About Time The Lakers Hit The Panic Button

After winning 1 game in almost 6 months, the Lakers (finally!) fired Mike Brown this morning.  After an 0-8 preseason, a 1-4 start to the regular season, and a mountain of criticism from fans and media alike, the Lakers felt that something needed to change. The backlash from this decision has already begun, with many questioning why the Lakers would hit the "panic" button only 5 games into the season.  With so many new players and a new system, why didn't they give Brown a chance to direct the team and allow them to mesh?  The answer is clear to anyone who has followed this team since the Brown hire.

Let me start by saying that Mike Brown should have never been hired in the first place.  His only previous head coaching stint was with Cleveland, where he became the only person who could actually stop LeBron James.  The amount of minutes he played James was a joke, and it was no wonder that after burning out James on the way to the 2007 finals, they were swept by the more experienced, and better coached, Spurs team.  He was eventually fired by Cleveland in an attempt to appease and keep James in a Cavs uniform (which we all know how that turned out).  Why would the Lakers, the greatest organization in NBA history, take a flyer on such an unimpressive, remedial coach?  We can thank Jimmy Buss for that, as Brown was hand selected by him after his interview supposedly blew Buss away.  He also never consulted the face of the franchise, Kobe Bryant.

This is a sight Lakers fans should have never been exposed to

While not exactly happy, especially with the wealth of coaching talent available, Lakers fans gave him the benefit of the doubt, and waited to see how the season would progress.  It proceeded to go right down the shitter.  The Lakers underachieved all year, failing to come together as a unit, and clearly had no respect for Brown.  Brown seemed content to run the offense and would never make adjustments at any point in a game.  They had no consistent defensive scheme, despite his reputation as a defensive coach.  This became crystal clear after Denver came back to force a game 7 in the opening round of last years playoffs after a REAL coach (George Karl) adjusted to what the Lakers where (or weren't) doing after game 4.  After barely surviving, the Lakers were embarrassed by the Thunder and sent home for the summer.

So why fire him now and not at the end of last season?

The simple reason is money.  The Lakers signed Brown to a 4 year, 18 million dollar deal.  That's a lot of dough.  And with a hall of fame starting lineup coming in with the additions of Dwight Howard and Steve Nash, the organization wanted to see what he could do with this group.  He was essentially given a stay, but was on a short leash.  And how did Brown respond?  By instituting the Princeton offense (because why would you want one of the greatest PG ever to actually run your offense?), failing to come up with a viable rotation during the preseason, and burying guys like Chris Duhon and Jody Meeks on the bench for no apparent reason.  This would be fine if they were winning, but they weren't.  The Lakers not only have lost 4 of 5, but their offense is atrocious, with guys standing around, no movement, and not running a play until 8 seconds left in the shot clock.  The poor shooting leads to break outs the other way and easy hoops, with absolutely no adjustments.  And the disrespect the players showed Brown was beyond evident.  He had completely lost this team.

But the way they've been playing so far this year is just an extension of how they finished last year; lost.  Lost on offense and defense.  Lost in who is supposed to do what.  Lost in a constantly changing rotation that added no stability to the team.  The Lakers were hoping for something different.  They got more of the same.  And since this was Brown's offense, it put even more of the blame on his shoulders.  Something clearly needed to be done.

This brings me back to the hitting the "panic" button issue.  Like I stated earlier, the Lakers are the greatest organization in NBA history.  Their goal year after year is winning.  The Lakers do not hang banners for winning their division or conference, only championships go to the rafters.  It's this commitment to excellence that has allowed them to reload for generations.  And fans have come to expect nothing less.  If a season ends without a title, that season was failure.  This is that standard the team has set, and this is the standard that us fans hold them to.

The goal each and every year.  Anything less is failure

So when the Lakers are underachieving, have clearly quit on their coach and no progress has been made at all in over a year, are they supposed to cross their fingers and hope for something to magically change?  When the head coach actually says that it'll take until the beginning of the calendar year to "get it together", are Lakers fans supposed to remain patient and content?  You can blame injuries, or new teammates, or a new system, but the same problems that plagued the team last year are still visible this year.  To salvage the season and keep the team together mentally and emotionally, a change had to be made.

Yes, the Lakers hit the "panic" button.  But in doing so they also hit the "reset" button.  And they should be applauded accordingly.

Leave The Conversion, Take The Point

Nobody's said that coaching football is easy.  There are countless stories of coaches working insane hours, sleeping in their offices, neglecting family, all to try to gain a sliver of an advantage on Saturday or Sunday.  In addition to preparation and planning, there are numerous in game decisions that can tilt an outcome.  Among these are when and if to challenge a play, and whether to use or save a timeout.  But one that seems to be glanced over seemingly on a weekly basis is the two point conversion.

The two point conversion has been used in college football since 1958, and in the NFL since 1994.  This allows the offensive team who has just scored a touchdown to bypass the extra point kick and attempt to reach the end-zone again, this time in one play from the 2 yard line.  If successful, 2 point are gained.  If not, there is no additional points.  Like most decisions, there is conventional wisdom as to when you should go for two and when taking the extra point is acceptable.  There are charts and everything to help coaches come to this decision.  But what charts don't take into account is the progress and time left in the game, as well as the fact that if unsuccessful, a coach may have harmed his team in a way that prevents victory.

Games should not rest on this chart

The two point conversion is a great addition to the game.  Honestly, it baffles me that the NFL waited until 1994 before instituting it.  It adds an extra element of strategy to the game, and in my opinion, when you can add more strategy and thinking to a game, it's a bonus.  Unfortunately coaches still have not mastered how to utilize this play to their advantage, forgoing long term strategy for a quick, short term gain.  You are trying to gain 2 yards in a 12 yard field with 22 men in that space.  Not that easy when you break it down.  The success rate of extra points last year was over 99% across the league.  The success rate of two point conversions last year was almost 35%, with 7 teams never attempting one.  It has also been argued that across the board, two point conversions have been successful over 50% of the time since it's been allowed.  However, what this fails to take into account is the specific game.  A team can lose a game because of a failed two point conversion in a close game but still finish a season with a 50% success rate if they are successful in conversions in games that they are far ahead or winning.

The prevailing wisdom in my mind, and what I've been preaching for years, is that you do not take points off the board.  There is no need to attempt a two point conversion when there is still a chance to score more points, so you take the easy extra point.  Clearly there are situations where going for two is a necessity, such as being down 8 with under 2 minutes left for example.  But it kills me week after week seeing coaches go for two in the second quarter or beginning of the 4th.  Or down by 15 late, going for two after a touchdown that has just cut the lead to 9.  Why go for two now, when if you fail, you are putting the game away by leaving a point off the board, even though you NEED another touchdown anyway?  If successful it is a great play, but the odds are that it will fail, and you have dug yourself a hole that you will be trying to dig yourself out of the rest of the game.

Yesterday's Packers-Colts game was a perfect example.  The Colts were trailing 21-13 at the end of the 3rd quarter when Andrew Luck ran for a touchdown.  Interim coach Bruce Arians decided to go for two to tie the game...and failed.  Again, the chart says that when you are down by 2, you go for 2, but this does not take into consideration there is 15 minutes left in this game in which anything can happen.  Turnovers, special teams, 3 and outs, anything.  By failing to convert, the Colts are now down 2 with the Packers getting the ball, and with a touchdown, can have a 2 possession lead.  This did not happen, and midway through the 4th the Colts kicked a field goal to put them up by 1.  When the Packers did get a touchdown with 4:30 left to make the score 27-22, they decided to go for two to make it a 7 point lead.  They failed.  Indy ended up scoring with under a minute to play and because of the earlier failed conversions, went for and converted their two point conversion attempt, winning the game by 3 when the Packers missed a last second game tying field goal attempt.  But what would have happened if Green Bay had just kicked the extra point?  They would have been up 6 with about 4 minutes to play.  Even if Indy did get a touchdown, they would have kicked the extra point (because being up 2 is the same as being up 1 in that scenario) and would have had a 1 point lead.  Then the Packers would only need a field goal to win, not tie.

The bottom line in my mind is that by going for two when it is not absolutely necessary you are not only leaving points off the board, but you are putting the overall strategy of the game in the hands of the opposing coach.  By going early for two, and failing, Arians put the strategy of the game in the hands of Mike McCarthy.  He could dictate to the Colts how they needed to score and may have either forced them into anther two point attempt, or at least put his team in a better position to win.  But when McCarthy went for two and failed, he put it right back in the hands of Arians.

