Lebron "Accidentally" Bloodies Edgecombe's Nose

When I saw that Lebron sat out the Sixers’ third game (24 Oct.) of the season, the first thing I thought or at least hoped is that the organization did so intentionally, after that crab shit he did to Edgecombe in the second game (22 Oct.), to minimize the threat of him destroying Philly’s established team chemistry - which btw already existed before he arrived.  You see how they won that third game without James but then lost the fourth one (25 Oct.) with him and without Embiid.  Granted, that was against Milwaukee and Detroit respectively, but you get the point. 

Having to deal with King James’ character brings its fair share of challenges.  I’ve noted that numerous times throughout the years.  And recently, Lebron even publicly acknowledged that himself.

As soon as I saw the headline that Lebron “accidentally” bloodied his own, younger teammate’s nose, I was like ‘oh shit, let me check YouTube’.  And sure enough, if you look at the video, it appears as if “Donatello” intentionally extended his arm into VJ’s face. 

Then, to quell all confusion of whether it was an accident or not, Lebron proceeded to casually walk away, to the other end of the court, as if nothing happened, not even bothering to see is Edgecombe was okay.  And btw, VJ is even younger than Bronny.

So off the top of my head, LBJ is the only player I can think of who has bloodied another player, on court - twice.  Oh, wait a minute.  There’s also that story of D-Wade - aka Lebron’s homey - breaking Kobe’s nose in an allstar, i.e. meaningless game at that.

LEBRON’S PAST INFRACTIONS

Let’s not forget when James “accidentally” bloodied Isiah Stewart.  They’re both big dudes, but Stewart is bigger.  And upon truly realizing what Lebron did and becoming enraged accordingly, he proceeded to totally shrink LBJ.  So in hindsight, maybe the lesson Lebron learned is hey, let me do it to a smaller dude next time.

And let’s not also forget there’s at least one highlight in circulation (which I don't feel like tracking down at the moment) of Lebron dunking on his own teammate, i.e. Kyrie Irving, during his second stint with the Cavs.  These ultra-competitive NBA superstars really are some class acts.  And one of the reasons LBJ will never be ‘greater’ than Jordan is because MJ had a better or more relatable character.

The worst you can say about His Airness, in terms of his on-court personality, is that he took challenges personally.  For all we know most NBA players do, but they aren’t able to back that shit up like Jordan.

Sometimes, he may have gotten into a duffing match with, say, Reggie “Skull & Bones” Miller.  But I can’t say I ever remember MJ ‘accidentally’ elbowing someone in the face.

CONCLUSION

After watching that second game of the season, the way LBJ more or less disrespected VJ and the way the Sixers proceeded to win regardless, I was like ‘oh boy, here we go’.  Granted, none of us knows what goes on behind the scenes.  For all we know, maybe there’s a genuine reason he has some type of dislike for the kid.  But that said, once I saw that, I was thinking it’s only a matter of time before he tries to force Edgecombe out, most likely for a big, since Philly is rich in Gs regardless, fukin j-hole.

So I’m hoping that the Sixers did compel James to sit the next game, to send a message, that they’re not going to tolerate that GM Lebron shit.  Philadelphia may not have a won a championship in recent times, but unlike any other team in the East, if not the entire NBA, as it currently stands they’ve been competitive for like a decade straight.  Can you say the same thing about the squads Lebron have been on?  Once Brown arrived, people were already calling the Sixers contenders, before King James even showed up.

2026-27 NBA Season Predictions

I was hoping to get this post off before the regular season started, but that didn’t happen.  That said, I have yet to watch any regular season games or highlights but have been following headlines on Yahoo and NBC.  And even then, they only focus on a handful of teams, i.e. the most popular.  So the following predictions have not been really influenced by anything that has happened in the regular season thus far and in fact, if anything, have been buttressed by them.  Outside of those handful of teams, I don't know who's won or loss yet.  And the records you see below are from the preseason, not the regular season.

ATLANTA HAWKS (4-1)

There isn’t much to see here.  They may overachieve again, you know, make it to the First Round type shit.  But in the improved EC, it isn’t as likely.

Dudes got bullied out the building last postseason and, instead of bulking up, may have gotten even smaller.  It’s obvious, at least to me, that they aren’t really trying to win or if anything aren’t under any type of win-now pressure.  And it’s all good, if dudes can preserve their health until whenever the roster becomes more formidable.

JALEN JOHNSON

Can once again be an allstar, considering that there really aren’t any other on the roster

BOSTON CELTICS (4-0)

Yes, I was feeling salty about the whole Jaylen Brown thing for awhile.  And based on conventional logic, you wouldn’t expect a team to willingly part ways with its best player and then try to compete for a championship the following season.  So I was like yeah, fuk the Celtics.

But when I really started looking at their roster, I noticed that they had depth across the board and therefore shouldn’t be hastily written off, even tho, you know, I’m not on their dicks like some other pundits.  But Derrick White, who’s arguably their best all-around player, isn’t a spring chicken, nor is the undisputed alpha, Jayson Tatum, nor is Brown’s replacement, Paul George, nor is their biggest free agent acquisition, Mitchell Robinson.  So I mean, yeah.  With that in mind, it’s more understandable why they gave Pritchard that contract.  There’s going to be a lot asked of him.

BROOKLYN NETS (3-1)

The Nets have looked pretty competitive in the preseason, definitely not like pushovers.  The roster lacks starpower but is rich in young dudes who, in theory, should be able to run older teams down.  In fact, they're the youngest team in the NBA.  So let's hope they can at least use that to their advantage.

JULIUS RANDLE

Please try to stay in the post, where you're more needed, like damn already

CHARLOTTE HORNETS (1-3)

I have high hopes for the Hornets.  They have a deep, talented roster, which honestly I can’t remember them possessing since like the 1990s or, you know, last season.

You always hear people talking about ‘the Sixers need to sacrifice, with all their talent’.  That’s truer for Charlotte’s roster, even if they aren't as talented, especially when it comes to the point.  No use letting LaMelo "the Travel Agent" Ball go if you’re just going to replace him with another chuck.

CHICAGO BULLS (3-2)

Damn, I almost forgot about the Bulls, like deadass.  I'm anticipating they'll be a good watch at least.  It's bug like to this day, when this team is mentioned, the first thing to come to mind is Jordan.

And that rookie dude, Caleb Wilson, the one time I did watch him play looked kinda smallish on court.  So I don't know if the onus they're putting on him is really realistic at this point.

CLEVELAND CAVALIERS (1-2)

With teams like the Cavs, who I’ve criticized a lot in recent years, I don’t want to be redundant and sound like I’m bullying.  I’ve already been saying that one of the things they appear to lack is favor from on high, and I recently came across a conspiracy theory, concerning last season’s ECF, which supported that idea.  And you know, if that is the case, I don’t think the Beard is the type of player you bring over to solve it.

