Read On

Rarely do I give reading advice or flat out recommend books (I’m not Oprah), but today is your lucky day. Recently I was asked what the best book I have ever read is by my cousin and friend of the blog Kate. To be quite honest, I didn’t know what to say. Although I arrogantly boycotted summer reading in high school I’ve actually read quite a few books in my day. True fans of the blog will know that I am part of a two person book club with my buddy Kyle Korver, who it should be known recently asked to have his name changed to JJ Barea. I wouldn’t say that I’m “well read” (I assume you’ve all heard this term), but I’m better read (not sure if this works) than most people my age despite taking a 10 year hiatus from reading books written by women. How I was unable to answer what seems like such a simple question baffled me.

As I took time to reflect (a grand total of about 10 minutes when I realized that it was the last day in June and I only had a few more hours to post something in order to maintain my 4 posts a month strategy), I realized that I don’t even have any rhyme or reason to how I select books to read. FYI- My cousin Kate reads books that are in the process of becoming movies or TV shows because 1.) If they are making a movie about it the book must be halfway decent and 2.) Books like this (Twilight, My Sister’s Keeper, and The Hunger Games which has been adapted to Game of Thrones on HBO to name a few) often become very popular and if she’s read the book she has a good understanding of why, what the plot is, etc. I usually just browse the Social Sciences or Cultural Studies sections online or at my local Barnes & Noble and hope something catches my eye. When that well runs dry (doesn’t take much) I get into specific genres. I’ll read humor books for a few months, then classics for a few months, followed by a bunch of stunt non-fiction books for a few months.

I also essentially only read before I go to sleep, so I don’t exactly speed through books unless they are absolutely riveting. And unlike movies I no longer feel compelled to plow through an entire book if it doesn’t keep me interested (I’m looking at you Catch-22). So basically I have limited time to read and I occasionally stop reading books altogether. Maybe this was why I couldn’t easily think of the best book I’ve ever read? Or maybe my strict screening process should have led me to an answer more quickly?

Either way, I took the time to craft a list of the top 12 books that I’ve ever read, or so I think. Why 12? Well if I ever do start a book club (0 chance this ever happens) I’d need to at least be able to pick a book for each month of the year. Because that’s how many I thought of.

(in no particular order)

Freakonomics (2005) by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner



I’m pretty sure there have been about 736363 adaptations and re-releases, but I read the original back in 2006 and it was right up my alley. The authors use data to present ideas that seem counterintuitive. For example, more children die each year from backyard pools than having guns in the home, but parents freeeakkk out about guns in the house. Also there’s an entire chapter on the economics of drug dealing which is simply fascinating.


Moneyball (2003) by Michael Lewis



There have been plenty of great baseball books written, but I’m fairly certain that this one is the best. Now it doesn’t deal with the history or prestige of America’s pastime. Rather it looks at how a small market team, the Oakland Athletics, used advanced metrics to compete against teams that had payrolls 5 times the size of theirs. This book is so influential that I just read, I believe in the ESPN book, that business school students at a well renowned university are required to read it. Fun fact- the book is being made into a movie with Brad Pitt playing the lead role of A’s GM Billy Beane.


Prisoner of Trebekistan (2006) by Bob Harris



Obviously this one is for fans of Jeopardy! The book follows the author’s experience with America’s favorite game show from his days as a child to his days as a contestant (they brought him back for many, many tournaments). My favorite part was how he explained how he studied for his first appearance and that he basically just hoped he got the Daily Doubles and bet big because they are relatively easy.


On the Road (1957) by Jack Kerouac



I really enjoyed On the Road for a few reasons. First, Kerouac wrote it in 3 weeks. It’s hardly edited at all. He just wrote. He was able to do this because it’s largely autobiographical (the names were changed). I also love it because he really captures the spirit of the this growing faction of young Americans that set the stage for the 60s counter culture. They called themselves the Beat generation, or the Lost generation, and were basically a group of incredibly intelligent people who rejected the status quo of society and decided to do want they wanted to do, almost in an epicurean/hedonistic way.


The Count of Monte Cristo (1845) by Alexandre Dumas



Clearly one of my favorites from my classics stage. This novel is one of the best revenge stories ever told. It’s really long, but it’s entertaining all the way through because the suspense of the revenge continues to mount. I lost a lot of sleep reading this book well into the night. I think I’d argue that this book is the greatest thing that has ever come out of the country of France.


