Conferencing

BISdom: Since the Celtics continued their dominance over the Cavs last night (even though the Cavs convinced LeBron to show up and play), I thought we might discuss one or both of the biggest questions to arise from the ashes of this somewhat disappointing series (excitement-wise).

My first question, then, is simply: which story do you find more compelling? Are you more interested in the upcoming Conference Championships, which determine who wins the NBA Championship for this current season and has already gotten David Stern's vote? Or are you more interested in the upcoming 2010 LeBron-agency, which should potentially determine who wins the NBA Championships for roughly the next decade?

Benis: First of all, I disagree that "LeBron-agency," as you put it, will determine the Larry O'Brien winner for the next 10 years. The Cavs team as currently constructed (and coached) is not poised to make a title run any time soon. So assuming he leaves (which I believe he will), his choices of teams are not much more enticing, with the best option being Chicago. The Knicks roster is a dumpster fire, even if they lure in two max-contract guys (say Chris Bosh or Joe Johnson, because there's no way in HELL that D. Wade plays Robin to LeBron's Batman. No one wants to be Robin, not even Robin.) That leaves the Clippers, who on paper have a good team, but you know they're the fucking Clippers and no one wants to play for Donald "I invented biggotism" Sterling. The problem with Chicago is I think Rose will be hurt by LeBron and not helped. Rose needs the ball to be effective. So does LeBron (at this stage of his career), but on paper that gives him the best chance. Oh and Jordan will hire Charles Oakley to break LeBron's knee Nancy Kerrigan style if he comes anywhere close to being better than him...especially in a Bulls Jersey. Now that's a competitor.  
 
Besides that, the influx in talent in the league is at an all-time high (minus maybe the Hakeem, Jordan, Barkley, Stockton draft). Wade, Melo, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Deron Williams are all young and talented just to name a few. Not to mention KD. Kevin Durant in my mind has a shot to dominate this league, and his team is already better (and younger) than any team LeBron can sign with. True I have a self-described man-crush on Kevin Durant, but so should everyone else. He's an uber-talented kid who's unassuming and an actually a nice guy. You know basically the anti-LeBron who is a straight up dick. Wait for it America. It's coming. But that's a topic for another day.
 
So truly I never answered your question, even though I kind of did. It's apparently "LeBron-agency" because of its far stretching impact on the NBA. And that hurts considering I could not be more excited about watching Kobe beat the shit out of the Celtics for his 5th ring, getting his revenge and making Bill Simmons rewrite where Kobe falls on his list of all-time greats (while drinking dark liquor and smoking Marlboros reds in a dark room). Oh and making Jackling buy me a bottle of Jack.
 
BISdom: I love your blind love of Kobe Bean Bryant. It's not only hilariously irrational; it's also clearly the seed of your blind LeBron hatred, since LeBron is a threat to Kobe's well-deserved biggest-douche-bag-and-best-player-in-the-league crown.

But, in the interests of love not war, let's talk about the playoffs.

(By the way, I meant the whole of the 2010 free agency, not just LeBron's.)

And let's begin, like the sun, in the East. So far, Rajon Rondo has made me (and the Jackling clan) look like a genius with his game-four performance, but the Magic are an entirely different animal than I had originally imagined. They look and literally have been unstoppable with their 8-0 record. Admittedly, this was done against fairly weak competition (an overachieving Mikecats team and a bunch of Atlanta players who couldn't work together).

The question with Orlando, at least from my perspective, is not what to do with Dwight Howard. The Mikecats showed very clearly what to do with Dwight Howard: throw a bunch of guys and a bunch of fouls at him until he gets frustrated and tweets his way into a Stern fine. So far in these playoffs, Doc Rivers' bench has been fairly short, but he does have plenty of bodies to throw at Howard (Big Baby, Kendrick Perkins, Rasheed Wallace, even brontosaurus Shelden Williams or KG if the need arises).

The question with the Magic is really how do you deal with their 3-point shooting? In the playoffs, Orlando is second only to Phoenix (who we'll get to) in three-pointers made (89 through 8 games) and three-point FG% (38.4%). In the regular season, they shot 37.5%, so this isn't about just getting hot at the right time. The Cavs were actually ahead of Orlando in regular season percentage (38.1%), but shot a disappointing 27.6% against Boston. In the regular season, Boston was tied for 4^th in three-point FG defense. The C's play good team D and should give Orlando's offense some problems.

On top of that, as they showed in the previous series, Boston can get scoring from just about anywhere, so I'm sticking with my pick from before the playoffs started – the same pick Charles and Matthew scoffed at – and taking Boston in six to advance to the Rasheed Wallace-named 'Ship.

Benis: I never said Kobe wasn't a douche, I just think LeBron is a mega-douche and rivals John Edward for The Biggest Douche in the Universe, South Park style. And, seeing as how you seem to get ticked off every time I bad mouth him, I tend to think you may be showing some favoritism towards the LeBron camp. Though admittedly that gives you a better chance to meet Jay-Z so that is a benefit I guess. There I said something nice about LeBron so let's move forward. 
 
