The Retirement Legacy Debate – Does How A Player Retires Impact Their Legacy?

June 11, 2009



What a terrific career, champ! You’ve accomplished everything you set out to do, and now it’s time to ride off into that glorious sunset. Perhaps a future in broadcasting awaits you, or maybe a chain of car dealerships. But hey, before you go… there’s just ONE more thing you’ve decided to do…

This brings us to our question of the day. (All of us here at the TSD World Headquarters would like to thank Brett Favre for inspiring this one!)

Retirement is never an easy decision to make, especially if you are leaving something that you love, something that defines you, something that you focused on your entire life. Some people go out on a high note… John Elway comes to mind. He retired following his second Super Bowl victory… as the MVP of the game. He knew it was time to walk away. Others don’t leave the game as gracefully. Some players, like our dear friend Brett, just can’t seem to let go. Eventually, each athlete has to face the reality that the game has passed them by and they just can’t do it anymore.

So the question being posed to my esteemed colleagues today is…

Does the manner in which a player retires affect the legacy of their career?

This is not a simple question to answer. Your debaters will have to consider the delicate balance between in-game performance, and post-game actions. Whether it’s hanging on too long, becoming involved in some newsworthy scandal, or a career cut short by injury, Sports Geek and Loyal Homer will be discussing how much a player’s exit from their sport impacts the memory of the way they played the game.

I flipped a coin to determine sides, and decided that I loved it so much that I just couldn’t stop yet, so I flipped it again. Once that was done, I thought I could take just one more crack at it, because I didn’t want to admit that it had come to the end. So, I flipped it one more time, and somehow ended up choking on the coin! After coughing it back up (THANKS Dr. Heimlich!), I just picked sides.

Loyal Homer will argue that a player’s exit strategy does NOT influence their legacy while Sports Geek will argue that a player’s exit strategy DOES influence their legacy.

Before I take my leave, I just want to say thank you to my friends for their help, my fans for their support, and my family for putting up with all my crap! I LOVE YOU ALL!

Read Loyal Homer and Sports Geek’s opinion.

Leave a Comment » | The Retirement Legacy Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Tom Glavine Fairness Debate – The Verdict Is In!

June 11, 2009

Please read the site note at the bottom of the post.

The Loyal Homer very much enjoyed the arguments presented by Bleacher Fan and Sports Geek. This debate is my favorite debate to this point!

Bleacher Fan made a very entertaining argument, highlighted by a situation that many guys have found themselves in at some point or another, so, kudos to Bleacher Fan for that. He also mentioned that fact that Glavine did everything that was asked of him when he signed this contract. He was productive, statistically at least, in his rehab assignments.

Sports Geek opened with a phony statement from Glavine… a sarcastic quote. He then elaborated that even the 2008 Tom Glavine was ineffective, and concluded that baseball is a business. That fact should not be forgotten.

After much deliberation (I actually went over the facts of the case while eating a chocolate chip waffle from Waffle House… a fine eating establishment that likely helped some college students get through college), I have chosen a winner. While I expect the loser will voice their displeasure, the winner of this debate is…

SPORTS GEEK!!!!!

As I was driving home today, I was leaning towards Bleacher Fan. Glavine was told that all he needed to do was make several rehab starts in the minors to build up his stamina. If he was able to do that effectively, and if he reported no soreness, he would be penciled in as the fifth starter in the Braves rotation. In fact, it was widely assumed by Glavine, players, and fans, that after his last start in Rome (low-A ball), he would make the hour drive down to Atlanta to make his next start with the big league club.

But, the more I thought about it, the more believed the Braves were justified in how they handled the situation. Do I believe Frank Wren when he said the release was not a financial move? Nope. A trade for Nate McLouth – on the same day – proves to me that finances did influence the decision-making process. I believe the status of Tommy Hanson also was a factor. Hanson, arguably, makes the Braves better in the long run (and quite possibly the short run despite his ERA of 9.00 after his first start).

As Sports Geek wrote, at the end of the day, baseball is a business. In the past six months, the Braves have proved that by allowing former starter/closer John Smoltz get away, and now again by releasing Glavine. These two moves, especially the Smoltz move, were not popular with fans. But, looking back, the Smoltz move was the right move. And releasing Glavine will turn out to be the right move also… and it was done justifiably!

Read Bleacher Fan and Sports Geek’s opinions.