Chuck Klosterman IV: A Decade of Curious People and Dangerous Ideas (2006) by Chuck Klosterman



I’ve written about this book for 3 months straight now. It’s a collection of Klosterman’s previous articles, so you can open it up to the middle of the book and not miss anything (similar to Malcolm Gladwell’s What the Dog Saw- more on him in a minute), and he has a bunch of interesting hypothetical questions mixed in in-between chapters. Just read it already.


The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (2000) by Malcolm Gladwell



Gladwell’s writing is very easy to read and at the same time fascinating. The way he sees the world is uncanny. In this particular social science work (my favorite of his) he explains why and how trends, disasters, etc. happen. My favorite point made in the book is the strategy implemented to reduce the crime rate in NYC in the early 90’s ; The Broken Windows Theory. Basically what it means is that if there are broken windows in a building the likelihood of more being broken is high, but if there are no windows broken the less likely someone is to break the first one. The police force implemented this theory by removing all of the graffiti from their subway cars and in their subway stations. Also instead of letting small crimes go, the NYPD cracked down on small crimes like turnbuckle hopping at the subway and ended up catching many people who had outstanding warrants for more serious crimes.


The Kite Runner (2003) by Khaled Hosseini



I’m usually no fan of fiction, but I completely forgot that this book was not a true story until after I was done with it. The writing is incredibly poignant and emotional. I was literally fighting back tears at some points. I will leave it at that. Big thanks to friend of the blog Jaclyn for imploring me to read this incredible book over a year ago.


The Brothers Karamazov (1880) by Fyodor Dostoyevsky



I’ll be honest, the first time I tried to read this book I read the first 60 pages and couldn’t get any further. There are a lot of Russian names and it’s hard to figure out who’s who and what’s going on. A year or two later I picked it up and read it from cover to cover. My oldest brother told me that it was one of the best books that he’s ever read and it didn’t disappoint. The book centers around ethics, morals, and faith. In fact, the book has one chapter that’s often regarded as the best proof that God does not exist as well as another chapter that’s often regarded as the best proof that God does exist.


The Happiness Project (2010) by Gretchen Rubin



I’ve written about this book plenty, but in case you are unfamiliar with it this woman spent a year of her life (yes, it’s a stunt non-fiction book) trying to become happier. It wasn’t that she wasn’t happy before it’s just that she thought she could be happier. Each month she focused on a different area of her life (cleaned out her old stuff, got in touch with old friends, worked out more, worked more, etc.) and became a better version of herself. I thought it was very refreshing to know that a re-dedication could make just about anyone feel a whole lot better about themselves.


Tuesday’s with Morrie (1997) by Mitch Albom



I’ve always liked Mitch Albom because I’ve watched him for years on The Sports Reporters on Sunday mornings. The book centers around Albom’s relationship with one of his former college professors who is dying of Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS). The two re-connect after a long hiatus and tackle all of life’s most important questions.


Poop Culture (2007) by Dave Praeger



The first words I ever wrote on this blog were “poop is the great equalizer” and that was gleaned from a story from this book. I’m not kidding when I say that this book was very interesting. It gave a brief history of poop (not too expansive where it was boring) and showed how it’s looked at by modern society.

Pull the Trigger

Tomorrow night is the NBA Draft and I for one cannot wait. Everyone (ESPN Analysts) is saying how it’s a weak draft class (no way it’s weaker than ’00), but I’m still excited either way. Not only do the Knicks have a first round pick, but for as long as I can remember I have circled the night of the draft on my calendar (not actually, but if I had a desk calendar and I want one I would). The same goes for the NFL Draft. I used to watch all 7 hours of the first day and write down the first round picks on the same pad of paper year in and year out (I still have it, too). I make no excuses for being a sports junkie. It’s who I am. In fact, drafts are what make fantasy sports so appealing to me. For a few hours you get the sense, albeit a fleeting one, that you’re the general manager of a sports franchise. The only person I know who is more obsessed with drafts than me is my buddy Alex who had me and another friend doing fantasy drafts of all sorts in the middle of CAPS (Current Affairs/Public Speaking) class back in high school.

