ever to know that this heave is Chalmers' specialty.
3. Offensive Rebounding: Speaking of good coaching, after the Mavs
killed the Heat on the O Boards in Game 3, the Heat clearly have a new
emphasis on blocking out. In Game 5, the Mavs only got 4 offensive
rebounds (on 30 missed shots). Chandler had twice that many, on his
own, in Game 3. In Game 5, he had only two. Good coaching and good
execution by the Miami Bigs keeping Chandler off the boards --
especially since the guys covering Chandler essentially ignore him
during the offense, at least until the shot goes up. The guys you
ignore on offense are absolutely the most difficult to box out.
4. Chandler: He is a free agent at the end of this season -- and has
made a lot of money with his play. His ability to hedge on pick and
rolls by Lebron, and prevent him from shooting OR driving off the pick,
has essentially removed that play from the Heat's arsenal.
5. Bibby and Miller: A big question before the series was whether
Dallas would be able to play its little guards (Terry and Hey Whey)
against the Heat. Who would they cover? Well, it turns out you can put
one of them on Bibby, who barely needs to be covered at all -- and the
other on 6'8'' Mike Miller. Amazingly, the Heat can have both hobbits
on the floor -- and then have Kidd try to cover either D Wade or even
Lebron. The Mavs' ability to play all 3 guards at the same time allowed
them to finally start scoring some damn points. They broke 100 -- and
there was much rejoicing.
6. Lebron on D. Because Dallas has been able to play small, Lebron has
been covering guards. And while he was effective early in the Finals on
Terry, possibly because Terry was a bit freaked out to have a freak of
nature covering him, Terry has adjusted by simply attacking. And that
attacking style meant that when Terry needed to shoot that dagger with
33 seconds left, Lebron was playing just enough off of him, with hands
down, for Terry to get that clean look. Interestingly, they have yet to
put Lebron on Dirk. Since Dirk has continued to dominate 4th quarters,
we still might see that match-up in Game 6. I think that is what I
would do if the game is once again tied in the 4th.
7. Game 6. All of us who picked the Heat in 6 made the wrong choice,
as proven by the Corman Outcome Theory. I assume D Wade will be fine by
Sunday -- the extra day off will surely help him. It should also help
the others with the various nicks, bruises and illnesses like Marion and
Dirk. As noted in an earlier post, Miami and Dallas were tied for the
best road record on the year at 28 - 13. Dallas has already won once in
Miami, which helps. My gut tells me they will do it again. If they
don't win either game in Miami, and Lebron has some huge 28/12/10 type
games, under all that scrutiny, he could still be series MVP. Or we
could have the first MVP from the losing team since Jerry West in the
60s. For a guy who barely plays defense, Dirk has still been the best
player of the Finals thus far. Dirk's story is just not as compelling
as the Story of Lebron, which awaits the results of the Corman Outcome
Theory for its conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment