Hawks-Celtics Game 2: Ultimate Test of "NTTH"

One of the more senior jokes in ESPN's Daily Dime Live is NTTH: Never Trust the Hawks. Well, it isn't really a joke; it's more of a law of life that must be upheld by all humanity, as dire results await those who oppose it.

However, there may finally be a chance for NTTH to shatter into little basketball pieces.

In this series against the Celtics, practically no one picked the Hawks. It was all about the Big 3 + Rondo, and whether or not they could possibly upset Chicago in then next round. Then, after Derrick Rose's tragic ACL injury, it because about a Miami-Boston Eastern Conference Finals.

ECF? The Celtics hadn't even played a game in the playoffs yet! And they didn't even have homecourt in the first round! Why is it that they had such a clear path to the conference finals? Well, obviously, because you couldn't trust that Hawks to utilize homecourt advantage. Compound that with both Zaza Pachulia and Al Horford, and it could appear as if it would be a walkover for the Celtics.

But, of course, you couldn't trust the Hawks to lose either, even with the clear disadvantages. So, appropriately, the Hawks won game one and had complete control for most of the game. And now, with Rondo suspended for game two due because of his chest bump, Atlanta has a decisive advantage over Boston and could take an important 2-0 in the series with a victory.

Naturally, this is the game they would usually discover a new way to lose. However, I actually have confidence that they will pull this one out and begin to quell NTTH for good. Seriously, stop laughing and here me out on this.

NTTH really reached its height in the two previous seasons. Two years ago, the three-seeded Hawks won 53 games, but even then still had problems handling teams like Golden State and Charlotte. Come playoff time, they struggled against an ailing Milwaukee team, then proceeded to get swept by the Magic in blowout fashion.

Exit Mike Woodson and enter Larry Drew. Of course, let's fire our head coach that makes the players battle with him and hire his assistant who is wanted by the players. The result? A reduction of nine wins to 44, a breakout of Josh Smith jumpers all over the court, and a continuation of the idea that Mike Bibby and Jamal Crawford were point guards. However, NTTH reversed in the playoffs, and the Hawks were able to get by the Magic in six, and take the Chicago Bulls to six behind Jeff Teague's breakout performance.

This year, NTTH has started to break down, even though the phrase had begun to rise in notoriety. Sure, the 3OT loss against Miami, who was playing without LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, is one of the most classic moments of this basketball law. Sure, the Hawks lost to Toronto at home when they were extremely shorthanded and playing with a group of D-Leaguers. However, despite that, what are the team's other severe deficiencies this season? The team went 40-26 without Horford for 55 games, without Joe Johnson and Zaza Pachulia for seven games a piece, and with Josh Smith deciding to continue his Reggie Miller jumpshooting impression. The bench is no longer a one man show and can actually make-up for one or two guys having an off game. This team has just seemed... different.

So, back to tonight's game two. The "underdog" Hawks have turned into the favorite after Rondo's suspension. Atlanta is at home, in Philips Arena, where they have never lost to the Celtics in the playoffs. Essentially, it's the perfect time to see whether or not the Hawks have truly started to grow into a team that can play with consistency, or one that is still marred by mental roadblocks.

Did I mention that winning this game could give the Hawks a track to their first Eastern Conference Finals appearance since... ever? Yeah, this is the perfect test.

Best NBA Commercials This Season

Over the course of the year, the NBA has made several great commercials, and NBA players have participated in their own marketing ventures. Here are the ones that I think are the best.

Kevin Durant, Sprint Commercial

KD hates Doodle Jump. You know why? Because you missed his game winner, obviously. Oh, and because he can't catch the guy.

The KobeSystem

What exactly is the KobeSystem? Is it just a shoe? Is it a provocative set of philosophical knowledge? Or is it the ability to successfully take on three defenders at the end of a game for the winning shot?

Okay, nevermind. It's not that last one.


I Think We Found Kyrie Irving

Go through your couch cushions right now and see what you can find. You'll likely find some paper scraps and four pennies. Mike Breen? He found Cavs rookie sensation Kyrie Irving, who had taken up residence in the RV's couch. Hey, maybe that's where LeBron was hiding in the 4th quarter of the Finals. (BOOM!)

Happy Together

I've always loved the big-head commercials, but this one might be the best, even if it's only for the end part with KG.

NBA Forever

This might be the greatest commercial ever. Seriously, the editing is fantastic, the effort into it is apparent, and it captures the full history of the NBA in two minutes of strung together clips. But seriously, adding Derrick Rose to the Jordan/Pippen Bulls? That's just not even close to being fair; that team never loses.

There are probably other great commercials that I'm missing because I've either forgotten them or haven't seen them due to TV market, etc. However, you know what commercial/marketing ploy might be the worst?

INSANITEAGUE?!?! COME ON, ATLANTA!! THIS IS WHY NO ONE TAKES US SERIOUSLY!! (well, that, and the bad drafting, idiotic ownership, poor attendance...)

Playoffs: First Day Analysis

Miami, Chicago, Orlando, and Oklahoma City all scored more points.

First Round Predictions

(KG is totally that guy who shouts "HOLD ME BACK!", but never has any intention to fight, right?)

I'm right, your wrong, and all of these are totally going to happen:

Bulls over Sixers in 5

Hawks over Celtics in 7 games and 3 fights

Heat over Knicks in 5

Pacers ROFL-stomping the Magic in 4

Spurs over Jazz in 6

Nuggets over Lakers in 7 (UPSET!!!)