I obviously already showed my hand on who I want to win the Eastern Conference Finals, so I guess I should discuss who will win. Luckily this will be easy for me because you already pointed out the main issues at hand. First being Orlando has played NO ONE. It honestly hurts me to say that for I am becoming a huge fan of the MikeCats (To the point where Byron and I are looking into season tickets...yes I live 4 hours from Charlotte), but they were by far the worst team in the playoffs. Gerald Wallace shooting sleeves and Larry Brown be damned. Orlando's next opponent, Atlanta, was self destructing faster than Mike Brown's coaching career, and didn't even put up a fight. Future-max-salary-player-who-doesn't-deserve-it Joe Johnson put up such a craptastic stat line that series I feel like I will receive death threats from his agent just for showing it: FG%: .298, 3PTFG%: .176, good for 12.8 points/game.
 
Add in 2.5 turnovers a game and there you go. This coming from their best player. Congrats Orlando, here's a gift-wrapped Eastern Conference Finals appearance and two weeks of NBA analysts jumping on your nuts.
 
On the other hand, the Celtics had to play a tough-as-nails, extremely crappily coached Bulls team followed by LeBron and an extremely crappily coached Cavs team. You'd think that the C's were lucky to face back to back crappy coaches, but they aren't exactly being lead by Red Auerbach. Doc Rivers' main coaching tip: "Play as a team." Wow. I'll give him credit for getting a bunch of pot heads...err hot heads to do it, but I don't think he's a great coach. My point is the Celtics are playing better than the Magic right now, and have the hottest player in the playoffs on their team in Rondo (the 2^nd main point which you already made).
 
Lastly you did point out THE one hope Orlando has in beating the Celtics: three-point shooting. Orlando kills people when they're hot from behind the arc. And Rashard Lewis will murder them, chainsaw-massacre style, if he gets hot. They have no one to guard him and he could single handedly (unless you count JJ Reddick...just kidding) swing the series if he gets it going Man on Fire style (Denzel reference). Luckily my pick to advance to the Western Conference Finals has two guys who can handle 'Shard. Any guesses on who I'm referring to? Here's a hint, they're both batshit crazy...and Stephen Jackson is already out of the playoffs.

BISdom: I actually like the Suns to come out of the West, again another pre-playoff "pick" for me (they were my 1A behind perennial disappointment Dallas).

Like Boston, they can score from anywhere. Of the teams remaining, Phoenix has by far the best production off the bench in the playoffs (Phoenix 37.8 points per game, Orlando 27.7, Boston 28.2, LA 29.4). They're shooting a ridiculous 41.7% from beyond the arc, which is only slightly elevated from their 41.2% in the regular season during which they lead the league in scoring.

Nash and Co. can obviously put up the points, but the Lakers can too. With an eyeball test, it seems like the Lakers would have a better defensive team, with the size and length of Gasol and Bynum and the tenacity of Artest and Bryant (who I hope you were referring to earlier), but the Suns are actually giving up fewer points in the playoffs (95.9 to 97.1) and ostensibly playing better competition, at least in the second round when they faced an experienced and balanced Spurs team, while the Lakers faced an ailing Jazz lineup. Nash won't really have to play any defense on Fisher, so he can focus on his impressive offensive game.

So, I like the Suns to face the Celtics in Finals.

As I've already noted, the Celtics play good three-point defense, but with Phoenix, they'll also have to play up-tempo, which I'm not sure the Celtics are cut out for (other than Rondo and Tony Allen). It seems like – with some exceptions – the East has become the defensive league while the West has become the offensive, run-and-gun league. In this case, I think offense wins championships and the Suns run all over the aging Celtics to win Phoenix' first title and cement Nash's place as one of the best point guards ever.

It would sure be fun to watch Nash and Rondo compete for the best in-traffic pass of the NBA Finals.

Benis: I'm not sure if you're picking the Suns so you can openly root against my boys the next week or because they seem to be the only team in NBA Live you can beat me with, but either way you, sir, are wrong. Don't get me wrong: if by some miracle they get past LA, I am officially pulling for them in the Finals. Nash deserves a ring. But it's not going to happen. You quote the playoff numbers etc, but here's some numbers that truly matter:

3-1: Lakers won the regular season series, and by an average margin of 11.67 points a game. I'm guessing this series goes 6.

4-3: The opening round series record in 2006 when Kobe pulled his famous F-you game to his teammates. That series loss is still something Kobe hasn't forgotten. Just ask my boy J.A. Adande.

1: Only 1 player did not play with the Lakers last year in their title run, that being Ron Artest. Over 90% of this current Lakers team has Western Conference Finals experience, let alone FINALS experience. A much lower number for the Suns (the number is 0 for finals experience).

24: The Black Mamba (dumbest nickname ever, sorry Kobe it is). Who is going to guard him? I'm honestly scared for Grant Hill's ankles. Have you seen the new Nike Zoom Kobe IV?