Oh well. At least we can say that, roster-wise, Cleveland has done an expeditious job rebounding post-Lebron.  They haven’t remained in obscurity into virtual perpetuity, like the post-Jordan Bulls.  So I’m sure we’re looking at another noteworthy regular season, concluding with another postseason flunking, tho I think this year’s iteration may have a worst record than last.  Peyton Watson may be the type of starting 3 they’ve longed for.  But now, what about the bench?

DALLAS MAVERICKS (1-3)

I think Kyrie is more humble than a lot of people give him credit for, like other proven superstars of his caliber would never agree to play on a roster like this.  I now doubt even Flagg’s status as the next great white hope can save this team, considering the Lakers new makeup.

It's sort of a strange situation like okay, Irving is not on the new timeline.  But concurrently, this team lacks talent compared to competitors and clearly needs him.  I think Adam Silver and them more or less killed tanking, so it isn't as logical to intentionally be garbage anymore.

DENVER NUGGETS (3-2)

I feel sorry for Braun, in that he's entering this season with arguably the worst contract in the league, and that'll be pointed out at every opportunity, of which I'm presuming they'll be many, especially if he remains a starter. DeRozan should definitely, undoubtedly get the call over him, but Denver's braintrust isn't always that wise.  They're the committed types, though at least not as bad as the Warriors.

DETROIT PISTONS (3-1)

A couple of weeks ago when I listed the plethora of contenders in the East, the Pistons sorta slipped my mind.  That Duren situation was a big mess, but it seems that they've since moved on.  I don't know the intricacies of everything, but considering how sharp he looked in the preseason, I'm thinking that maybe dude shoulda just signed for a couple of years, three at most, instead of a whopping five at that price.

Anyway, Detroit does have a couple of advantages over its competitors. Off the top of my head, I'd say they have a higher degree of continuity than any other team in East, besides maybe the Magic.  And unlike any other squad in the entire league, they have an identity which arguably dates back 30+ years.

But still, all things considered, for some reason I can't fully explain, it's easier not to believe in these dudes than to believe in them to win it all.  Playing musical chairs every offseason without noticeably upgrading isn't moving the needle, unless the core develops better than competitors.

JOHN COLLINS

One of the better acquisitions of the entire offseason

GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS (4-2)

The way I feel about the Warriors, by this point, is that they overbelieve in Curry.  That said, I also felt that way a few years back, i.e. 2022, and they proceeded to win a championship.  And like, if you must have faith in anybody in the NBA, it’d have to be Steph.

But, you know, dude isn’t Lebron.  And even if you’re going to keep him around, okay, at least put him on a roster that’s like respectable without him.

That said, I can totally envision this team making noise if healthy, which is a big if, and I can also understand why they’d pay to keep Draymond around, all things considered.  What I can’t understand tho and why they gave dudes so much money, clearly cognizant of the fact that the rest of the roster needed better fleshing out.

Maybe Lebron snubbing them is like symbolic of how all stars currently feel about GSW, so why not just blow the money?  The Dubs had their dynasty, but they aren't super-popular like the Lakers.

KRISTAPS PORZINGIS

They're now trying to trade him, lol/smh

HOUSTON ROCKETS (2-1)

The Rockets may be lacking size compared to some competitors, but they have everything else, arguably in abundance.  The big question is if a leader can emerge, not a diva or a chuckin’ PG, but someone more level-headed who can run the show and make the pieces fit - potentially Amen Thompson, all things considered.  And see, this is the kind of confusion you have when you already have a promising roster but insist on infusing it with legendary talent that it may not necessarily need.  You know, this ain’t like when dude went to the Dubs.

KEVIN DURANT

Needs to get off his high horse, but that isn’t likely

INDIANA PACERS (1-3)

I’m definitely glad Haliburton is back but like, I don’t know.  But that said, no one, including me, really believed in this team a couple of seasons ago.  Yet they were on the verge of winning the championship and maybe even blowing OKC out, at home, in Game 7, until Tyrese got hurt.

But now, at least to me, he has sort of that PG13 vibe about him.  Like everytime I’m watching, I’m afraid he’s going to slip over a banana peel or some shit, and there it goes.

LA CLIPPERS (2-1)

One thing you have to give to the Clippers is that at least they have pride (tho, according to a couple Lob City stars, aren't particularly loyal).  And despite having arguably the least-impressive roster in the West, I don’t think they’re going to be anyone’s pushover unless, you know, somewhere along the line they get demoralized.

DARIUS GARLAND

In position to be an allstar yet again

LA LAKERS (2-3)

I’ve been Laker bashing so much these past few years that now I’m gonna chill out.  But just to note, my beef hasn’t been with the players, even GM Lebron per se but really the braintrust, you know, who have more authority and make the actual roster decisions.

That said, as I pointed out a short time ago, well, I won’t really get into it here.  But let’s say that with their new racial and political makeup, LAL is in a position to benefit from even more rigging, if you will, than they have traditional. 

Kessler 12-for-12 in his debut?  Lol.  Okay, he went 10-for-10 in a game last year.  But still, that performance yesterday is kinda shocking, or let's more aptly say convenient.

So I'm expecting them to win more games than their talent and depth imply, and you know, that wouldn't be the first time that's happened to LAL in recent memory.  But maybe, Luka really is that guy(?).

MEMPHIS GRIZZLIES (3-1)

Well, at least there’s some buzz again.  And they have a promising, up-and-coming roster which, you know, isn’t as newsworthy as it used to be, now that tanking has been outlawed. 

These days, unless you can pull an OKC and overachieve sooner rather than later, a promising lineup is more likely to fall apart after three years than remain intact.  That was even true before, when you look at their team from 2022 for instance.  So here's to hoping that dudes can at least make some noise.

MIAMI HEAT (3-2)

The Heat are one of my sentimental favorites, and yes, I do feel they have enough talent to make the Finals, even with their balance issues.  The onus, in a strange sorta way, is actually on Andrew Wiggins, the man smackdab in the middle of the starting lineup, and that’s actually fitting or karmic, considering he’s the only number one pick on the roster.  So to me, considering his past and all, he's already the scapegoat if things go wrong.

NICK RICHARDS

Another x-factor, if he wants to be

MILWAUKEE BUCKS (2-3)

The Bucks have always been one of the more obscure teams, to the point that now, that championship from a few years back feels increasingly like an anomaly,  I feel kinda sorry for dudes, as I incepted the Dame trade tho am pretty sure I also intimated in the process that they shouldn't get rid of Holiday.  Anyway, that move more or less began the chain of slapping them back down into obscurity.  I was kinda excited about this team before the preseason began but as it currently stands have little to no interest in watching them, you know, unless they're upsetting dudes.

KEL'EL WARE

Let him be the cornerstone instead of trading him

KEVIN PORTER JR.

Surprised he got cut, but they also did the same thing to Cam Thomas (which was less surprising)

NEW ORLEANS PELICANS (3-1)

By this point, the elephant in the room is Zion.  And it’s funny how things work out sometimes because at first, it was like he couldn’t stay healthy.  But now, it’s like his health is okay, yet dudes still aren’t winning and don’t seem particularly likely to pull off a miracle.

If he suffers another major injury, it may be time for NOP to cut their losses and let Williamson try his luck elsewhere.  Or, you know, they can keep him around into perpetuity and at least maintain the starpower.

NEW YORK KNICKS (1-4)

All things considered, I understand why NYK decided to run it back.  If it ain’t broke(?), then don’t fix it.

But with Robinson gone, amongst other factors, they may have lost or minimized their wembyproofing.  And those other factors include, oh shit, dudes haven’t gotten any younger.

I’m an Anunoby fan, even before that tip-in, and wouldn’t mind seeing him make allstar.  But he isn’t necessarily aging gracefully in NBA terms.

And to me, that’s the elephant in the room with NYK - their age.  It can be advantageous sometimes against younger teams, if you play bully ball right.  But if, for instance, the powers-that-be did favor them in Game 4, as many people believe (and which I prolly would’ve done also if I were in charge, for like the biggest celebrity crowd in NBA history), they shouldn’t expect to receive that kind of grace two years in a row.

I'd say now that their ace in the hole - i.e. the one who has yet to exhibit his full potential on this roster and the player that really pushes them over the edge, all talent considered - is Mikal Bridges.  So here's to hoping that they'll develop a strategy to give him more room to show out, i.e. force him to be a number one option, if you will.

BRUCE BROWN

Too bad, but you can’t airball a gamewinner during the preseason lol

JAMES WISEMAN

All things considered, greater opportunity now than with the Dubs

OKC THUNDER (1-4)

Last season, to my remembrance, I picked the Thunder to win it all, you know, since Haliburton was hurt.  And, well, at least they made it to the Game 7 of the WCF.

But I have to be honest with my conscience and pick them again.  But that said, even the greatest teams have their kryptonite.  The Jordan Bulls really would've had a big problem for instance if somehow they met the Lakers in the 1998 Finals.

OKC’s kryptonite last season, with out without Wemby if I remember correctly, was the Spurs.  But as I said about a month or so ago, I do believe Holmgren will come back more focused after being exposed like that.  Also yes, I do believe that Mara, the rookie, can prove a sound extra layer of wembyproofing, at least in the interior.

I can also envision a couple of teams out East, most specifically the Wizards and Heat, potentially besting the Thunder in the postseason.  But for now, I'm going with OKC as champions.

ORLANDO MAGIC (3-1)

The Magic have kinda grown on me, and I think Vucevic can prove to he one of the most impactful, slept-upon acquisitions of the offseason.  Their talent and depth doesn’t jump off the page, but this core has more or less been together what, even longer than the Pistons?  And they also have the advantage, if you will, of not being under as much pressure as other Eastern Conference teams.

PHILADELPHIA 76ERS (1-3)

It's hard to really feel confident about the Sixers.  If this were still the smallball era, it'd be easier to say they'd take the East, but it isn't.  So basically when they're up against bigger teams, of which there are quite a few these days, the strategy is apparently going to be outgunning them.  That may work in some instances, but not all.

For instance, Andre "KFC" Drummond was reportedly having a field day against them before "running out of steam".  On the low, he's still one of the better Cs in the league.  That type of size, no man can take from him. But he's on the older side, and others Philly face will have more energy.

Also, even when he isn't GMing, having Lebron presents its own set of unique problems.  We're once again faced with this situation where he's arguably the best passer on the team, while concurrently being the healthiest bigman.  But you can't play the point and the post at the same time(?).

Oh well.  I've always questioned why the Sixers have been so adamant in paying Embiid so much money, considering his persistent injuries.  But the funny thing is, based on the above argument, even with this stacked starting lineup, the onus is very much on him.

VJ EDGECOMBE

Should feast with the attention on everyone else

JOEL EMBIID

Should be looking at this as his last season (as a starter)

PHOENIX SUNS (1-4)

The Suns are sorta the NBA epitome of 'the more things change, the more they stay the same'.  This org has adopted the run-and-gun style for more or less 20 years going, even though it's never won them shit.  Oh, wait - they did make the Finals once this century, when they fielded a roster bookended by a traditional PG (CP3) and a traditional big (Ayton).  So yeah, I can kinda understand why the ownership is still salty post-KD.  But if anything, they should be blaming themselves for blowing up that roster to accomodate him.

DEVIN BOOKER

Should start thinking about demanding a trade

JALEN GREEN

Scary, in both a good and bad way, at the point

MARK WILLIAMS

More or less the onus or at least the team's greatest rarity, in terms of size + talent

PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS (3-1)

This is my sleeper pick of the West, not to make the Finals but to at least finish fourth place, maybe even higher with some luck.  The roster makeup may not be perfect, but I would argue it’s the best or deepest Dame ever experienced in Portland.  And you know, that’s how aged superstars are supposed to go out when they’re loyal to a franchise, with as little onus stress as possible - not stuck on some bottom dweller, like LAL did to Kobe.  Also, having Holiday and Lillard together are what the Bucks were supposed to do instead of getting rid of the former to acquire the latter.

ROBERT WILLIAMS III

Needs to have a renaissance season

SACRAMENTO KINGS (0-5)

Damn, like how are they the only team to lose every preseason game this year?  Fukin Kings.

I was looking forward to watching Ben Simmons reestablish himself and… oh well.  Now, finally, I would agree it’s time for dude to retire from the NBA.

Also, I kinda feel sorry for Acuff Jr. because first of all, I would venture to say that no consensus lottery pick would actually want to go to the Kings. And secondly, dude already has so much Scootish pressure on him, and that isn’t fair with a PG and especially one drafted by such an ass-backwards organization.  This is the kinda team NBAers are supposed to be stuck on when no one else will take them.

ZACH LAVINE

May reestablishes himself as an allstar(?)

SAN ANTONIO SPURS (2-3)

A couple of days ago, the league's GMs or coaches or whatever voted Tobias Harris the biggest acquisition of the offseason.  I don't feel that way.  Did dude even play in the preseason?

My beef isn't with Harris but the fact that the team didn't really need another stretch 4 but rather someone more imposing in the middle.  I was thinking someone more lebronish.  Or even Kawhi, who's smaller than Tobias, would have been preferable in that regard.

Meanwhile their main competition, the Thunder, has gotten bigger.  The Spurs did just draft a few bigs, and I'm presuming that at least one of them is going to get real playing time this season.

That said, if the powers-that-be did gyp them in Game 4 versus the Knicks, then all things considered I think it's safe to say their time will come sooner or later.  And they're like my second-sentimental favorite though more likely, again all things considered, to win than the Wizards.

TORONTO RAPTORS (2-3)

If healthy, honestly I don't see any reason why the Raptors can't take the East, tho the bench is gonna have to step up.  Out of all of the smallish teams out there, they're best suited to take on bigger squads defensively.  That's the Kawhi factor, and they better make things click fast, because dude is aging, and he ain't exactly what you would call an ironman.

UTAH JAZZ (3-1)

Damn, almost forgot about the Jazz.  I did watch them play once during the preseason, and I mean, well...

They have formidable veteran bigs and good diversity.  But the young dudes in the backcourt are going to have to really show out for this to work.  And considering they are the Jazz, one of the most obscure teams in the league outside of a brief run in the 1990s, it's kinda hard to believe in or even remember them.

