If they make the playoffs, don't you think Kobe will get all the credit. For inspiring them while sitting on the bench.

That's what I mean by the injury is a no-lose proposition--whatever happens, Kobe gets credit (if they win, he did it, if they lose, see, they can't win without him).

Whatever caused it, now the Lakers have an excuse. I wanted them to miss the play-offs with Kobe jacking up shot after shot (as he usually does). Now, if they miss the play-offs, they'll chalk it up to the injury. And, should they luck out and win the next two games, instead of noticing how much better the rest of the team plays in his absence, the LA media will claim Kobe inspired them (or even COACHED them) from the bench. What was looking to be a major Karma kickback has transformed such that whatever happens, he/they can avoid the truth that KoME is the biggest problem they have. Very unfortunate.

Kobe's injury comes at a horrible time. Now he and the Lakers have an excuse. I wanted them to miss the play-offs with Kobe jacking up shot after shot (as he usually does). Now, if they miss the play-offs, they'll chalk it up to the injury. And, should they luck out and win the next two games, instead of noticing how much better the rest of the team plays in his absence, the LA media will claim Kobe inspired them (or even COACHED them) from the bench. What was looking to be a major Karma kickback has transformed such that whatever happens, he/they can avoid the truth that KoME is the biggest problem they have. Very unfortunate.

You must not have read the report SI posted on Monta Ellis near the trade deadline. In sum, he's a scorer, but he's a high volume scorer (i.e., many shots to make those points). He can't or won't play defense, so he loses there. He's not especially helpful in passing. So, basically, he's one dimensional, and probably costs you as much in lost production (of other players playing with him offensively, and on defense) as he gains you in points. Not exactly the spark you want to bring off the bench, not to mention that he, expecting MAX money, also would expect to start.

The news report says: "Much debate has already brewed as to whether or not Bryant should have been playing in Friday night's game, but the consensus has shifted to the understanding that there was no way Kobe Bryant was going to miss any part of a tight game that had serious playoff ramifications for his Lakers."

Really? What's going to happen on Sunday--another resurrection?

I think he's going to miss the game, tight or no.

I agree 70 games is still a lot, but I factored in the need to 1)actually have enough games that true top teams emerge and 2)to allow there to be enough games that teams can make money. Unless you think they should raise ticket prices by 82/55 percent to make up the difference, a losing proposition because that's too dramatic an increase in too short a time, while 82/70 is closer to the usual increase in ticket prices over a year or two.

But, really, the NBA is not going to come to its senses and reduce player workloads. They'll just bring in younger unknowns like they always do.

Monta will learn that nobody is going to pay him what the previous Warriors regime did. He's a knucklehead (as is evident by him thinking he deserves a max deal). But, well . . . experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.

Maybe they should shorten the season. Say, play 70 games. Leave the playoffs as is.

How can you tango if you're dominating the post, but the stupid guard won't throw you the ball?

The discussion was about whether he was discriminated against in recruiting out of high school. The only reason this came up is his new interview claims he was discriminated against. However, the evidence presented says no.

Most players change their ranking between graduating from high school and entering the NBA. So, his NBA career--still unclear whether its going to be great, good, marginal, or forgettable--is irrelevant to the original discussion. If you want another discussion, well, when he gets schooled by CP3 or Curry, that's not racism. And, if he schools Curry or CP3, that's not racism, either. So, not sure what the point of discussing his NBA career and racism is. I mean, come on, he's being paid way more than someone with comparable audition (what, 20 games? 30 games?) would ever get. Hard to see how he's a victim of NBA racism.

Wouldn't that be hairism? And, aren't bald men more vulnerable to that (especially in the dating world) than any man with long hair? Just askin'.

As long as you then agree the electoral process is racist, because there are ZERO black senators. As long as you agree businesses are racist, because there are only SIX black CEOs in the Fortune 500. And so on. And, of course, given these facts to which you now agree, what do you plan to do about it?

I didn't realize Yao Ming was a tennis player, and that Hideo Nomo was a golfer. Thanks for your insight!

Look, sports is a game. It's a multi-billion dollar game, but that's in a 16 trillion dollar economy. If there are two options: 1)eradicate discrimination everywhere but in sports or 2)get distracted into eradicating discrimination in sports, I'll opt for the first every time. And, I submit, the 328 million plus rest of the people in the country agree with me, for they are far more dependent on the non-sports aspects of the 16 trillion dollar economy than the narrow sports aspects (which, even if a trillion dollars (a high estimate), is just 8.75% of the economy.

But, go ahead, pontificate about the trivia of discrimination in sports, while the real discriminators make out like bandits in the rest of the economy.

Hmm. Vijay Singh? Tiger Woods? Michelle Wie? Hideo Nomo? Yao Ming? Yi Jianlian? Obviously, the list could go on and on.

Racism exists, but it thrives in places with less visible signs of success. You'll see far more discrimination in law firms because the law is a mass of ambiguity. But, when someone breaks your ankles with a cross-over dribble, it's pretty clear.

So, yes, racism exists. The LAST place to be concerned about it is the world of sport.

True! But, everything that happens isn't because of racism.