Clearly there are those who will disagree with this opinion, which is expected.  But I look at scoring in football like blackjack.  If you take the points, know when to hit and know when to hold, and not take any crazy unnecessary risks, you will come out on top.  But I guess the majority of coaches are more into playing craps, as their decisions to go for two are exactly that; a roll of the dice.

A Puzzling End To A Championship Summer

After touring the southland and traveling around the world these past few months, the Stanley Cup is finally off to Montreal to get engraved, making the it official.  The Kings are Stanley Cup champions.

But this is not an easy process, at least as far as determining what names are etched into the greatest trophy in sports.  Many people have played significant rolls in this championship season, and the league allows a maximum of 52 names.  All names must be submitted to the league for approval before they are immortalized on the Cup, and the usual standard for players making it on the Cup are playing 41 regular season games (half the season) or at least one game in the Stanley Cup Finals, although this is not set in stone.

The Kings released the names of players, staff, and executives that were approved by the league, and they utilized all 52 available spots.  While looking over the list the vast majority are well deserved, a few puzzling, along with a handful of glaring omissions.

Not everyone is lucky enough to be among the chosen 52

The following are the 5 names that deserve to be on the final list of 52, and 1 that the organization should be ashamed to have forgotten.

ANDREI LOKTIONOV

Loktionov has been with the organization since 2008.  He is a bright star in the organization, and had appeared in 39 regular season games and 2 playoff games for the Kings.  He has shared time between Los Angeles and their minor league organization in Manchester over the years, but he clearly was a contributing player throughout this season.  This omission is even more puzzling when you see that Kevin Westgarth and Davis Drewiske will have their names on the Cup, despite playing in only 25 and 27 regular season games respectively, and non in the post season.  What may have something to do with this decision is one made by Loktionov himself.  Loktionov has chosen to play in the KHL (Russia's hockey league) during the lockout.  The thing is, Loktionov is not locked out.  He was assigned a few weeks ago to the minors, which is not effected by the lockout at all.  This clearly has caused some friction within the organization, and may come to a head later down the line.  But it seems the Kings may be punishing Loktionov for not being a team player and reporting to Manchester.

ED ROSKI

Most people know Roski as a driving force in getting the NFL back to Los Angeles.  But few realize that he, along with Philip Anschutz and AEG, partnered in buying the Kings out of bankruptcy in 1995.  He was even listed as an owner in this years playoff media guide.  Seems fishy that a part owner would not have his name among those on the Cup, especially since Anschutz has his wife Nancy's name on the list of 52.  But like Loktionov, this may be a form of payback.  AEG (the owners of the Kings) and Roski are competing for an NFL franchise to move to the Los Angeles area, so his omission may be another example of the vindictiveness of AEG.

TERRY MURRAY

This is a very odd omission in my opinion.  Murray coached the Kings for 4 plus season before being replaced halfway through last season.  He coached the team to the playoffs twice after missing the playoffs for almost a decade.  Throughout the playoffs and after winning the Cup, the players and executives all gushed over Murray, constantly expressing their gratitude for his services, reminding everyone who would listen that they would not be in this position if it weren't for Murray.  Maybe he was one of the last ones cut (because the owners wife obviously takes priority) and he will receive a championship ring, but for anyone who knows hockey, your name on the Cup is what lives forever.


NICK NICKSON

Nickson has been with the Kings since 1981, first doing television commentary, and when the tv/radio broadcasts were separated in 1990, he became the radio voice of the franchise.  For someone who has been a part of many people lives to be omitted from the final 52 is odd.  Sure he is a radio guy, and radio isn't what it once was, but he has been a mainstay for the franchise.  Many of us have been stuck in LA traffic or away from the tv and depend on Nickson to paint the mental picture of what is happening on the ice.  A very peculiar omission.


JIM FOX

Fox played 9 season in the NHL, all with the Kings.  When he retired in 1990 he became the team's tv color commentator, and has blossomed into the best in the game.  He is one of the most knowledgeable hockey minds around, and his ability to express what is going on objectively, not only to the hockey fan, but to the casual observer, is astounding.  He lives for the Kings.  Seeing how emotional he was after the game 6 win and even at the celebratory parade makes this omission that much more confusing.  Fox deserves to have his name on the Cup for all the years he has dedicated to the organization, both on and off the ice.