WASHINGTON WIZARDS (2-2)

Go, Wizards!  Remember how these dudes were getting their asses bust last year?  No one is going to be dropping 80pts on them again anytime soon!

They are my sentimental favorites for 2026-27, even more than the Spurs though, all things considered, I wouldn’t bank of them immediately winning it all, whether they have the talent or not.

But here’s a couple of interesting things to think about.  They’re arguably more wembyproof than even OKC.  And AD, if he remains healthy  - which I know is a big if, but still - wouldn't he be like the best C in the East by default?

EA Sports for the Naismith Hall of Fame

These days, it's common to hear people, even young YouTubers, talk about how the NBA didn't really blow up until the Jordan era.  But it's something you would have had to live through to really appreciate.  And to give an example, I'd like to point out a phenomenon that was intrinsic to the NBA blowing up, yet all basketball historians tend to overlook.  But I know it was important to the propagation of the league, before it really became mainstream, because I was there.

THE CBS YEARS

As a backdrop, yes, there was a time that NBA games were shown only sparingly, in undesirable timeslots on CBS, aka the lowliest of the American major (i.e. antenna) television networks.  I literally can't think of a single show I watched on CBS.  That channel was so boring that as a teenager, I'd watch PBS, i.e. an educational network, more.

And by the time the 1990s hit, there were only a handful of players with national name recognition, i.e. dudes who you not only knew their names but also how they looked.  That would be, really, like Magic, Bird, Kareem, Dr. J and Jordan, as well as a few peripheral dudes, such as maybe Barkley since, you know, he had a real unique look.  But in a nutshell, you had to either be a champion or on commercials, like Isiah Thomas, who wasn't on commercials, but you at least knew his name.  It wasn't like today, where every tom-dick-and-harry NBAer at least has a social media account

So those are the parts of the story everyone knows.  The Magic vs. Bird rivalry pumped fresh blood into the league, but again, it wasn't enough to get the NBA pass CBS.  Basketball was the most-popular sport (alongside American football) in the 'hood, even back in those days.  In cramped urban spaces, it ain't like you can setup a hockey rink or soccer pitch.  But even though kids had some idea how to play, it wasn't from watching basketball on TV per se.

I remember my big bro trying to teach me to play when I was kid, and I was totally disinterested.  This was before the days of Jordan, before the NBA eventually made its way to NBC, and everyone started watching.  And as for big bro, he's what I was would call a basketball head.  He played on his high school team and was one of those types who would actually like check the TV Guide to see when CBS was broadcasting games, set that time aside and actually watch.  He was different from the rest of us.

ENTER EA SPORTS

And now, we're getting to the part of the history that people always overlook, how when things happen that change the world, it's rarely the result of just a single factor.  It's hard to become fans of a league when you don't even know who most of the players are.  And I'm not talking about just five or six dudes you occasionally see on TV or on a cereal box.  That's not going to cut it.

Jordan had mass appeal, and everyone wanted to see him win.  We all know that.  During the Bulls' first threepeat is when the NBA really started catching on.

Concurrently, there was the first "Dream Team", which helped the game go global.  We all know that also.

And concurrently, circa the Bulls' first threepeat, EA Sports started releasing NBA videogames, which were instrumental in popularizing the league.  That's the part of the story those who were too young to be there could never appreciate.

And I mean yeah, it's sorta understandable.  The NBA Live franchise wasn't even able to maintain dominance for a solid decade.  These days, when it comes to basketball videogames, only one name comes to mind - NBA 2K.  They may be the superior product, but they weren't the first respectable NBA videogame franchise.

And this is important because, again, we're talking pre-internet.  So in those days for instance, the only way you knew every man on a team, 1-12, is if first of all you were a diehard fan, usually of a single squad or two.  Then, whatever team was most popular in your area, in the United States, usually would have their boxscores published in the local newspaper, on the nights they played.

Occasionally, I think on Sundays, some newspapers would publish boxscores from around the entire league.  Reading boxscores in a newspaper is even more cumbersome, imo, than doing so on the 'net.  And since this was pre-internet, readers weren't privy to like season averages and shit like that.  And also - this is perhaps the most important point I'm trying to make in context - reading stats doesn't let you know how dudes look, nor how they actually play, like their playing styles.  You can see a dude like, say, Clyde Drexler putting up 20+ppg, but you don't know how he got it.

And that's where EA Sports changed everything.  The first game they put out was Jordan vs. Bird One on One (1988) which, as its name implies, wasn't a team-basketball outing.  But, it was a start.  And it's kinda odd, I guess you can say, that even back in 1988, Jordan was already being shown more love (as the Black face of the league) than Magic, who actually won the championship that year, besides winning four prior, while MJ hadn't won any by that point.

Then came the follow-up, Lakers versus Celtics and the NBA Playoffs (1989), which featured 8 teams, full 12-man rosters if I remember correctly, as well as the All-Star squads.

This was then succeeded by Bulls versus Lakers and the NBA Playoffs (1992), which had all 16 posteseason team, i.e. over half the league.  And please forgive me if I don't remember everything exactly, but I do recall each team having a full 12-man roster, besides being able to view their season averages and stuff like that.  So now, you not only knew the names of most of the guys in the NBA but also their strengths, weaknesses and playing styles.

Granted, these earlier games may not have been the most realistic   I remember for instance something like Charles Barkley being able to dunk from the three-point line, and Tom Chambers also having some kind of unstoppable move.

But again, being able to read stats like that at your own convenience really made a difference, and it still does.  Just think of EA Sports as the primary NBA stat source before Wikipedia or Basketball-Reference.

Later down the line, EA introduced the NBA Live franchise with (virtually) every team and player being represented.  This is the franchise upon which NBA 2K went on to be more or less based, when you look at the similarities in cover art for instance.

So just like you always have to give Jordan credit for introducing basketball to the entire world, even if Lebron is the better player, you also have to give Electronic Arts their props for first making NBA rosters known to general public, even if 2K is better.  The homeys played all of those EA Sports games, including Team USA Basketball (1992), and that's how we really got to know the NBA.  And it wasn't the same with the NFL videogames because in that league, there's like too many guys to memorize.

CONCLUSION

Looking back at those days, it's hard for me to imagine the NBA catching on the way it did if not for EA Sports.  Even during the Jordan years, when the league transitioned to NBC, games were only shown on the weekend, and only those of the most-popular teams.  And even then, you know what I'm saying?  If you weren't like MJ or Shaq or the Knicks or some shit, no layman was going out of his way to watch you play.

But what laymen were doing was playing those EA Sports' games.  And I mean, yeah.  Do they even make NBA Live games anymore?  Like somebody needs to give these dudes their props, in helping to propagate the league. 

"The ScapeGOAT" Finally Calling It Quits

First off, let me say that in my last post, when I suggested that Russell Westbrook should, all things considering, maybe retire, I didn't know at the time that he had an offer, albeit a minimum one, on the table via the Wizards(?).  If I had known that, my tone would have been a bit different, under the belief that he could actually help a team like Washington.