Thunder over Mavs in 5

Grizzlies over Clippers in 7 (This is probably the best series in the first round)

My Award Winners

Here's how I would vote for this season's awards if I had a ballot. (And I should have a ballot!)

MVP: 1st: LeBron James, 2nd: Kevin Durant, 3rd: Chris Paul

DPoY: 1st: Tyson Chandler, 2nd: LeBron James, 3rd: Andre Iguodala

Rookie: 1st: Kyrie Irving, 2nd: Ricky Rubio, 3rd: Isaiah Thomas

Coach: 1st: Gregg Popvich, 2nd: Tom Thibideau, 3rd: Frank Vogel

6th Man: 1st: James Harden (This is a runaway, so who cares about 2nd and 3rd?)

MIP: 1st: Nikola Pekovic, 2nd: Ersan Ilyasova, 3rd: Jeremy Lin

The "I" in Team

The expression itself is timeless. "There's no I in team." It's been used for generations to admonish those who felt that they were above the collective. It's a phrase that has been embraced by fans who want to see the athletes on their favorite teams put the group above the individual.

Last year, Derrick Rose won the NBA Most Valuable Player award; and he was a worthy candidate, holding averages of 25 points and almost 8 assists, all while leading an NBA-best Bulls squad to a 62-20 record. All very impressive. Now, I'm not here to try to degrade Rose's season last year, as he was one of about four candidates (LeBron James, Kevin Durant, and Dwight Howard) who had a deserved claim to the award. Of course, there is no problem with him winning it. However, there is a problem with the method that some pundits used to determine the best candidate.

The argument? "Well, if you take player X off of team Y, then team Y would be a lottery team."

While the MVP award has no official criteria, this one that was devised may be the worst. Of course, some see the word "valuable" in the name of the award, and try to figure out the best way to equate value. This then turns into, "who is the most important to his team's success?" Finally, the fantastic idea of trying to predict how well a team would do without a player comes into fruition.

Her are the problems that I see with the argument: first, you can't predict how well a team will do without a player; basketball isn't played in a vacuum. You can't magically subtract/add/switch players and come up with a amethod to figure out what that team's record would be after the changes were made. I mean, people already have enough problems predicting a team's record, how would tinkering with the team's roster make it any easier? This is where Bill Simmons' now famous "Ewing Theory" comes in. Sometimes, teams play better without their best player because, well, that's just how unpredictable sports are. Who would have expected the Knicks to beat the Pacers in the '99 Eastern Conference Finals without Patrick Ewing? Or for a more recent example, who would have expected the Hawks to continue to play well without Al Horford? (Of course, you really never can trust the Hawks to day anything right)

If we were to apply that argument to what has happened this season, both Derrick Rose and Dwyane Wade would be considered as just average players, as their teams have been as good or even better when either was out of the lineup. Also using this magic formula, both Ricky Rubio and Steve Nash would be in contention for the award, as the Wolves have been absolutely awful since Ricky went down, and the Suns would have to replace Nash with either Shannon Brown or Sebastian Telfair; there is no way in hell that ends well.

The second point that I want to make about this is how it is absolutely team depreciative; basketball is a team sport. So, is your argument that to win the MVP, the rest of your teammates have to be a bunch of guys that are absolutely awful? If Kobe led a team of high-schoolers to 25 wins, should he win the MVP because he is obviously the most valuable player on his team? I mean, that team probably wouldn't win any games without him, so would that make his worth "25 wins"?

The best example of this is last year's award. Many people used the, "without Derrick Rose, the Bulls would be a lottery team" argument to validate his winning of the award. (which is really unfortunate, because this takes away from his own play, but whatever) Is that really fair to the rest of his teammates? Have we become so enamored with the individual player that we forget that Joakim Noah, Luol Deng, and Carlos Boozer are really good players? Of course, those three have helped disprove that themselves by posting wins with Rose being out of the lineup for a third of the season.

This segues into this year's MVP race, where LeBron is facing the criticism of "his teammates being too good." Is that a real criticism? Why should an individual award depend on a player's teammates? It makes even less sense when the argument is that Durant or Kobe should get the award over LeBron for that very reason. Did Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Pau Gasol, and Andrew Bynum (who are 13th, 28th, 31st, and 9th in PER, respectively) just morph into bad players because they may not be as good as the duo of Wade and Chris Bosh?

Of course, all this does is lead to the magical "RINGZZZ" argument, where a player is better than another based on how many championships that player's team has won. (So any player that ever won a ring is better than LeBron, Barkley, Malone, and Stockton combined, right? Thank God for Adam Morrison) Just to put this argument to rest, if even Jordan could not win a ring "by himself", why should we expect players of lesser skill to be able to accomplish the feat?

At least of the MVP award, this can be fixed. All the award needs is a defined criteria, preferably one that is "best player in the league for a certain year." At least then, it will be properly quantified as it should: as an individual award that has no regard for a team's play. Then we can all have the truly fun arguments about the award, like "Is LeBron better than Durant?" or "Is Kobe still that good?"

Maybe some day...

Hi There!

This is my new blog, The Churnover! Please read it, or at least click on it so I think people are reading it.

For your viewing pleasure, here's Anthony Davis in pterodactyl form.