There are plenty of intriguing storylines in this year’s NBA Draft, as usual, but the one that I find most intriguing is the trade that isn’t going to happen between the Lakers (a top tier, veteran team) and Timberwolves (a super young team that had the worst record in the league this year). The proposed deal that’s been reported has the Lakers sending 4-time All-Star forward Pau Gasol to the Timberwolves for 1-time All-Star forward Kevin Love and the #2 overall pick. Gasol, arguably the best Spanish player of all time, will turn 31 in a few weeks whereas Love will turn 23 in September. When people first caught wind of the proposed deal they (NBA analysts, fans) thought that the Lakers would be getting the better end of the deal.

Love, who played his college ball (for one year) in LA at UCLA, is a rising star who led the league in rebounding, can shoot it from distance, and is a great (outlet) passer. NBA analysts and fans have been clamoring for him to get out of Minnesota because they feel like his talents are wasted there.



Gasol has been receiving some heat for disappearing (not quite as bad as LeBron in the 4th quarter) in the playoffs. The career 18 and 9 performer only scored 13 points and grabbed 7 rebounds per game in the postseason this year. Gasol also (fairly) took the fall for the Lakers losing in the 2008 NBA Finals for being too soft against the Celtics.



Then with the #2 overall pick people suspect that the Lakers would take Arizona forward Derrick Williams, who is big enough to play on the block (6’9), but probably more suited for the wing.

When I first heard about this proposed deal I thought that the Lakers shouldn’t do it. If they did, though, I thought they should take Kentucky point guard Brandon Knight with the #2 pick because with apologies to Derek Fisher and Steve Blake the Lakers don’t have a point guard and it’s becoming a point guard league. Lakers GM Mitch Kupchak is in a tough spot because the deal makes a lot of sense for the organization’s long term future because they’d be infusing the team with some high caliber young talent, but would it be enough to win the title right away? I say no and that’s a big problem because Kobe Bryant is in win now mode. He only has 2-3 superstar years left (and you know he wants 1-2 more rings to tie or pass MJ) and that’s probably how long it would take to develop Derrick Williams or Brandon Knight enough to make a serious run at the title. In my opinion, the Lakers can’t win the title without Pau Gasol. Yes, he was soft in 2008. Yes, he didn’t show up for the playoffs this year. That said, I think he’s wildly underrated. The Lakers won the NBA Finals in 2009 and 2010 mainly because of Pau. He carried the offensive load when Kobe didn’t have it going. I like Kevin Love a lot, but he’s 1/10 the offensive player that Pau is.

The Timberwolves have basically said that there’s no way that they are going to make this deal because they want to keep Kevin Love. I understand that they want to keep the rising star that’s become the face of their franchise, but there’s a reason that they have been actively shopping the #2 overall pick. The Timberwolves are incredibly young. The average age of their roster this season was 24 and they had only one player who was 30 (Luke Ridnour).

The biggest offseason news for the Timberwolves was that the prize of their 2009 Draft (they drafted 3 point guards in the first round) Ricky Rubio, a 20 year old Spanish point guard, is finally coming over to America to play in the NBA. They are basically giving him the keys to the franchise.

Now let me ask you this. What makes more sense if you wanted to get a 20-year-old Spaniard acclimated to the NBA as quickly as possible?

To use the #2 overall pick to draft the 20-year old Derrick Williams and have your roster look like this.

PG- Ricky Rubio (20)
SG- Wesley Johnson (23)
SF- Michael Beasley (22)
PF- Kevin Love (23)
C- Darko Milicic (26)
Bench- Derrick Williams (20)
Bench- Anthony Randolph (21)
Bench- Martell Webster (26)
Bench- Jonny Flynn (22)

Or

To trade Love and the #2 pick to bring in a veteran All-Star (who has championship experience), Spaniard in Pau Gasol that Rubio has played with on the Spanish national team?



I guess my point is this. If I’m Minnesota I make that trade in a heartbeat, especially so that Rubio feels comfortable. Adding Derrick Williams just makes them a team of young kids that are going to get sick and tired of losing. Gasol gives them credibility and makes them a lotttt more competive as their primary scorer.

Now I do have to quickly mention the Knicks draft outlook. The general thought is that they need a point guard (because no one thinks Toney Douglas is the guy) to back up Chauncey Billups or some depth in the front court because they have limited size. They currently sit at #17 and of the players that people expect to still be on the board the following is my wish list.

1.) Kenneth Faried, Morehead State- He’s only 6’8, but he’s an absolute savage on the boards, which is something the Knicks desperately need.