I believe, if AD sticks around and is committed, that the Wizards are going to be a lot better next season than a lot of people anticipate, perhaps even one of the best teams in the East.  Everyone is talking about how wonderful Philly's braintrust is for landing Lebron and Brown.  Meanwhile, since February, Washington has acquired Davis, Young and Dybantsa, who appears to be a true #1 pick (besides acquiring Ayton and retaining Middleton).  When you look at this roster honestly, they're one of the deepest in the league.  And just as an interesting side note, that's now two consecutive #1 picks that the powers-that-be have paired with AD.

Besides the aforementioned vets (all of whom have name recognition) and Dybantsa, the roster is fleshed out by these other young, promising dudes, most notably Alex Sarr.  Usually, I don't think it's good for young players to get accustomed to losing.  But now it's like those losses from last season may have hardened them towards a brighter future, because for what it's worth, dudes were competing even while getting their asses bust.

The one person I am sorta worried about in this equation is Young and how his erratic style doesn't always translate to team basketball.  But remember that him and Collins, dudes were out there looking like Kidd + Martin for a time, like Trae knows how to throw lobs.  And now, he has more lob options than ever.  So here's to hoping, presuming he is the starting PG, that he doesn't chuck.

And yes, I can see Westbrook having fit into it all, even with his own unpredictable style.  Besides being a veteran whose resume demands respect, let's be honest.  Stat wise, even at 38 years old, Russ is better than 90% of the players in the NBA.  He may not be efficient, but when it comes to raw, all-around basketball skills, he's better or at least more versatile than any other vet on this team.  His field goal percentage may, relatively speaking, suck, but in 30 minutes, primarily off the bench if I remember correctly, he averaged 15pts, 7 assists and 5 rebounds last season.  Those are like Lebron-esque numbers.

LONGETIVITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY

That said, I can understand why he'd be compelled to call it quits, because if you are on the best players on a team, then conventional logic doesn't dictate you should be paid less than everyone else, even newjacks.  Also, damn, dude has played for 18 whole seasons.  Time sure does fly.

Players of today, at least to me, it seems like they're lasting longer.  Jordan played 15 seasons over 19 years, amidst a couple of retirements in between.  His HoF sidekick, Scottie Pippen, played for 17 years (straight).  It was rare back then for players to truly strive for 20.  Generally speaking, NBAers who were good or accomplished enough not to be forced into retirement only lasted for about 15 seasons.

But look at what's happening now.  Lebron is on the verge of potentially playing for a quarter century.  Westbrook, as established, nearing 40 years old, is one of the best individual players in the NBA.  He may not be the most intelligent so to speak, but I'd bet on him one-on-one against any other player in his height class.

PJ Tucker lasted for 20 years, even tho it wasn't all entirely in the NBA. Vinsanity did 22.  CP3 recently did 21 before being forced out of the game.  Meanwhile, Durant and Harden have thus far played 18 and 17 respectively, with no signs that either will be retiring soon.

Kobe also did 20, but his was a bit different, sorta like holdover from the 20th century.  Like Jordan, the team Bryant was on in his twilight wasn't expected to win shit, and he was only really there to sell tickets (besides presumably make money for himself).  That was how star retirements used to go.  Nearer to the end, you usually played for fame or money, regardless of how large or small it may be, but rarely a key role on a contender.

Meanwhile, look at the cats mentioned in that previous paragraph.  All of them, except for Vince, competed to the very end.  Dudes are no longer signing just to collect paychecks.  Now they want to contribute to a championship, even into their 40s.

So yes, all things considered I would have loved to see Westbrook on this Wizards' team, and I'm glad they at least showed him some respect, you know, being the only person who ever averaged a triple-double for that organization.  But you know, it's not really about Washington.  If anything, he should have stayed with the Nuggets.  And if you remember, at the time I was even questioning how they could prioritize Christian Braun(!) ahead of him.

"THE SCAPEGOAT"

On that note, I have to believe that behind the scenes, Russ is genuinely difficult to deal with.  I mean, there's no other way to rationalize how organizations have come to treat him.

Recently, some documentary about him came out called Passion Play (2021).  It was themed around that very idea, that Westbrook is this really good player though one who's like hardheaded or some shit.  I can't remember the specifics of the presentation, but I do recall walking away sympathizing with Russ instead of hating him.  In fact, if I remember correctly, it even concluded with Magic Johnson publicly apologizing for having previously criticized Russ.

But those sentiments never completely went away, and this is what I mean by behind the scenes, because I have to speculate that Westbrook did something(s) that really like pissed insiders off, though I can't quite imagine what that would be, besides his overall cockiness.  It's not like, say, DeMarcus Cousins, who publicly threatened some old white dude.

CONCLUSION

Conclusively, I have to agree with Jay-Z that it's better to "gracefully bow out" than to be forced out of the game.  That's especially true if you're in a field without a definitive retirement timeline and even moreso if you're on the greatest at what you do.

You see what happened to CP3, after a storied career, how that last episode stained his legacy.  Meanwhile, Russ has won MVP, the rarest of all NBA accolades, even rarer than making it into the HoF.  So yeah, if he'd rather retire than play for on a vet min for the Wizards or Kings, then so be it.  But all of that said, let this be a lesson to everyone.  There is a such thing as being too good, as an individual player, for the NBA.

I never really thought much about KD leaving OKC, but now, in hindsight, I understand why Westbrook was so pissed off.  He was intentionally drafted to be Durant's sidekick, and as such, Kevin may have been the only person he really had that big brother type of respect for.  The two of them together may have eventually won a championship.  But now we see that the ScapeGOAT couldn't truly humble himself to anyone else.

Trade Talk: Brown vs. George + Draft Picks

I'm writing this post while neglecting other trades that recently occurred, because I'm tired of people making it sound like trading Brown for George + a couple of prime picks is like some historically bad deal.  In fact all things considered, outside of Boston now having to pay Paul's contract, this actually looks like a good trade.

WHAT WENT WRONG IN BOSTON?

Of course I don't know what exactly went wrong with the Celtics, but based on what I've observed, I can speculate.  As far as this past season goes, it all started with the team overachieving and looking more or less like contenders, even without Jayson Tatum.

Now I don't really want to get too deep here.  But there can be confusion - for lack of better word - if a successful team is able to achieve even without its franchise player.  We've seen it happen before, with the 1990s' Bulls for instance.

So the season is winding down, and Boston is like what, the second seed?  This is despite virtually no one, when it all began, expecting them to be competitive without Jayson.  So why rush him back once he did become (briefly) playable?

This is something I recently wrote about, and it's not an easy fix, because no one can see the future.  For instance, a couple of months ago I was arguing that Cunningham should just take the rest of the (post)season off instead of coming back immediately after suffering a "collapsed lung"(!).  But he came back anyway and proved instrumental in the Pistons at least not being totally embarrassed in the playoffs.

Tatum came back, and I remember he had one really heroic game against the 76ers in the postseason.  People were actually predicting, when he returned, that the Celtics would make the Finals.  That foretelling didn't age well at all.