BOB MILLER

Miller has been the voice of the Kings since 1973.  He was inducted into the NHL Hall of Fame in 2000 and even has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.  Miller IS the Kings and the best in the business.  Nobody has felt the ups and downs of this organization like he has.  Most fans (myself included) have been introduced to the game and have learned the intricacies from listening to Miller.  When the Kings won, the one person captain Dustin Brown was looking for to hand the Cup to was Bob Miller.  One of the biggest regrets to such a magical season was that us fans were unable to hear him call the Finals due to the NHL's contract with NBC.  But to have his name omitted is an absolute travesty.  The Kings should be ashamed of themselves.  When the video editor gets higher priority than the man who has touched EVERY Kings fan, who has brought the game into our homes for generations, there is something extremely wrong and troubling going on.

Shame on you AEG.  I hope our new owners have a sense of history and class the next time we're lucky enough to raise the Cup.

The Lakers Are Ready. But Will Los Angeles Get To See Them Play?

There is a lot to be happy about in Lakerland.  After 2 disappointing playoff exits in a row, Mitch Kupchak and the Lakers front office did what they do best; reload.  They acquired Dwight Howard and Steve Nash via trade, managed to hold on to Pau Gasol, and bolstered their God awful bench (they still have Mike Brown calling the shots, but I digress).  They have immediately gone from an old, washed up group to a title favorite.  All of this has created an anxious fan base here in Southern California that is foaming at the mouth for the season to start.  The unfortunate thing is the majority of Los Angeles residents may not get to see them play.

For years the Lakers games have been broadcasted on KCAL channel 9 and Fox Sports (or some variation of the channel as it's changed names over the years).  This was advantageous for the Lakers, as they were getting $30 million annually from Fox Sports for the rights to home games, and those fans that did not have a pay television subscription could still see their team play on KCAL.  But like what happens more and more these days, teams are leaving the good of the fans behind and following the big bucks.

As the contract with Fox Sports and KCAL expired at the end of last year, the Lakers were looking at their options.  They flirted with the idea of starting their own Lakers channel, as the Yankees have with YES, and the Dodgers have talk about creating in the past.  Instead, Time Warner Cable swooped in after the exclusive negotiation window had expired with Fox Sports and scooped up the broadcasting rights.  The figures have not been released, but it is rumored to be a 20 year contract valued at $3 billion.

When will Southern California get to see this lineup play?

So what does this mean for the common Lakers fan?

First off, if you are a Time Warner Cable subscriber, nothing will change.  Depending on your package you will get to see every Lakers game just like the past years.  It becomes tricky for the millions of Southern California residents that do not have Time Warner Cable.

For those that do not subscribe to a television provider you are out of luck.  The Lakers will no longer be broadcast on basic cable stations, unless it is a nationally televised game on ABC.  This alienates many low income residents who are no less of Lakers fans then everyone else.  They will either have to subscribe for television services, or take trips to a friends place or local bar in order to watch their team.

For those that do subscribe to a television provider, such as Directv or Dish Network, things become a little more complicated.  These providers are charged a per subscriber fee in order to carry local programing.  Regional sports networks are among the most expensive, averaging about $2.50 a month per subscriber.  These are all negotiable, but there has been no agreement between these providers and Time Warner Cable.

What this means is that unless an agreement can be reached between these providers and Time Warner Cable, Southern California residents will not be able to see their Lakers.  While this seems like a small issue, it is far from it.  Earlier this year in a negotiation standoff, Directv stopped broadcasting Viacom programming until a new agreement was reached.  That meant that Directv subscribers could not see programming from MTV, Comedy Central, BET, etc. for a few weeks (luckily this was not during South Park's season).  Dish Network still has not come to an agreement with AMC, which broadcasts such amazing shows as "Breaking Bad" and "Mad Men", denying their subscribers access to this channel.  Even if you subscribe to a package such as "full court" to try to skirt the issue all together, you will still not get to see the Lakers due to local blackout restrictions.

What complicates this even further is that since an agreement was not reached before the summer, it is likely that Time Warner Cable will be looking for a massive payday due to the amazing offseason that was just put together by the Lakers.  They are well aware of the hype, and the backlash that may come if fans are denied access to watch their team.  It is said Time Warner Cable will be looking for $3.50 or more per subscriber, an astronomical figure.  But Dish and Directv may be pushed into a corner, knowing their subscribers, which are over a million in the area, will punish them for not carrying the games, which is exactly what Time Warner is banking on.

Can't we all just get along?