Fourth, there's a big gap between Northern California Division II Player of the Year (NCDIIPOY) and scrub. I never said he was a scrub. But a lot of non-scrubs don't get recruited. To that point, if I told you who the Northern California Division II Player of the Year was in most years, you'd probably not know who they were. This suggests that being NCDIIPOY, with average or slightly above average stats, doesn't count for anything, ever, regardless of the race/ethnicity of the person who gets the award. What counts is performance. You recall Jeremy's senior year performance. About the only two NCDIIPOY's to get any attention, as far as I can see, are Josh Akognon and Ryan Anderson. Here are their stats out of HS, which leave Jeremy Lin in the dust:

Akognon (A-Koy-Yon) averaged 30 points as a prep senior in 2004; fifth highest in the state of California. Also averaged 6.6 rebounds, 4.5 assists and 3.4 steals per game. He recorded six games of 40 or more points, including a 54-point effort in his second-to-last prep outing. He was named Player of the Year in the Sonoma County League and the Redwood Empire region. In addition he was a Division II first team All-State selection and garnered Northern California Division II Player of the Year honors. Scholarship offers came from Kansas, Michigan, USC, Oregon and others.

High School: Ryan Anderson was third-leading high school scorer in the state of California as a senior in 2005-06, pouring in 28.9 ppg, also averaged 10.9 rpg and 3.9 bpg, shooting 55.8 percent from the floor, 33.1 percent from three-point range (41-124) and 83.9 percent from the free throw line, earned first-team all-state honors from Cal-Hi Sports, led his team to a 26-3 record and the Sierra Valley Conference title, scored 50 points and grabbed 18 rebounds versus Pittman HS in a sectional playoff opener, voted the Sacramento Bee Player of the Year and the conference MVP, as a junior, led Oak Ridge HS to the state Division II championship, paced the league in scoring (17.4 ppg), rebounding (9.1 rpg) and blocks (71), while also shooting 52.0 percent from the floor, the Northern California Division II Player of the Year and a first-team all-state selection.

I found no mention of any other winner of this award EVER, which suggests the award does not count for much in the world of basketball recruiting. Any now believe the evidence suggests Lin was not recruited out of high school because of his race?

Third, the last person who would know whether their race/ethnicity mattered is the person of the specific race/ethnicity. The person doesn't see the pool the recruiter is looking at. How many high school games in Georgia did Jeremy Lin watch? What about in Iowa? Indiana? Idaho? New York? Texas? Michigan? I bet zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, and zero. But the recruiters probably watched a ton in all those places. So, Jeremy is in the worst position to evaluate what mattered and what did not matter for his recruitment, because he never saw his competition.

Second, lots of morons go to Harvard. Maybe 50 years ago it was different, I don't know. But, now, really, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, Stanford, Michigan, some people who go there are fine, some who go are morons. And, of course, some people who don't go to those places are morons, and some are not.

First, why is Lin a leader? He isn't. But he is trying to be. That's why he's put himself out for pricey speaking engagements. If he wants to be a leader, he has to be more responsible than to accuse people of something without evidence. I don't like it when Bush makes a claim without evidence, I don't like it when Obama makes a claim without evidence, and I don't like it when people use their "feelings" as evidence of crimes.

First, I am not getting angry. I am, however, incredulous.

Second, this isn't about you or me, it is about whether Jeremy Lin is right to accuse others of being racist, which is what he is doing if he says "my race had something to do with my not being recruited."

Third, if he makes that accusation, then we have to look at the evidence. Is there evidence he was a top California high school basketball player? I say no. The award system says no. His statistics (playing in a second-rate league) say no. If someone wants to offer other evidence, they should present that. If they just want to discuss race relations, they should say, "Jeremy didn't deserve to be recruited out of HS. Now, let's discuss race."

Fourth, you say it is not far-fetched for him to feel that his race was involved. People can feel whatever they want. LEADERS, however, don't accuse others of racism without evidence, certainly not in public.

Fifth, if Jeremy Lin thinks it is so horrible for race to be involved, then why is he attempting to exploit the vast market in Asia? I'll tell you why. Because Jeremy, like many people (unfortunately), wants to exploit race to his advantage. Instead of looking at his high school performance and saying, "I was pretty good, but not good enough, so I worked hard and now I'm better," he'd prefer to make a cheap incorrect point because it'll raise his profile and add $ to his speaking fees. If a black person tried that we'd now be at comment 400, not 40. But, it's okay for Jeremy Lin and other honorary whites to play the race card anytime, evidence be d****d.

Now you want to discuss changing the subject. I mentioned height because someone in post 8 said, and I quote:

[quote]Here we go again. He's not talking academically. He's merely stating that if ten guys are in a room with similar basketball skills, the <b>6 foot</b> Asian guy is the one who does not fit the standard model, so he goes un-noticed. I think he has a point. How many <b>7 foot</b> corpses litter college and pros solely on the basis of 84 inches of height, but without the most rudimentary of skills.[/quote]

I then noted that height would have been a reason, not race--teams prefer height to lack thereof.

But, as I said more recently, forget about height. He wasn't good enough coming out of HS. Anyone want to claim he was? If so, then we can discuss that. If not, then there is no evidence of racism.

Thanks a bunch!