2.) Markieff Morris, Kentucky- He has size (6’9, 241) and he can score. I’m not sure how much he’d contribute right away, but I think size is the Knicks biggest need.

3.) Jeremy Tyler- This is the kid that left high school early to play in Italy. He’s obviously a huge upside pick and the Knicks don’t exactly have the time (or patience) to develop him, but 6’11 with potential is intriguing.

4.) Josh Selby, Kansas- He’s a score first guard that could thrive in D’Antoni’s system, but he’s immature and who knows how much longer D’Antoni has.

5.) Marshon Brooks, Providence- One of the best scorers in the draft. The Knicks play 0 defense, so why not just draft the player with the most upside offensively.

Realpolitik

What you probably know about me is that sports are my passion. I live, work, eat, and breathe sports on a daily basis. I’m so immersed in the world of sports that it’s hard for me to remove myself sometimes. What you also probably know about me is that one of my hobbies is writing. For some reason (the desire to have a voice and matter, a way to vent, an avenue to boost my ego) I tend to gravitate to the written word in order to fill some void in my life. It’s usually a stressful process, but I tend to greatly enjoy the end product, so I keep doing it. What you probably don’t know about me (actually I’m willing to bet that more than half of you do know) is that one of my other interests in politics. In fact, I minored in politics in college. For the most part I find political discussions, ideologies, etc. to be fascinating. In fact, as much as I love sports if there was a political issue that I really cared about (right now there isn’t) I would probably be working to support it in some capacity because I think politics (as fickle as they seem at times) are much more important than sports.

Now this probably won’t come as much of a surprise, but my father is a politician, albeit a local one (a county legislator). He is a Democrat, but perhaps the most conservative one that you are going to meet. In fact, in most years (he runs for re-election every other year) he runs on the Conservative ticket as well. Speaking of which, when I turned 18 my father had me register with the Independence Party, so that I could go door to door with him and witness other members of the party sign petitions for him. The Independence Party, to my knowledge only exists in 3 states (New York, Minnesota, and Alaska), but it’s really quite brilliant. It was formed, in New York anyway, by a guy named Tom Golisano who ran for governor a handful of times and lost. The Independence Party is brilliant because a lot of people don’t want to affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. They want to be Independents. However they aren’t exactly the brightest and thinking that they are avoiding party affiliation they sign up for the Independence Party.

I can’t tell you what the Independence Party stood for, but when I moved to Connecticut I registered as an Independent. If I had to characterize my political views I would say that I’m a moderate that leans a little left (just like something else-kidding). I get my political news mainly from television. I regularly watch The O’Reilly Factor, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and The Colbert Report and I occasionally watch Fox News Sunday with Christopher Wallace and Real Time with Bill Maher. These programs undoubtedly help shape my political views, but three of them are comedies and Bill Maher is a crazy liberal, so it’s hard to take much of what he says seriously. His show is still watchable though because it’s funny and there’s usually a lively debate (plus it’s only on once a week so it’s easy to catch the re-runs). Hannity or Glenn Beck (when he was still on), on the other hand, are wayyy too conservative for me to handle. Everyone likes to say that they are a centrist and I feel a little weird in claiming that I am as well, but I do think that I’m pretty close. In fact, I just took this quiz (who knows how accurate it is) and my results show that I am a center-right social moderate.

For example, I believe whole heartedly in the free market, but I think that better regulation of the financial industry may have prevented the subprime mortgage fiasco. Furthermore I believe in the sanctity of marriage, but I don‘t have a fundamental problem with the notion of gay marriage. Philosophically I’m pro-life, but realistically I’m pro-choice. If this doesn’t make any sense to you (and it might look like a blatant contradiction) let me explain. In a vacuum I would be pro-life because abortion is fundamentally wrong. However we don’t live in a vacuum, so it doesn’t make sense to take a moral stance on the issue. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned women all across the country would still want to have abortions. Many of these, for lack of a better term, black market abortions would be unsafe and perhaps lead to illnesses and deaths that abortion’s legality currently prevents.

As far as the current political landscape, let’s start with the Anthony Weiner scandal. So the guy sent pictures of his junk to females all around the country, but claims that he never had a physical relationship with any of them. That’s about as hard to believe as his dong was hard in the most famous picture from the scandal.