There hasn't been much written about these negotiations, which is somewhat troubling.  There are just 2 months left until the start of the season, and if games begin without a deal, the blowback will be immense.  This is a Lakers town, and life revolves around our team.  If you subscribe to Directv, Dish, Charter Communications or Cox Cable, call them.  Let them know you want a deal done so you can see your Lakers once the season gets underway.

It will be an amazing season no matter what happens on the floor.  I just hope we will all be able to see it.

Is It Ever Okay To Win By Losing?

When I was younger, playing in Little League and the like, we were always taught to give it our all, leave everything on the field, and do our best to win.  These credos govern most of us as we make our way through youth sports and into adulthood.  But at a certain point we realize that giving it our all may not be good enough.  There are other factors that go into sport that influence outcomes.  Chief amongst these is strategy.  How does one team attack the others weakness?  How does one neutralize another opposing player?  And what other ways are there to achieve the main goal in any sport, winning?

These motivations came to light this week as 4 Olympic badminton teams were kicked out of the games for intentionally throwing their matches.  As puzzling as this may be to outsiders, there was logic behind these actions.  The Olympics changed formats for badminton from a single elimination tournament, to a round robin style.  What this means is that a group of teams play each other to determine where they are seeded in the medal round.  The best team from one group plays the worst in the other, and so forth.  What these teams were attempting to do was manipulate where they would be seeded in the medal round, trying to get the best possible matchup to win gold.  Since the best team had been upset, the others wanted to avoid playing them before the finals.  The only way they could accomplish this was to lose in the round robin matches.

It goes without saying what these teams did was wrong, and they deserved to be ejected from the competition and endure the humiliation from their actions.  But what has been neglected amongst the outrage by the media and officials is the fact that this same thing, although to a less blatant extent, goes on in other sports all the time.  Should athletes be expected to give their all at every opportunity?  Are teams obligated to put their best out on the field every time they play?  Are there any valid reasons why your best may not be what's best for you or the team?

An attempt to win by losing backfires

Two of the Olympics major sports, swimming and track and field, both operate under preliminary races to determine the athletes that will compete in the finals.  The majority of the time these participants do not go all out in these races, either to conserve energy or not give away anything to their opponents.  These athletes clearly aren't throwing the races, just doing enough to get to the next round.  But it could be argued that they are doing a disservice by not giving it their all every time they enter the pool or track, as would normally be expected.

Even in professional sports this tanking trend is prevalent.  Every year in basketball as the season is coming to an end, we see a rash of mysterious "injuries" to star players on teams that have no shot at making the playoffs.  These top tier players sit for an extended period of time and as a result their teams start to lose.  A lot.  Why would a professional team WANT to lose?  Well, in the NBA they have a draft lottery.  The team that finishes with the worst record has the highest percentage of winning the number one draft choice and selecting whomever they chose to play for them the following season.  The logic behind this is why continue to try to win when the playoffs are out of reach when by continuing to lose they can end up "winning" in the draft?  This has gone on for years, and as of now there is no incentive for teams to stop tanking and put their best effort on the court game in and game out.

We see this in hockey as well.  The NHL playoff format is different from other sports in that the winners of the three conference divisions are guaranteed the top three seeds in the playoffs, arranged by point totals (hockey standing are determined by points, not just wins and losses.  A win is 2 points, an overtime or shootout loss is worth 1, and a loss 0).  The remaining 5 spots are determined by points.  What this means is a team could have an awful year, but end up winning their division and earn a 3 seed.  This causes teams, instead of fighting for  a higher seed, to eye a 6 seed in order to draw this poor performing division winner.  We saw this just this year in the Eastern Conference.  The New Jersey Devils were the 6 seed and defeated the 3 seed Florida Panthers and eventually played for the Stanley Cup.  The Panthers would have been a 7 seed had rankings been determined by points alone.  This was obviously a favorable draw for the Devils, who let the other, stronger teams beat themselves up through the subsequent rounds.

Even in baseball and football we see a certain taste of not trying every game.  When teams have a playoff spot or seed wrapped up they will sit their stars, resting them for the playoffs and sheltering them from possible injuries.  This can have an effect on other playoff seeding in a major way.  If a team fighting to make the playoffs is playing these playoff bound teams, they may win games that they otherwise would not, thus helping them achieve their goal.

Is it ever OK to sit your star players when healthy?