So what I'm imagining, when Boston did get eliminated, is Brown, who had like his best regular season ever, was like 'did they really have to bring him back so soon?'  You know, dude coming into the lineup - starting even - and then getting re-injured at the time it matters most.  Is that actually good for the on-court chemistry of a team that was overachieving without him?  Considering that they had a better regular season record than Philly, is it possible that could have beat them without the distraction of Tatum's unpredictable health?

To be totally honest no, I don't think the Celtics would have beaten the Sixers, and the series might have been even worse for them without Tatum.  But I'm trying to make a point.

JAYLEN BROWN VS. COLORISM

Also, as I've been noting for years, Brown is a regular victim of colorism.  Dude is unapologetically Black yet plays for the only team in the NBA with a White male mascot.

The Celtics are an 'Irish' organization, and their most-popular iteration of the modern era was with a core of White players.  So who do you think is going to get more love, not only from Boston but the NBA at large - Jaylen Brown, or yellow-ass Jayson Tatum?

So you see, this isn't a Jordan vs. Pippen kinda of comparison.  As for Scottie, yes, I believe he'll never be truly recognized for how great he was.  He was more versatile than Michael, and he almost led the Bulls to the Finals - if not for a controversial call in favor of the Knicks - without Jordan.  But you'll never ever - ever, ever, ever - hear anyone argue that Pippen was actually a better player.

The same is not the case with Brown vs. Tatum.  I've been saying for years that they're just as good or, if anything, Jaylen is better, if even only slightly.  He may not be as marketable or popular, but he isn't an inferior player, even if Tatum gets more love.

So what all these people who're criticizing the trade are saying under their breaths is something like 'wow, these guys actually traded away their best player'.  And the further implication is that if anyone were to be swapped in a major trade, it should have been Jayson instead.

PAUL GEORGE ≠ BUM

Paul George may be overpaid AF, but he isn't a bum.  Under his current contract, PG13 is making $50+mil/year(!).  He signed that deal as recently as 2024, not way back in the day, when he was considered a potential MVP.

As of the mid-2020s, we're now later in George's career, whereas has never led a team to the Finals and is regularly injured, to the point of him being out is disappointing but not unexpected.  So why give him so much money?  Remember that the Clippers, aka Steve Ballmer, also gave dude like $200mil back in 2020.  And I'll just leave it at that.

This past postseason, Paul managed to suit up for all Philly's postseason games and averaged an admirable 16p.  He may not be the PG13 of old, but he can still score prolifically, as displayed in a couple of those playoff contests.  He's still a threat that opposing defenses have to acknowledge or, you know, ignore at your own risk.

AND DON'T FORGET THE DRAFT PICKS

Also the Celtics got what, two first-rounders and two second-rounders out of the deal?  So they traded one future HOFer for another, albeit the latter aged.  On top of that, they got draft picks which, to my understanding, are unprotected.  So Brad Stevens and co. gave up a disgruntled two-way star for a palatable one-way star and got some strong future security in the process.

When trading a superstar, there's really only two options.  You can swap him straight-up for another superstar.  Brown for Giannis may have been fair and square.  But TF wants to go to the Bucks, an organization not only in the boondocks but also one that doesn't look like it's going to win anything soon?

Or you can trade him for a lesser player(s) or/and some picks.  PG13 is still an offensive A-lister.  Meanwhile, Tatum, White, etc. are around, and Boston also acquired Mitchell Robinson, i.e. teammates who can help mitigate George's defensive deficiencies.   Is that really a bad trade?

Brown + Tatum have been together what, eight seasons, but only produced one championship.  So yes, it's possible that maybe now, all things considered, having both of them around is overkill.  We need to finally prove who's the superior player.

And that's the best part about it, imo.  Now we're finally going to see Brown vs. Tatum, head-to-head, in meaningful, competitive games - not some Lebron Era allstar BS - while both are still more or less in their prime and on teams with championship aspirations, not aged and symbolic, like Jordan was when he competed against Pippen later down the line.

CONCLUSION

After all this time, Jaylen Brown needed to go to a 'Black' team.  He won Finals MVP a couple of seasons ago and also just made a strong case for regular-season MVP, on a team that no one expected to do shit.  But as you can see, Tatum is still Boston's favorite, so apparently there's nothing Jaylen can do to change that.

It may all sound petty, you know, when dudes are getting paid gazillions of dollars.  But we're all still human, i.e. emotional beings, nonetheless.

Shoutout to Wemby

A couple of years ago, I was on the verge of quitting the NBA.  I've now been a fan for over 30 years and, besides the rigging, after awhile you get tired of the redundancy.

But what I've come to realize, via my affinity for Wemby, is that the NBA truly is a fan-driven league.  Who's more important, the players or the organization?  When it comes to filling seats, definitely the players.

I'd venture to say that you'd be hard-pressed to find a fan who can name even one or two NBA owners.  An owner would have to be akin to a reality TV star to be known to the general public.  And no, I'm not talking about those minority celebrity types like Jay-Z or A-Rod.  I mean the big dawgs, like Cuban or Dolan.

In fact, the reason I started watching the NBA to begin with, back in '91, was due to the rise of Micheal Jordan.  You know, you see dude everywhere, selling Gatorade and sneakers and shit, and after awhile wand to see what the hype is about.  Then, it's up to the player to deliver.  And deliver he did, time and time again.

Since then, there's been quite a few must-watch players - Lebron, Kyrie, Luka and so many others I can't mention here but most notably, imo, Shaq and Curry.  Also, let's not forget Vinsanity.  Hard to believe that there was a time when he was more popular, in (American) basketball circles, than even Iverson, Kobe or MJ himself(!).  Granted, that was during Jordan's stint with the Wizards.  But still, Carter is an interesting case study.  I can't think of any other NBA superstar who went from A+ lister to obscurity, you know, like ever.

So anyway, the point I wanted to get at is it being Wemby, more than anyone else, who made me not quit the NBA.  And you know, let's be honest - it isn't only about skill.  There's a lot of skilled players out there who never even made an All-Star Game.

Also, whereas novelty (such as being dumb tall, super athletic, etc.) really helps a player's popularity, with Wemby it isn't all about that either.  As I stated before (and later found out that Shaq said the same thing), Bol Bol was actually like a pre-Wemby.  He's likewise tall AF yet, unlike any 7-footer that came before him, had the agility and skillset of a 2guard.

And that us brings to the third and arguably most important factor ultimately attributing to superstardom, the thing that made MJ an icon while conversely leading to Vince disappearing from the spotlight, why Bol Bol never got the flowers he deserved.  And that, dear reader, is likability or, let's say within the context of professional sports, marketability.  Lebron, Kobe and I would even venture to say Steph, no superstar since MJ has a mug as likable as Wemby.  It looks almost like someone slapped a kid's head on a 7-foot body.

And let me repeat - likability matters.  Let's go back to the Big Diesel for instance, you know, who the powers-that-be helped win two of those first three championships.