What’s sad is that his wife is now pregnant. Talk about awkward timing. Surprisingly though, that’s not the most awkward part. His wife is a former aide to Hilary Clinton, so in the aftermath of the scandal Weiner had to call Bill Clinton to apologize. Again, Weiner had to call Bill Clinton, the man involved in the most famous political sex scandal of all time, and apologize.

Well now everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Obama is calling for Weiner to resign (Obama said he would resign if he was in Weiner's position), but I sort of respect his defiance.

**Update** Weiner caved under the mounting pressure of the Democractic Party and resigned a day aftet this post was first published.

Did sexting with females all across the country make him a bad law maker? Not really. In fact, I would argue that it had no impact on his ability to legislate whatsoever. Everyone’s sexual interactions, thoughts, etc. are bound to stray from the idea of normal from time to time. I mean seriously, what percentage of politicians just have regular sex with their wives? I would argue that the number is less than 40%. These are men in positions of power. Now this is not meant to absolve the congressman. Where he runs into a problem is that he initially lied about it. As we’ve learned countless times the cover up is worse than the crime (I’m looking at you Nixon). It's too bad because Weiner probably would have been the next mayor of New York City just like Eliot Spitzer would have been the first Jewish President of the United States.

By the way, one of the best jokes about the scandal that I heard (via Kyle Korver) was from Conan O’Brien, who said something to the effect of, "Congressman Weiner is in a lot of trouble since he tweeted those pictures. But good news for him, he just found out he'll be allowed to keep his porn name ... Anthony Weiner." Well guess what? Weiner isn’t the only member of Congress who’s surname would also work in the porn industry:

Billy Long
Robert Hurt
Ron H. Johnson (huge?)
Bob Corker (it’s a stretch, but use your imagination)
Norman D. Dicks

In other political news we have Sarah Palin’s “look at me” bus tour. Palin deserves credit for being a galvanizing force in the Republican Party, but I find her to be almost unbearable. She is both incredibly thin-skinned and narcissistic. I don’t care that she botched the Paul Revere story, but to place blame on the media for a “gotcha” question and then to deny botching the story altogether is ridiculous. Would I ever vote for her? Yes, but only if she was running against a whacko like Nancy Pelosi.

Lastly, the other night was the second GOP Presidential Debate. Let me quickly give my impressions of the candidates.

Mitt Romney- he certainly looks the part, but he feels a little sleazy to me. Ipso facto he’s my favorite of the group.

Newt Gingrich- he was the most vehement towards Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, while he was having an affair at the same time. If this was 1996 he might have a chance.

Rick Santorum- he has no chance and even if he did he wouldn’t. Just google his last name. I’ll wait…Like I said, no chance.

Tim Pawlenty- seems like a nice guy, but maybe too nice. Ultimately he’s just bland and not exciting.

Michelle Bachmann- eat your heart out Palin. Personally I think Bachmann is a whacko, but she's also rather cunning, so I could see her being a VP candidate

Ron Paul- one of the craziest men in Congress. So crazy that sometimes he makes sense, but he’s still out of his mind. His basic message is, “Let’s have the most limited government imaginable.”

Herman Cain- a black guy? That won’t work. No, but seriously, the former CEO of Godfather Pizza has no chance.

Tennis Anyone?

You probably don't know this about me, but the sport of tennis has always been a significant (maybe not the right word) part of my life. I grew up in a well to do neighborhood just east of downtown Syracuse called Sedgwick Farms. While the houses in the neighborhood were nice and the people were generally friendly, there were only two things that really gave Sedgwick Farms a sense of community. The first was each year on Christmas Eve virtually every house in the neighborhood (outside of the few Jewish people) would light luminaries (white bags with candles in them) and space them out along the street. Quite frankly, they were a hassle that somehow my brothers and I always had to deal with. The other was the Sedgwick Farms tennis club. The club consisted of a two story clubhouse with a dining room upstairs that I've been in once (for a graduation party) and at least 5 courts made of red clay. I still remember taking tennis lessons there as a kid because we were required to wear all white, could only wear a certain type of sneaker, and our instructor's name was Hanz. I can still remember exactly what my racket looked like. It was turquoise Prince racket with blue strings (you could see a P in the strings) and a purple grip.

As I continued to get older I developed a minor passion for the game. In my driveway I would play wall ball (I know that's a lacrosse term, but I think it applies here too) against my garage for hours at a time. I wasn't even deterred by the fact that I broke at least half of the windows on the garage and soon after the ball would routinely go through the holes and I'd have to open the garage door and search for the ball before I could keep playing.

