Jacob's Books & Baseball Blog

Kobe Bryant: The Best of 2010

2010-06-19T12:02:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles Laker guard Kobe Bryant won his second-straight NBA Finals Most Valuable Player award after averaging 28.6 points, eight rebounds and almost four assists in the Lakers’ series win over the Boston Celtics.

The award is certainly not without controversy. First of all, after shooting 40 percent for the series, Bryant’s performance was not his most valuable finals performance. In 2009 Bryant averaged 32.4 points, 5.6 rebounds and 7.4 assists against the Orlando Magic.

Bryant was not at his best in this series and it was certainly not his best NBA Finals. But except for the 2008 Celtics and the 2004 Detroit Pistons, who Bryant faced with a depleted Lakers squad, these 2010 Celtics are the toughest team he’s played in an NBA Finals.

Despite his less than great performance, Bryant won the award for three key reasons. One, he is the best player on his team if not the world. Without him, the Lakers aren’t in the finals and without him, they don’t win.

The second reason: by default. No one on either team did any better. Pau Gasol had a great series and both Ron Artest and Derek Fisher made huge contributions in some games and at key moments. But no one matched Bryant’s effort or intensity over seven games.

The third reason: Bryant is the 2010 NBA Finals MVP because he deserves to be. Look at the numbers and remember the games, not just the shots. Then decide. You don’t have to agree with me, but if you think I’m wrong you do have to reason with me.

Bryant impacts every game, good or bad, win or lose. Despite what some may say, Bryant didn’t only play well when the Lakers lost and The Lakers didn’t win only when Bryant underperformed.

Here’s a quick recap of Bryant’s performance in the series.

Game one: Bryant had a 30-point game on 45 percent shooting, went nine of 10 from the line. He had seven rebounds, six assists and four turnovers. He had a good game (albeit with a few too many turnovers) and the Lakers won.

Game two: Brant had 21 points on 40 percent shooting, five rebounds, six assists, four steals and five turnovers. He took and made only three free throws. So poor shooting and too many turnovers but probably a decent game all around. Yet the Lakers lose.

Game three: 29 points but it took 29 shots to get it (he made 10). But he was eight of eight from the line. He had just one turnover compared to four assists. He also grabbed seven rebounds, blocked three shots and had two steals. Even poorer shooting but he took better care of the basketball and was active on the defensive end. So a decent all-around game and the Lakers win.

Game four: 33 points on 45 percent shooting. Seven of Eight from the line. Six rebounds (none offensive), two assists, two steals and SEVEN turnovers. Good shooting but those seven turnovers, especially compared to just two assists, loom large. The Lakers lose.

Game five: 38 points. 48 percent shooting. Eight of Nine from the line. Five rebounds, four assists but also four turnovers. One block, one steal. Best shooting night but not his best all-around game. The Lakers lose.

Game six: 27 points. 47 percent shooting, seven of seven at the line. He had 11 rebounds, three assists and four steals and two turnovers. Good shooting, good all-around game and a win for the Lakers.

Game seven: 23 points, 24 shots, 25 percent shooting. Eleven of 15 from the line. Bad shooting night. Check that. Horrible shooting night. Only two assists versus four turnovers. So quite the off night offensively. Just one steal.

15 rebounds.

(The biggest) Fourth quarter (of the year): Still shot only 25 percent from the field (one of four) but grabbed four rebounds and made eight of nine free throws.

So a bad game, but a strong effort and a good fourth quarter. The Lakers win.

Bryant’s place in history can be settled, or endlessly debated, when he hangs up his Nikes for the final time. But for 2010 Bryant is the best in the game, again.

Nick Adenhart: August 24, 1986 - April 9, 2009

2009-04-10T01:46:00.000-07:00

I won't pretend that I knew Nick Adenhart or even all that much about him. I think I did see him in the Angels' clubhouse a couple of times last September, but I never spoke to him. Maybe a quiet hello.

He seemed like a nice guy, like a regular 22-year-old hanging out with his teammates and friends. He looked like he couldn't believe where he was. He couldn't believe that he was living his dream and pitching in the Major Leagues.

On Thursday night, he looked like he belonged. Not because he pitched well, which he did, but because he stood tall and poised on the mound. He looked like a Major Leaguer.

The lives of Nick friends that died with him are just as important as his and their families grieve for their lost children just as much as Nick's family grieves for him. His death is no more and no less tragic than the death of anyone who died because of a drunk driver.

But right now, Nick's death is tough to take. For one, we know he is. For another, he's young. But also, he's an athlete. Now is an athlete's life more valuable? Of course not. But now death has reached a place that it's not supposed to be allowed.

Sports.

Sports are supposed to be free from this kind of real tragedy. A sporting event should be a 2-3 hour escape where "tragedy" means your team lost in the last inning or at the buzzer.

Sports are where "hate" is reserved for the best player on the other team. And you only "hate" him while he's in uniform, during the game. And the only bad you wish upon him is a bad game. And if you met him in real life you'd shake his hand, tell him how great of a player you think he is and tell him that you love watching the battles between his team and your team.