Leave a Comment » | The Tom Glavine Fairness Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Tom Glavine Fairness Debate – Glavine Got What He Deserved

June 10, 2009

Please read the site note at the bottom of the post.

“Hi, my name is Tom Glavine. Braves fans may remember me from such hits as ‘Shea It Ain’t So’ and ‘The Ballad of Down and Away.’ I’d like to spend the next few news cycles of your time complaining about how I was emotionally hurt when the Atlanta Braves, a team I mostly loved (except for those years I played for their hated rival The New York Mets… by choice) decided to unceremoniously drop me from their roster to bring up the new, young, whippersnapper. Also, I’m going to tease you for a few weeks about possibly filing a grievance until another team picks me up and I have to concentrate on pitching again.”

That’s not a likely statement from Tom Glavine, but it’s the truth (except for those songs… I think). While I appreciate Bleacher Fan’s relationship advice, Tom Glavine has no right to be upset with the Atlanta Braves for several reasons.

First, he’s 43 years old, an ancient age for a solid pitcher who’s become a bit injury prone recently. Though he didn’t go on the Disabled List at all in the first 22 years of his career, age begins to show after a while, and three stints on the DL in the last two years proves that out.

Second, when Glavine returned to the Braves in 2008 (supposedly healthy) he went 2-4 with an ERA over 5.5. This isn’t the young Tom Glavine, and the Braves front office is wise to set their expectations accordingly. Tack on another year, and more DL time, and Glavine isn’t playing his way onto a roster. And, Bleacher Fan, low-A hitters can only hit a fastball (no offense… they’re just learning). So, when a veteran pitcher throws a steady diet of off-speed pitches, they’re not going to hit them, inflating a pitching line. Also, an 80 mph fastball isn’t a fastball. It’s barely even above the speed limit.

Third, sports are a business. Like it or not, personnel decisions have to be made, and they won’t all be as easy as shipping Jordan Schaffer back to the minors. When an older player on the downside of his career has as good of a chance at getting outs in the majors as a young kid with some upside, a smart GM chooses upside every time. The Braves aren’t a team that needs a good veteran clubhouse guy to buy meals and teach professionalism. They need more than two solid starters as a team. They need a guy who can string three or four quality starts together. Glavine isn’t that guy anymore.

Fourth, I completely dismiss the notion that Glavine helped “turn around the Braves” from losers to winners. One person playing every fifth day does not turn a team around. He was a part of a team that turned around, he played his role, and earned his success. But, let’s not get carried away. If we’re going to talk about credit for that turnaround, the conversation starts with Braves manager Bobby Cox. Here’s a Sports Geek fun fact: Did you know that every time a bell rings, Bobby Cox gets thrown out of a game?

Don’t misconstrue my commentary as dislike for Tom Glavine. But, for Glavine to call the Braves’ organization loyalty into question is a farce. He spurned the Braves, for not substantially different money, after rejecting his 2003 contract option. Where’s the loyalty there? The fact that he’s considering filing a grievance just proves MLB players and their union have too much power. That’s nothing more than a legal way to be a crybaby, and the savvy, veteran Glavine is supposed to be better than that.

Read the intro and Bleacher Fanopinion.

Leave a Comment » | The Tom Glavine Fairness Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Tom Glavine Fairness Debate – Breakin’ Up (Again) Is Hard to Do!

June 10, 2009

Please read the site note at the bottom of the post.

Everyone has at least one friend like this: the guy that lets himself get walked all over by that one girl. It’s usually his first “love”, and he’s usually WAY more in love with her than she is with him. While he’s convinced she’s “the one” she eventually gets bored and lets him down, brutally. He mopes around for a while, but eventually settles back into a groove with someone new. The problem is, though, that he never really figures out how to let go of her.

Then, after a few years, she calls him up and cries that she wants him back. He, of course, is ready to dive back in head first, right back to being the sucker. He promises to do whatever it takes to make her happy. She likes the attention, and she knows that he will do ANYTHING she wants, so she slips right back into taking advantage of him. You try to warn him OVER AND OVER, but he doesn’t listen. THIS TIME, it will work, he says! Well, despite all of your warnings, and despite all of his blind ignorance, it happens for good this time. She found someone else, and now she’s getting married. It’s the worst way to be let down. She used him when it was convenient for her, and she threw him away when she didn’t like the idea of a long-term commitment with him.

Welcome to that club, Tom Glavine!

And to the Atlanta Braves I say, “SHAME ON YOU!”