Point being: in big games, experience matters. And the Lakers have experience beating the Suns' ass. Phoenix's only hope is that Kobe has another F-you game and sabotages his team again. I don't see it happening. Not when Kobe is close to ring number 5. Not when LeBron is already out (his only real threat to win the title). Not when a chance to beat the crap out of the Celtics in the Finals is on the line (a second straight revenge series). Kobe knows his window to win so called 'Ships is closing, he won't screw this up.

Lakers over Suns in six. Then Lakers over Celtics in a legendary seven-game series. I celebrate with a bottle of Jack mixed with Celtic tears.

Let the Bs begin

BISdom: I just posted a short and not very good blog, which makes me think you should look at that NY Times thing I sent you.

Benis: I already read your blog. And the Opinionator is a pretty decent thought. I'm not sure how interesting we'd be though. Let's try it. Think of something to "opinionate on" and we'll give it a shot.

BISdom: Why don't we start here? We can just discuss the general idea of "The Conversation" (not the Opinionator), and see where it leads us.

So the basic concept is we'd take a topic, like the Cavs/Celtics series or the All-Star game in Arizona or the recent Boondocks episodes, and just chat about it.

The key, though, which might be trickier on your end, is that it should be a well-informed conversation (and we might refer to it as "discussion" to avoid any confusion with "The Conversation"). That means that we should do our research and not simply spout ideas from the hip, awesome though our hips may be.

I was thinking this morning that it could be a different blog, separate from my existing one, so it wouldn't necessarily be subject to the same "rules" that I draconically impose upon myself. Maybe we try to do one per week. Or maybe not. I think it should be relaxed though, again, well-informed. But that could be as simple as watching a single game and maybe doing some follow-up reading about it.

You did say you were looking for things to fill your time now that you're not in school.

Benis: Okay I'll read it. And I think sports would have to be the topic if we're going to research and shit on it. I feel swearing will happen on my end though...it's just in my preferred style of literary ranting.

BISdom: I was thinking this email chain could be our first post. That's why I wrote so much last time; it was my way of stealthily trying to get you to do the same and get into the spirit, so to speak. I was being considerably less stealthy when I said, "Why don't we start here?"

I thought you knew that I obviously don't mind the foul language. In fact, I'd assumed I'd edit our email chains before posting, but I have no intentions of censoring either you or myself. Censorship is lame.

Speaking of which, I think we should definitely sign it with your nicknames: Benis and BISdom. It has a nice ring to it. In fact, I think that's the title: Benis and BISdom.

At any rate – and maybe you're already doing this – but try pretending like this might be one of our "discussions" and see if it works for you. I'd suggest you not put that much thought into it, but just start writing and see where it takes you. If it's nowhere interesting, this won't be our first post (or maybe it will be our only post and we'll just stop here).

Benis: Agreed. Discussions that would bite my proverbial ass would not be things I'd personally like. But then again I don't know who the fuck is going to read rants from two dudes who are nicknamed Benis and BISdom. Is B and B not more reasonable? Though the nicknames are definitely more eye-catching than B and B. Plus we probably don't want to confuse people with the title. Bed and Breakfast enthusiasts might be upset. Or B and B Bowling in Fayetteville...which is the first thing that came up when I googled it. I'm scared to google "Benis" at work, so I'm not sure what will come up there. So is there a length specification we should go by or just do constant counterpoints and questions?

BISdom: At this point, I'm going to deny pretty much all rules. I'd say the goal would be to ask each other questions and answer them, of course starting with a particular question of relevance. And then we'll just stop when we want to. So, for example, I want to stop this one now, so I probably won't ask you any questions in this response.

I think Benis and BISdom is a fine title to start with. It's accurate. We can change it if we need to.

As for who is going to read it, I don't know and I don't really care. I know Grandpa and Matthew will. Obviously, we'll have one fewer reader since you're switching sides.

But I think that's exactly the point: you and I are the readers. The moment when I stopped worrying about who is reading my blog was the moment when I started worrying more about who is writing my blog. In many ways, I do still feel like that blog is a burden and a responsibility, but I prefer and more often consider it a good place to work on my writing and think about ideas that I might not otherwise consider. I think that should be our goal for this new blog: to have conversations that we might not otherwise have (even though we still live together). I like to think that my goal as a writing instructor is to make better people, not better writers. I'm sure I fail largely, but it is possible. I think we should tackle this project with a similar goal: to become better people, whether because we're more informed, because we're better writers/arguers, or simply because we like each other less (which is an admirable quality). And if we pick up any readers along the way, then so be it.

Benis: Fair enough. You refusing to censor me got me excited and nervous. Which makes me think I might inadvertently censor myself from saying some of my more ridiculous views. But then again, who gives a crap? I say this forum might work. It's very similar to what Jackling and I spend all day doing anyway, though I don't know if it has made us better people. Just less productive employees. So I guess, in conclusion, let's give it a shot. Worst case scenario we just created another way for Matthew to make fun of me for looking like a mild re-tard in an open and public forum. I'm pretty interested to see how our first true topic comes to light.