I don't know what it was, but I eventually stopped playing (and when I say playing I mean playing against myself in my driveway) for a few years. Maybe it was because I spent more time playing baseball, or that I got into lacrosse, or that when I played a female family friend who is two years older than me in tennis I got absolutely smoked and my confidence was shot. Either way, I got back into tennis during my junior and senior years of high school because we used to play it in gym class.

Eventually I started playing a few of my friends on a pretty regular basis. One of which I consistently beat even though he was 6'4 and would eventually play 4 years of college football at an Ivy League school. I never lost to him, but the matches were competitive so it was fun. There was another friend of mine who went on to play 4 years of top tier college basketball and 1 year of college football who, for some reason or another, I could never beat. There was no doubt in my mind that I was the better tennis player, but he was definitely the better athlete and his will to win clearly outshined mine on numerous occasions. Our matches were always close (we played best of three sets), but he always came out on top. I specifically remember having a triple match point in the second set (I dominated the first set) and blowing not only that, but the third set as well. To this day I have never beaten him.

During my college years I played tennis in the summer against a few of my friends (one of whom has a tennis court in his backyard) and while on vacation against my dad. For 2-3 years I didn't lose, but my friend who has the court in his backyard kept on challenging me. Eventually he beat me and I can only remember playing a handful of times after that. I'm sure that I've played my dad while on vacation a few times, but the last time I specifically remember playing tennis was during my junior year of college against a girl I had a crush on.

While I wouldn't say that I was ever any good at tennis I did enjoy the sport. I even spent plenty of time watching it on television. For example, I watched the Andre Agassi (who I just emailed to see if he'll come on the radio)/James Blake 5 set thriller in the 2005 U.S. Open in its entirety. Lately I've watched plenty of my girl Caroline Wozniacki. And of course, I've seen plenty of Federer and Nadal. Now before I get more into their "rivalry" I first have to mention a quick word about the #3 ranked tennis player in the world; Novak Djokovic. If you don't know how to pronounce his name now you will in a second. While doing the highlights of a Djokovic match on SportsCenter a few months ago the most underrated anchor in the business Robert Flores said this…



So back to Federer/Nadal. If I asked you, "Who's the best tennis player in the world over the past 10 years?" I'm pretty sure that most of you, assuming you know something about tennis or that you've at least seen enough Gillette commercials, would say Roger Federer. Now you wouldn't exactly be wrong. Federer has won 16 grand slams (6 at Wimbledon), which is the most all time, but Rafael Nadal owns him in head to head matches. The two "rivals" have played 25 times. Nadal has won 17 of them. They've met in the finals of a grand slam 8 times. Nadal has won 6 of them.

Federer will turn 30 in August, which in tennis is worse than being a 35 year old running back in the NFL, whereas Nadal just turned 25 and won his 10^th grand slam in the past week.

All points considered, how can we say that Federer is the best tennis player of all time when his "rival" has dominated him in the course of their careers?

Here's what I think this is a case of. Once Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi retired tennis fans were looking for someone to carry the torch for the sport. They found their man in Federer and anointed him as the best player ever. Federer's elegance, composure, and championship pedigree fit the bill. Then after a few years of pure domination Nadal came along. He's quicker, faster, more agile, and more powerful than Federer. Based on the eye test alone it's clear that Nadal is the better player. Sure, some of that is the age difference, but people are still reluctant to admit it because they've already anointed Federer as "the best player of all time."

This is similar, again similar (not the exact same thing because there a few differences), to what's happened in the NBA. After Michael Jordan retired basketball fans were almost immediately searching for the second coming. Every time a talented shooting guard came up through the ranks people started making the comparison. Finally Kobe showed up and, fair or not, was anointed as the next Jordan. In fact, he tried so hard to be Jordan in the way that he spoke and played that people almost reluctantly said, "Ok, he's the next Michael." Kobe may not have fully lived up to the Jordan comparison, but he came as close as anyone ever has. After his 5^th championship people were starting to put the two in the same conversation. But now LeBron has shown up and is on the precipice of his first title. He hasn't exactly owned Kobe in head to head meetings like Nadal has owned Federer, but I think it would be foolish, even for a Kobe apologist like me, to not admit that LeBron is the more gifted player.