It’s one thing to be up front with a guy and tell him that it’s just not going to work out. It’s another to string him along for many months, making him believe that he had a chance, and then pulling the rug out from under him with some bogus excuse about performance not being up to par. Just admit it! It was about the money!

Frank Wren, the Braves General Manager, called on Tommy Hanson instead of Glavine, with claims that Glavine couldn’t show he had “the stuff” any more. He also says that “the pitching line is irrelevant when you’re pitching in low A-ball.” So what, pray tell, DO you use to monitor a pitcher, either up-and-coming, or on rehab assignment, Wren? Is it his haircut? The way he chews his food? What’s the indicator of big-league success?

In his three minor-league starts this year, Glavine has thrown 16 innings with a 2.25 ERA, 5 strike-outs, and only 3 walks, giving up a total of only 4 runs on 17 hits. That sounds like successful pitching to me.

Well, if the pitching line doesn’t count in low-A ball, then maybe it’s his fastball that was a problem. He must have lost some pop on his heater over the years, right? Wrong again. In his last start in Rome (Atlanta’s Class-A affiliate), he was clocked at above 80mph on his fastball. Wren, however, claims that the scoreboard was incorrect… convenient!

Could it have been attitude and confidence? I’m sure the Braves were very concerned that the winningest active pitcher in baseball, who has also won a World Series for the Braves, looked a little “shaky” on the mound. Nope, not that either!

So if it wasn’t the heater, and it wasn’t his pitching line, and it wasn’t confidence that raised the warning flags for Wren, what was it, then?! My answer is the money!

If Glavine made his start with the Braves, he would have been owed $1 million, and would have earned another $1.25 million each after hitting the 30 and 60-day marks on the active roster.

The Braves organization was scared that Glavine actually might get healthy enough to make the active roster, but wouldn’t STAY healthy enough to produce long-term for them. So, rather than have to pay $1 million to a guy they were afraid couldn’t stay healthy, they cut him with a BS story about performance problems that they can’t seem to ever actually label.

What the Braves did to Glavine was wrong. But don’t worry, buddy, there’s other fish in the sea!

Read the intro and Sport Geek’s opinion.

3 Comments | The Tom Glavine Fairness Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Tom Glavine Fairness Debate – Were the Braves justified in releasing Glavine?

June 10, 2009

Please read the site note at the bottom of the post.

Happy Hump Day! (Get your minds out of the gutter.) It’s time for another court room battle between your favorites, Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan. On today’s docket is…

TOM GLAVINE

Late in the off-season, future Hall of Fame pitcher Tom Glavine was signed to an incentive-laden contract by the Atlanta Braves. If he made the roster at any point during the season (which was not a given) he would be given a $1 million bonus, with opportunities for more incentives. This is exactly the contract Glavine wanted. He would close out his career with the team he played for the most during his career. He achieved 244 of his 305 wins with the Braves. He would retire as a member of the Atlanta Braves, and ride off into the sunset on his way to Cooperstown wearing the cursive A. Well, a funny thing happened on that ride – a bump. A pretty big bump!

He was given his unconditional release.

Glavine was obviously shocked by the release. Braves general manager Frank Wren has repeatedly said the move was a “performance based” move, and had nothing to do with finances. The move has opened up a spot in the rotation for the heavily hyped Braves phenom pitcher, Tommy Hanson. Glavine’s camp disagrees, saying that it was purely based on finances, and that the move shows a lack of loyalty. Glavine is even threatening to file a grievance against the team. The question Loyal Homer poses is…

Were the Atlanta Braves justified in releasing Tom Glavine the way they chose to release him?

Bleacher Fan will argue that Glavine was treated poorly by the Braves, and that the move was disrespectful to him after all of his years of service.

Sports Geek will argue that baseball is a business, and the Braves are responsible for making the best move for the organization.

The two sides will make their arguments and his Honor (me) will post the verdict later today! Feel free to leave your comments to sway my opinion before I render my verdict.

Bleacher Fan and Sports Geek… the floor is yours!

Read Bleacher Fan and Sports Geek’s opinions.

1 Comment | The Tom Glavine Fairness Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The NBA Replay Debate – The Verdict

June 9, 2009

Please read the site note at the bottom of the page.



Thanks for reading yet another debate on The Sports Debates. We’re up to a topic a day, so make sure to continue checking the site, bookmark us, subscribe to us to get TSD delivered to your inbox (it’s free, don’t worry), or follow us on Twitter.