There was a time when he was perhaps the most hostile player in the league, which totally isn't fair when you're also the biggest and strongest.  But still, fans loved him.  He was one of the NBA's very first reality TV stars, in a manner of speaking.  And you know, even though he may not have had the top-selling jersey or whatever and only won one MVP(!) in his career, people loving you definitely matters when, you know, it's time to rig games and shit like that.

So now you have Wemby, who's not only dominant but also has the most-marketable face of a superstar since Jordan.  Even if not this year, I think it's safe to say that, barring serious injury, t's only a matter of time before he wins a championship. 

And you know, it's not only about skill, dominance or rigging.  Fixing games isn't the only way superstars receive favor.  There's also the team itself become more popular, being able to finagle its way to a superior roster.

You see how the Spurs landed De'Aaron Fox, who appears to be just about the only player on the team who isn't adversely affected by the Knicks' defense.  And as I pointed out in the last post, San Antonio, win or lose at this point, has some work to do this offseason.  You see that last play of Game 4, when Anunoby was able to crash the boards despite there being three Spurs' players underneath the basket.  Dudes needs somebody to hold down the middle while Wemby is out on the perimeter, trying to block jumpshots(!) and shit like that.

CONCLUSION

Thank you, Victor, for re-piquing my interest in the NBA - not only your height + skill but also making it such that dudes have to respect the post again.  I was also tired of all of that threepoint shit.  But please, San Antonio, get son some backup downlow and, if you lose, don't try to blame it on Castle since, as a 2guard, you shouldn't really expect him to be like your second-best post player.

Yes, it is super exciting that the Knicks appear to be on the verge of winning a championship (and would be even moreso if they won at MSG).  But the biggest draw of this series, honestly, is Wembanyama.

Draft Rules' Inception

A couple of days ago, I read an exhaustive article via Yahoo!Sports explaining the new draft rules, but I still don't understand that shit.  To be totally honest, I never really understood the old or current rules to begin with.

What I did take away from the exposition is that tanking has been disincentived and furthermore, bottom-of-the-barrel teams are now being penalized.  The main reason I wrote this post is to point out that latter idea is something I actually introduced to the world years ago.  More specifically, I argued that teams who are perennially bad, such as the Kings, should be thrown out of the league for a year to teach them a lesson.  Mind you, that was like back in 2022, and Sacramento still sucks (though they did have a brief resurgence).

And this is the funny thing about it.  The bottom teams possessing the best statistical chances of landing a top pick is a rule that's been around for as long as I can remember.  Yet, I can't say I recall dudes tanking back in the days.  Maybe in the days of yore, organizations had too much pride?  Maybe I didn't fully understand what was going on then?

THE HINKIE ERA

That all changed with "the Process" in Philly.  And here's the funny thing about it.  Out of all those high draft picks, the Sixers only landed two stars, and this generation has yet, if ever, to win a championship.  And when I say two stars, I'm not, btw, referring to Maxey as one of them. He was drafted all the way down at 21 and in the 2020s. 

And that's the true strength of Philly's braintrust imo - finding gems.  Yes, they drafted Carter-Williams, Okafour and Fultz, three guys who've had careers but never really panned out.  But again, even amidst those decisions and then later losing Simmons, they've remained akin to perennial contenders.  They're still getting value for those picks, if you will.

But going back to this no championship thing, again you gotta ask - what's the ultimate goal?  Is it to land high draft picks just for picking's sake, or is it to actually win it all?

Or, in summation, let's say that high draft picks alone don't lead to a championship.  If you say before Wemby the generational talent was Lebron and before him MJ, then that means those types of players who can win it all on their own, so to speak, only come around once every 20 years.  It's possible that another multi-skilled player even taller than Victor, or a stud stronger than Lebron, or a star more marketable as MJ, will eventually come along.  But is it really likely?

LET THEM EAT CAKE

So you, as a low level yet ambitious team executive, walk into the boardrooom, straight to the owner and are like 'boss, our rivals just drafted Wemby'.  Then he screams at you and says 'then go draft Holmgren!'

I've been saying for years that coaching matters.  I've also been saying that now, many coaches are just more or less figureheads.  When every man, 1 to 5, is empowered to jackup shots at will, that's not coaching.  I kept saying, not every nigga is Steph.  But I didn't foresee that it would be someone as different from Curry as Wemby who finally got that point across, though I did know that eventually the post would become important again.

So in the WCF you had these little guys - and yes, they looked nephews standing next to Victor - deadass driving to the paint, trying to execute layups with dude directly on them.  WTF?  It reaches a point where you're just like, that's stupid.  Or rather let me say, they've been doing shit like that with no repercussions for so long that now it's hard for them to stop.

So yeah, coaching.  SGA recently called Sam Presti 'the best GM ever' or some shit.  So, let the Thunder run it back and prove that first ring wasn't a fluke.  But that said, if they're able to keep their starting five + McCain + Caruso and still land Giannis, I'm all for it.  Look at what type of superteaming you have to do to beat Wemby.

CONCLUSION

Remember when Draymond blew up the Kings' spot and was like niggas ain't even competing?  Yes, enough of the bullshit already.

Fuck happened to David vs. Goliath?  Where are the underdogs these days?  There's this video just uploaded to YouTube where dude is like the NBA rigged the 2023 Draft, because the Spurs have proven that they know what to do with players like Wemby.  Yeah, fuck that.  Draft picks don't win championships (most of the time) - braintrusts do.

Trying to Make Sense of the Knicks

I haven't been following this season closely in terms of observing gameplay, so maybe I shouldn't bc commenting on the Knicks like that.  But I've been a "fan" of this team for over 30 years, and a lot of the things I predicted with this current iteration of NYK is, sadly, coming true.

KAT THE SCAPEGOAT

I just recently learned that KAT won the 3-Point Contest a couple of years ago.  That's how good of a shooter he is - as a C.  But I still argue that it isn't ideal to have the tallest man on your squad more prone to shooting (long-range) jumpshots as opposed to taking it to the hole.

The way you mitigate such anomalies is by having the other players on the team, i.e. the wings, be above-average defenders and rebounders.  As far as starters go, the Knicks have more quality, all-around wing depth than any other squad in the league.  So even if Karl is out there hoisting up threes, the interior should be able to compensate.  You know, KAT is going to KAT.  And that's what makes the mediocrity of this team even more surprising.

THE "CURSE OF THE KNICKS"

If you're the type of sports' fan who likes to be disappointed you know, having a reason to be depressed at the office - 'I'm not feeling good today. My team has lost yet again' - then the Knicks are for you.  NYK rosters tend to fall into two categories which, in a way, are kinda one in the same.  Either they're contenders who, even if they make it to Game 7, somehow flunk in the Playoffs.  Or they have a talented, overpaid roster that just flunks in general.

Those Michael Jordan years, i.e. the early-1990s, I mean you can't blame anyone for losing to MJ.  But damn, were some of those losses painful.  And even when His Airness wasn't around, the Knicks failed to get over the hump.