When we watch sports we can get angry, we can shout for joy, we can even cry a little bit if no one's looking. But the game ends or the season ends. If our team won we get to be a little extra happy. If our team lost we look to the next game or the next season.

This isn't the first time tragedy has struck a sports figure. There have even been times when a person died while participating in or because of a sporting event. We know that this can happen at any time. So this is not a moment of our collective lost innocence.

But it is a moment that shakes us up. The world isn't changed but we are. Life will keep going and we'll keep going with it, but sports won't quite feel the same, at least for a while.

We'll still pull for our team. Angels fans might even cheer harder, imagining what the team is going through while playing. But we probably won't let ourselves get as emotional about the games. If we win, good. If we lose, it's just a game.

This year, and for some people many years, players and fans will be thinking of Nick during these game. And we should. I hope his memory stays with us for a long time, even if we didn't know him. I hope we remember that he achieved his dream. I hope we read the newspaper to learn more about his story so we can remember how hard he worked to get to the majors.

I hope we remember him when we're leaving the company party, or happy hour, or the wedding. After the wine, the beer, or the champagne. I hope we remember him, and all the others who have been on the road when someone else should not have been, when we turn the ignition.

Wasting Time

2009-03-20T21:44:00.000-07:00

I meant to start writing about an hour ago but I got talked into an intense game of Solitare. So wasting time. When is a writer really writing or just wasting time? I've been asking myself that lately. If I'm writing in a journal about nothing in particular, can I feel accomplished at the end of the day? If I blog about nothing and nobody reads my blog about nothing, have I been productive?

I'm trying to blog because I think it is what a 21st Century writer should do. I don't mean that as an absolute statement. Not every writer really has to blog and certainly blogging does not make a writer. But for myself, it seems like the right idea.

Still, the question is: as a working/practicing/aspiring writer, when do I know if I'm really being a writer? Some say one should write certain number of pages or words each day. Others say it's about putting in a minimum amount of time each day.

Either way, if I write 1000 words on about what food is in my cupboard, what did I accomplish? If I write for six hours and end up with a page on how I don't take sugar in my coffee, does it count?

So if any writers or would-be writers happen to read this, let me know what you think. How do you know when you're really writing?

2009-03-18T02:30:00.000-07:00

Had a great St. Patrick's Day. Not sure why it was great, but it was. I went to a Fresh and Easy store for the first time. What a great store. Great prices. Interesting selection. The free coffee came in a regular sized cup! Now Trader Joes is still the best store and it's closer to me so I'll stay loyal. But Fresh and Easy will be in the mix now.

So blah, blah, blah. Sorry for the little grocery store rant. Today I drank Guinness, read a little bit of James Joyce and listened to the new U2 CD. Great CD. Hard to say where it ranks, but it is fantastic. If you like U2, get it. If you like forward-moving and forward-thinking music, get it.

Take Two

2009-03-17T12:07:00.000-07:00

OK, I'm starting the blog again. Hopefully I'll keep up with it this time, but I don't much time or much to say right now so this is just a blog hit to say I'm blogging again. Today's St. Patrick's Day and oddly enough I'm immersed in Irish literature at the moment. So I'll be doing a few Irish things today. 1. Drink Guinness 2. Listen to U2 3. Read James Joyce.

Los Angeles Angels Baseball Thread

2008-05-10T23:05:00.001-07:00

I'm not going to blame the back-to-back shutouts on this, but why is Mike Scioscia obsessed with Garrett Anderson as a clean-up hitter? Casey Kotchman is having a great season and will get on base at a higher rate than Anderson or Torii Hunter. Frankly Kotchman has more power now than Anderson and might even rival Hunter in that regard. Hunter and Anderson are great RBI men and will drive in even more with Kotchman in front of them.

On another, but related, Angel note. The middle infield is the Bermuda Triangle apparently. You go in it, you get hurt. Sorry to see Chone Figgins go on the disabled list. Last week in the Angels Clubhouse he and Scioscia seemed optimistic that it wouldn't be a lingering injury. Of course I'm always happy to see Kendry Morales on the active roster. The Angels need left-handed power on the bench.

It was also surprising (pleasantly) to see Erick Aybar playing a day after he got hit in the hand. Tough, is all I can say about him.

Two shutouts in a row? Ouch. Tough for Joe Saunders but baseball's a strange game. Last week he didn't pitch well enough to win, but he did anyway. Today he pitched well enough to win and lost. It really is a team game.

My First Time

2008-05-09T01:19:00.000-07:00

Sorry, this is just about my first time blogging, which would be right now, not any other first times you may have been imagining. As this is my first time I have no idea what I'm doing. I know I'm supposed to write about what interests me but that covers a lot of areas. I'm a sportswriter - I cover the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and some high schools in Orange County - so I'm considering writing a sports blog. But I am also a fiction and film writer so I have those interests as well. Finally I'm literature student so I have interests in literature besides my interests as a writer. Well, I believe in the idea of just jumping in the river and letting the current take you where it will, so that's what I'll be doing here. Hopefully it will lead to some interesting places.