(Cue the drum roll)…

Today’s debate winner IS…

BLEACHER FAN!!!!!

Bleacher Fan made the obvious point that NBA officials are human, and implied that fans must hold them to human standards. This is the very essence of this debate. Fans may accept that refs are human, but their teams transcend those bounds, for better or worse. I know I don’t think of a team as a collection of humans, just trying to make it in this cruel, cruel world (cue Latrell Sprewell’s “trying to feed my family” comment). My expectations for performance from my favorite teams is extremely high, and when that expectation isn’t met, I’m frustrated as a fan (makes you wonder why I’m a Cubs fan). In fact, when teams don’t deliver on fan expectations the ratings go down, attendance falters, and revenue and income are negatively impacted.
However, despite that hole in the argument, I must side with Bleacher Fan.

As soon as video replays are applied in a subjective manner, the game slows down dramatically and every human decision is called into question. Rules must be black and white. Gray area in rules leads to chaos, not constructive public debate.

I do believe that the NBA will eventually find a way to review potentially controversial shots. However, to Bleacher Fan’s salient point – what makes the last shot more important than any other shot? After a loss, a coach is more likely to talk about the missed opportunities than a questionable call in the last second. In fact, if any team has proven that losing on a last second-shot isn’t detrimental, it’s the 2009 Orlando Magic. Stan Van Gundy spent less time talking about last second shots, and more time talking about the areas of the game where the Magic let points get away from them. And, here they are in the NBA Finals. Sounds like a solid approach.

Now, I can’t conclude this verdict without addressing a real issue I have with all basketball officials. As a former amateur basketball ref, I can say that some athleticism is required (or whatever it is I did that passed as athleticism). It’s a lot of running because a good ref places a great deal of emphasis on being in the right position to make a call. If a ref isn’t in position to have enough certainty to make a call, then they should not make it. Period. So, fans must learn to be more tolerant of out of position refs “missing” calls, and refs need to learn to hustle more, just like the players. If their position is designed to keep the competition fair, then they must hustle to ensure that fairness. Most basketball refs can afford to hustle a little more.

Agree? Disagree? Email us at thesportsdebates@gmail.com.

Read Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan’s arguments.

1 Comment | The NBA Replay Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The NBA Replay Debate – To Err is Human… Unless You’re a Ref

June 9, 2009

Please read the site note at the bottom of the page.



The proposal seems simple… amend Rule #13 so a potentially game-deciding play at the conclusion of time is automatically reviewed. On the surface, this seems like a great idea. But, when you consider the scope of how this seemingly simple change would impact the league, it becomes much less appealing.

I’m going to start off by giving some long overdue credit… the officials in the NBA (or any sport) have some of the most challenging jobs out there. They must monitor the game in real time and make snap decisions based only on what they see, knowing full well that an arena of 40,000+ will let them know of every perceived mistake made.

I say ‘perceived’ mistake because, let’s be honest, the refs USUALLY get it right. In the heat of a game it’s easy to criticize officials, but when you remove your personal interests and observe the officiating objectively, you usually find that they are very good at what they do. That’s not to say they are perfect, but NOBODY IS PERFECT! So before we begin a “trash the refs” campaign, let’s acknowledge that this problem is not some grand flaw in professional sports. While this proposed rule change would evaluate every potentially game-deciding last-second shot, it realistically would only affect a very small percentage. There just isn’t a big enough need to warrant such a change.

This is a game played and monitored by human beings. Therefore issues such as interpretation and subjectivity come into play. Not every foul committed is a clear offense. That means that someone has to make a determination as to who the offender was. What one person sees as a charge, the other may see as a blocking foul. All the rules in the world will not change the fact that there are times when, even on replay, you won’t be able to get it 100% right.

Consider the example at the conclusion of regulation in Game 2 of the NBA Finals. There can be no dispute after viewing the replay that Pau Gasol’s hand clearly made contact with the rim. After review, this should have been called a goaltending violation, and the points should have been awarded accordingly, giving the Orlando Magic 2 points more and the win, right? I don’t think so.

The rulebook states that a player must vibrate the rim or backboard in such a way as to make the ball take an unnatural bounce in order to be deemed as goaltending. So did Gasol’s hand create a vibration? If so, was it enough to affect Courtney Lee’s shot? If you ask fans of the Los Angeles Lakers, they will tell you with 100% certainty that it did not. Yet, if you ask fans of the Orlando Magic, they will tell you with 100% certainty that it was a violation. Despite looking at the replay, you will never convince everyone that the correct call was made.