There was that one asterisk season when they made it (back) to the Finals, only to have their asses handed to them by the Spurs, like when Tim Duncan was a rookie type shit, illustrating how even a much less-popular franchise can build a dynasty, while NYK can't.

Oh, and let's not forget circa the early 2012,  back when NY managed to land both Melo and Amare Stoudemire.  Theoretically, that was supposed to be best F combination in the league.  But first of all, they gave Amare like a max contract, even though by that time he was already on the perennially-injured list.  And second, remember that time he punched a fire extinguisher and in the process, extinguished any (false) hopes of the Knicks prevailing in the playoffs?  That's NYK for you.

Having too little of what you need is a curse, but on the opposite end of the spectrum, so is having too much.  Robert Kiyosaki, aka Rich Dad / Poor Dad, has this saying, when it comes to money, that he'd rather be cursed with too much than too little.  But that's not true in all cases.

You have a team like OKC who, faced with the challenge of not being a coveted free agency destination nor a franchise that's particularly favored by they powers-that-be, dug deep inside their own expertise and managed to put a potential dynasty together.  Braintrust-wise they're the envy of the league, at least for now, while a couple of their big 3 are still on their rookie contracts.

On the other side of the coin you have the Knicks, the premiere team (as compared to the Nets) in "the biggest market in the NBA", their home being the most famous arena in the United States, seemingly with all the money in the world, with every superstar free agent at least reportedly considering signing there.  Every year, credible reports emerge of the Knicks being after KD or Lebron or this season, Giannis.  After the Lakers, it's safe to presume that NYK is the most coveted player destination in the NBA.  And that's pretty amazing, considering how outstanding LAL's history is compared to the Knicks.

OVERTALENTED

But as I've been saying since the time they went out and hastily acquired KAT, this iteration of the Knicks are overtalented.  Karl's money could've rather been used to land what they really need, i.e. a versatile, defensive-minded C.  This team was not lacking in offensive firepower when they went out and got KAT.

All things considered, they'd been better off keeping Julius Randle, now that he's prover healthy.  I'm not saying that Randle is better than KAT.  But in the grand scheme of things he's just as effective, yet one of those players whose style doesn't take away from his teammates(?).

So what inspired me to write this post was reading today that, oh shit, Bridges is riding the bench during crunch minutes, if you can imagine that.  As far as two-way players go, i.e. dudes who are good on both offense and defense (unlike KAT or Brunson), Mikal is top-10 in the league.  Furthermore, as the NY Post has pointed out, the Knicks are paying him $150mil.  It's one thing when you have these star players getting paid a gazillion dollars to ride exercise bikes and shit.  But to have someone like that who's actually healthy riding the bench?  Only in NYK, dear reader.

So after this season is over and everyone is finally able to realize that what I'm saying is true, these are the questions that need to be asked.  Why did they go out and get KAT to begin with?  Why didn't they allow Bridges +Anunoby + Brunson to mesh first?  Why not let that core play out a full season without, you know, adding a superstar to mix  and then evaluate what type of additions to make?  Fuck happened to Mitchell Robinson?  TF you doing getting repeatedly blown out by the Pistons, who only have, relatively speaking, like two recognizable names on their roster?  The Pistons are supposed to be like small boys compared to the Knicks.  NYK beat Detroit in the playoffs last year yet somehow, since then, despite retaining all of their rotation players, have managed to get worse

CONCLUSION

You know how you go out and buy some really expensive shit and then later, when you're broke, start kicking yourself?  Or you know how, you know, you buy a really expensive car or outfit to get a particular girl, and she still rejects you?  That's how I see the Knicks.

Sometimes, having too much money and favor is a bad thing.  When there's limitations, you have to manage and use your brain.  But when the reins are off, you're able to do all types of dumb shit knowing that, win or lose, the money is going to keep coming in regardless.

The Spurs Having OKC's Number

The Spurs apparently have OKC's number.  This is where, if you're a team like the Thunder, the NBA rigging in your favor becomes important.  And relatedly, this is also why it's imperative to have at least one hands-down superstar on your team.  You know, not just someone who's really good but a player who fans across the board want to win.

Every perennial champion or contender is going to have at least one team they simply can't beat, whether that team is also contenders or not.  That's been true going back at least to the 1990s.

The 1998 Bulls for instance couldn't hang with the 1998 Lakers, even before Kobe truly found his footing.  I remember Jordan and co. also had what looked like issues with the early-1990s' Nets, a relatively garbage team but one likewise replete with quality players who were younger (and faster) than the Bulls core.

The Lakers have also had problems with faster teams, even going back to the Kobe + Shaq championship days.  J.J. Redick finally admitted, indirectly, that LAL's core is too old and too white - something that we at NBA Inception understood since the time they traded for Doncic.  But this organization being unable to defend youth isn't anything new.  Derek Fisher used to always get burned by opposing star PGs.  The present-day Lakers have one of the most hardheaded braintrusts in the NBA, so again, you shouldn't realistically be expecting them to win a championship anytime soon unless, you know what I'm saying?  Is Luka really rig-worthy?

ARE THE SPURS CONTENDERS?

There's a difference between being able to beat a champion and actualy being a contender.  The conference playoffs have three rounds, meaning that even if San Antonio does luck out and face OKC, somewhere along the line there's two other teams they also have to beat before getting to the Finals.  And that's also presuming that the Thunder doesn't figure them out between now and then.

So I'm not in a rush to call these gusy contenders even though I'm glad there's at least one team out there has proven they can beat OKC.  The more interesting observation, in the grand scheme of it all, is that besides the Knicks and Nuggets, all of the other older teams in the NBA looked more or less washed.  But of course if you've been reading this blog over the past few years, then you knew this day was coming.

SHOUTOUT TO JALEN WILLIAMS

Something all star players should fear(?) is their team proving bettrer without than with them.  I know that isn't fully the case with Jalen, but you get what I mean.  You're looking from the sideline, watching your team go like 23 and 1 or some shit, and on one hand you're like 'wow, this is amazing'.  You're jumping out of your seat and cheering, as if you too are on the court.  But in the back your mind it's like 'what if they start losing when I come back?'

The NBA is a strange beast these days.  Predictability has, in large part, been thrown out the window.  Or rather let me say that dudes are now injured so often that, you know what I'm saying, you have to live with or without them.  And some teams learn to play better without a star player or two.  Wemby almost ended up there himself until, oh shit, the Spurs starting beating the Thunder.  Then it became obvious that even if they did having a higher winning percentage when he was injured, they aren't actually better without him.

CONCLUSION

Honestly, I don't want to see a non-superteam(?), you know, only lose like five game throughout the entire season.  When something like that happens, you know what I'm saying?  SGA isn't Jordan, like people don't want to see him winning all the time like that.  If he were Jordan, then Team Canada wouldn't be so garbage.  And when the Warriors only lost nine games, it's like with the roster they had, they should have won all 82.  So thank you Wemby and co. for at least making the NBA competitive again.  And as for the Thunder's braintrust, if you're looking forward to the benefit of rigging - which often separates champions from other contenders in the world of professional sports - then I suggest you like market your brand better or something.