So what determines what is out of bounds and unethical and what is legitimate and smart?  The answer is expectations, not only from media but fans as well.  When we watch the prelims at the Olympics, we don't expect these athletes to kill themselves to win a race that will just qualify them for another one.  We don't anticipate a team to play their star players when a playoff birth is already secured.  We hope a team will shut down when the playoffs are out of reach in order to secure a top draft choice and turn around a struggling franchise.  We, as paying spectators, are conscious of what these teams and athletes are doing when we get to the arenas, so when it does happen it is not a surprise.  We anticipate these activities, and accept them.  If as paying fans we expected and demanded the best every single time out, things would be different.  But we don't, and because of that these borderline unethical activities are seen as commonplace, and there is no negative ramifications that come from them.

That is the main difference with these everyday occurrences in sports and what happened with these badminton teams. People paid money to see high quality badminton (I never thought I'd utter the words "high quality badminton" in my life) and were shocked to see such blatant tanking.  This hadn't happened before in a competition, and the outrage from fans and media was fierce.  The badminton officials responded with harsh and just punishment, and with that most likely set a precedent to prevent such things from happening in the future.  But with these other sports the governing bodies go along with actions, withholding any discipline, and as the years pass we grow accustom to these actions.  They became part of the game, and legitimate strategy.  But if opinion on these tactics were to change, I have no doubt that a badminton style storm would brew causing massive change to sports in general.

Until then, we'll just have to keep rooting for our teams, in winning and in losing.

My Stanley Cup Dream Come True

After enduring months of immense anxiety, growing a playoff beard, going through the same routine every game day, refusing to acknowledge their mind blowing run and neglecting this blog for fear of jinxing them, it has yet to sink in.  Even after watching Game 6 of the finals no less than 5 times in the past week, it still doesn't seem real.  The Los Angeles Kings, MY Kings, are Stanley Cup champions.

I vividly remember my first game.  I was already a die-hard Lakers and Dodgers fan, but my father insisted on taking my brother and myself to see a Kings game.  My father, being from Detroit, was already well versed in hockey, having watched the great Red Wings teams growing up, and I recall him explaining the game to us and how the Forum would look completely different from the normal basketball set up we were used to.  Of course being a kid you are always half listening to your parents, and this was no different, as I was still unsure about this whole hockey thing.  But I will never forget walking down the tunnel, feeling the cold air from the ice meandering around the arena, and seeing the rink for the first time.  It seemed massive; taking up the entire arena.  And once the game started, I was hooked.  I couldn't get enough of the Kings.  I watched games, memorizing the yearbook of players names, birthdays, etc.  I asked for jerseys and hockey sticks for holidays, and slowly the Kings replaced my beloved Lakers and Dodgers atop my favorite teams.

Being a Los Angeles fan I was used to success.  The Lakers had won multiple titles during the "Showtime" era, and the Dodgers had come out of nowhere to win the World Series in 1988.  I admit, I was spoiled.  All I knew was success in my sporting life, and it seemed the Kings would be no different.  They won their division for the first time in 1991, and made the finals in 1993 (and should have won if not for Marty McSorley.  Yes, I'm am still bitter).  But after 1993, reality struck.  I was neglectful of the Kings past futility, but it soon became crystal clear.  They made a serious of horrible moves, and always seemed to underachieve.  They missed the playoffs year after year, and when they did, they were quickly sent home.  After enduring this for years it became expected.  Like most Kings fans, I lived by the motto "hope for the best, expect the worst".

And this year started no different.  The Kings were among the favorites to contend for the Cup, but like they always do, began their usual decent in the standings once the end of the year rolled around.  They didn't even make the playoffs until their 81st game.  But then, something magical happened, and they went on one of the most unbelievable rolls in sports, one that culminated in hoisting the greatest prize in athletics.

Still gives me goosebumps

I can get into what exactly they've accomplished.  Their 16-4 record, 10 straight road wins, starting 3-0 in every series, and giving up the same amount of goals in the entire playoffs that the cup favorite Pittsburgh Penguins gave up in the first round.  But what trumps these statistics, at least to me, is the incredible feeling you get when something you care and dream about so deeply finally becomes a reality.  You can't help but look back at all that you've endured over the years (for me, nearly 25 LONG years), and all the disappointment and heartache.  But you also remember all the memories that were made along the way, all the relationships that were built and shared around this team.  For me, after watching the Kings lift The Cup through misty eyes, my mind went back and reflected on how this team and organization has played such a major part in my life.