What makes the last shot of a game so important? I argue that EACH shot could change the outcome of a game, and to single out the final play of the game gives unfair weight to the final few seconds. Earlier in Game 2, there was a very clear goaltending violation committed by Dwight Howard that was not called. Had the refs gotten that call correct, Orlando actually would have trailed by 2 points at the end of regulation, and Lee’s miss would have instantly awarded the game to the Lakers. Hypothetically, had Orlando gone on to win in overtime, THAT blown call would have had more impact on the conclusion of the game than the final shot of regulation would have. Just because a shot takes place at the end of the game, it does not mean the shot is worth more than any other shot taken. It is worth the same points, and should be treated with the same allowance for error. If you want to review that shot, then you must review EVERY shot, which is far too ridiculous to maintain.

If you truly wish to eliminate human error from the game, allow the game to be played without any real-time interruption. At the conclusion of the game, officials then review the entire game and record each foul they observed in replay. Once those fouls are totaled up, each team would THEN shoot their foul shots, to add to the final score of regulation.

Otherwise, don’t play the game anymore. Humans will just screw it up anyway!

Read the intro and opening argument from Loyal Homer.

Leave a Comment » | The NBA Replay Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The NBA Replay Debate – The NBA Must Be More Hands On

June 9, 2009

Please read the site note at the bottom of the page.



Fans of the Orlando Magic still continue to fuss about the possible goaltending violation that occurred at the end of regulation in Game 2 of the this year’s NBA Finals. Was it or wasn’t it? We can debate it all day every day. And for the rest of their lives, Magic fans will say it was goaltending, while fans of the Los Angeles Lakers will wholeheartedly disagree! But, whether or not this specific play was goaltending is not the question posed by Sports Geek.

Sports Geek asks if the NBA should get more involved, and allow replay to look at a possible game changing play at the end of a game. I believe that the NBA should allow expanded rules for replays for exactly these types of potentially controversial plays, and I certainly hope they pursue this sooner rather than later.

As Sports Geek mentioned, NBA officials are currently allowed to go back and look at video to determine what, if any, discrepancies occurred regarding time issues, possible flagrant fouls, and players leaving the bench during altercations. I think it’s safe to say most everyone is happy that these changes that were made. But, I think I speak for many, (including all Magic fans) that we want more!

What’s the harm in reviewing plays at the end of the game – plays that could affect the outcome of the game? Of course, you don’t want it to drag on too long and extend the real time of the game to the point where everyone involved gets frustrated. But, shouldn’t everyone want the right call to be made? Do you want your team to get the shaft and have defeat snatched from the jaws of victory due to a bogus call? It could happen, folks, and it could happen to your team (maybe it just did!)! These officials are human and they make mistakes. ESPN/ABC color analyst Jeff Van Gundy thinks they make too many mistakes, but that’s likely a debate for another time!

Now, what NBA Commissioner David Stern and Company will have to decide is what decides what a reviewable play is? That’s where it gets interesting. Though I’m not sure I’m on board with reviewing everything that Sports Geek mentioned in the question (imagine overturning a charge), I definitely feel like it’s something that should be looked at in the off-season.

Let’s say the ball bounces off the foot off of Team A’s player with a second remaining, yet the official rules that it is Team A’s ball. Why not replay this? MLB and the NFL have taken steps to look at plays like this. It’s time for the NBA to follow suit!

Read the intro and Bleacher Fan’s opinion before you vote.

Leave a Comment » | The NBA Replay Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The NBA Replay Debate – Should Replay Be To Avoid Controversial Endings?

June 9, 2009

Please read the site note at the bottom of the page.



As I have moved my record to a robust 2-0 in Court Room style debates, I have also earned the right to introduce and judge yet another timely topic involving the 2009 NBA Finals (side note – how are Laker fans getting out-voted by Magic fans?).

As I see it, NBA Commissioner David Stern may find himself in an off-season conundrum. Should the NBA change their famous Rule #13 (instant replay) to include a number of traditionally non-reviewable aspects, solely to ensure fairness for any last second shot that takes place as time expires?

Here’s the scenario. The Orlando Magic, their fans, and their media (including our friends at the Orlando Sentinel) have contested that there is a chance Los Angeles Lakers power forward Pau Gasol committed goaltending on Magic shooting guard Courtney Lee’s attempt to hammer home a lob pass as time expired in regulation during Game 2 of the 2009 NBA Finals.

Let’s not worry about whether the refs cheated the Magic. Instead, the compelling question for me is the following: How involved should the NBA get in controversial, potentially game-changing plays as time expires in regulation or overtime?

Consider the end of Game 2 of this year’s Finals as the key example. The game clock expired as Lee’s shot missed. However, there is some controversy surrounding whether Gasol caused the rim to move, or hit the ball after it had already touched the backboard. In situations like this, regardless of the normal process governing when a play can or cannot be replayed, should the NBA mandate that a close play at the end of a game – a play that could change the game’s outcome – be reviewed to ensure fairness and accuracy, not just time-remaining when the ball was released.

Currently, the rules surrounding what constitutes a reviewable play – and what doesn’t – are clear. Replays may occur only when issues involving time remaining on the clock, the severity of a flagrant foul, or the players involved in an altercation are in question. (You can read the entire rule book online. It’s a real page turner. Rule #13 is on page 50, if you’re curious.).

Here’s the debate. The NBA must use replay to review a close play at the end of regulation that may change the game’s outcome, including potential foul calls (only shooting fouls), goaltending, traveling, charging, and all ‘player control fouls.’

Loyal Homer will argue that the NBA must amend the rule book and expand the definition of replay at the end of a game to ensure the utmost fairness and accuracy of its referees.

Bleacher Fan will argue that the NBA should in no way amend their Rule #13, and that instant replay should remain intact after the slight alterations made to it last off-season.

I think there are several interesting points to be made in this debate, including how much oversight NBA referees should have when making big judgments (on the court, not in the casinos, Tim Donaghy). Let the debate commence!

Read the opening arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

Leave a Comment » | The 2009 NBA Finals Debate - Are The Lakers In Control? | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The 2009 NBA Finals Debate – The Verdict Is In

June 9, 2009

Will the defendants please rise?

Loyal Homer has reached a decision. After much deliberation, Loyal Homer has decided to rule in favor of…

SPORTS GEEK!

(Minor applause)

Folks, this isn’t a slam dunk case. Many across the nation think this is in the bag. Let me tell you, it’s not. Judging by the results of the poll, you don’t necessarily think it’s over either. As of this writing, 42% of you think the Magic still have a shot! (Some of you just want to see Stan Van Gundy wearing his Sunday best.) Remember the shooting display that Orlando Magic forwards Rashard Lewis, Hedo Turkoglu, and Mickael Peitrus (where has he been for the NBA Finals?) put on against the Cleveland Cavaliers. That could still happen against the favored Lakers.

We at the Sports Debates have been giving Stan Van Gundy a lot of grief (well, one of us has… you figure out who). But, Loyal Homer likes Stan better than his brother Jeff, not only because he has more hair than his brother, but because he has quietly turned this team around in a short amount of time. Remember two years ago when Florida Gator men’s basketball head coach Billy Donavan took the job and then had a change of heart in the span of two days? ‘Stan the Man’ was the fall back guy and he wasn’t exactly Stan the Man in the eyes of Magic fans. While I don’t think he is the best coach in the league or even this series like Bleacher Fan suggests, I still think he is underrated and doesn’t get the league-wide respect that he deserves. The fact that Orlando has the next three games, as Bleacher Fan touches on, gives them a shot.

However, let’s not kid ourselves. Though the Magic are a Courtney Lee layup from being tied in this series, the Lakers are still the overwhelming favorite at this point. The Lakers won Game 2 of the NBA Finals with an admittedly mediocre performance from star Kobe Bryant. They got clutch shots late in the game from center Pau Gasol, guard Derek Fisher, and forward Lamar Odom.

What separates the Lakers from the Magic in this series is the frontcourt, as Sports Geek says. The Magic matched up well with Cleveland but they really don’t with the Lakers. Then again, who does match up well with the Lakers? Especially with the monsters down low in center Andrew Bynum, Gasol, and Odom. After losing his last two shots at a record tenth NBA championship, you have to figure Lakers coach Phil Jackson isn’t going to lose three Finals in a row.

Good debate! Like I said, this series isn’t over yet (at least ABC hopes it isn’t). That said, the Lakers would really have to lay an egg to let the Magic back in the series at this point.

Read Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan’s opinions!

Leave a Comment » | The 2009 NBA Finals Debate - Are The Lakers In Control? | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.