I thought about my dad, and all the nights we stayed up watching the Kings, and all the events we were taken to when I was young meet the players and actually experience hockey.  All the frustration we've experienced, and how this validated all the years of loyalty and love.

I thought about my brother, and the countless hours of trading and studying hockey cards, and playing hockey in the backyard, pretending to win the Cup on a last second goal or save.

I thought about one of my best friends, and I how much I miss him and wish he was still here to experience this run with me.  We had met and bonded over hockey, and he was the only other person I knew who was as rabid about the game as me.  I know if he were around there would be nobody happier for me than him.

I thought about my girlfriend, who watched every single minute of every game with me, putting up with my craziness and yelling, along with scaring the shit out of her every time the Kings scored.  The fact that I was able to share this entire experience with her is beyond special, and something I will never forget.

I thought about all the players I watched and loved over the years, and how this was some validation for all the blood, sweat and tears they put into this organization.  Because without them this would be happening.

I thought about Bob Miller and Jim Fox, the Kings broadcasting crew and hands down the greatest in the game, and how much I wished I could hear them throughout the playoffs.  They have been part of the Kings for generations, and deserved to call not just the final game, but every game.

I thought about Nick Nickson, the radio announcer for the Kings for decades, and how wonderful it was to turn on the radio in the final seconds to hear him make the call "the Kings can finally wear their crown!"  Unforgettable...

But most of all I thought about the Kings fans.  Not those walking around the last few weeks with clean, creased Kings jerseys, but the true Kings fans.  The ones who have never lost faith even when hope seemed lost.  Being a Kings fan in Los Angeles is sort of like a club.  Sharing a city with two behemoths of the sporting landscape is difficult enough, let alone being a winter sport in Southern California.  But Kings fans are the most loyal and intelligent out there.  When you meet another fan it's an instant connection, almost like a secret handshake.  Sure it was a little difficult watching everyone jump on the bandwagon, but that's life, and that's L.A.  But hopefully those who jumped on stay on, because hockey is the greatest sport in the world, and at least for right now, we have the greatest team.

It is a strange feeling once years of disappointment ends.  The next day I felt something I didn't expect:  Relief.  I had just watched my favorite team do something I never expected them to do and I felt as if a weight had been lifted.  I could take a step back and immerse myself in all that had occurred, and finally take a deep breath.

At least until next season starts...

The greatest prize in sports

Tacos > Winning

Near the end of Game 2 of the first round playoff series between the Lakers and Denver Nuggets last night a familiar chant broke out from the Staples Center faithful.  There were just a few minutes left, and the Lakers were clinging to 6 point lead.  Was the crowd shouting "DEFENSE", trying to will their team to a huge defensive stop?  Were they yelling "M-V-P" for Kobe Bryant, as he stood at the foul line trying to put the game away?  No.  Instead, they erupted with one of the most awful and embarrassing chants in sports:

"WE WANT TACOS!"

For those that are unaware, the Lakers run a promotion with Jack in the Box (a local fast food chain) that if the Lakers win at home, and hold the opponent under 100 points, every fan in attendance receives a voucher for 2 free tacos.  While this is a clever marketing strategy which admittedly adds a splash of drama to the end of games, it has taken on a life of its own.  To me, there is nothing more embarrassing then the home crowd of the greatest NBA franchise in history urging their team on for free tacos instead of a mere playoff victory.  Have these fans really lost all perspective on what is really important?  I could semi-understand if these tacos were gourmet or hard to find.  But Jack in the Box tacos?  It's a fucking fast food burger place!  Ordering tacos there would be like going to a seafood restaurant and ordering kung pao chicken.  And that's not to mention that the majority of these fans probably will never use these voucher anyway, thus avoiding a night of sitting or kneeling over the toilet.

These have now trumped a good old fashion playoff vicotry

Unfortunately this is not isolated to Los Angeles.  In Chicago they run a similar promotion where if the Bulls score 100 points at home and win, the crowd gets free Big Mac's.  Derrick Rose, the MVP and the face of the franchise, actually had to apologize to the fans back in February after missing 2 free throws with 4 seconds left that would have put the team over the century mark.  This was despite the team winning and Rose finishing with 32 points and 9 assists.

I can wrap my head around Chicago fans booing and being pissed about missing out on Big Mac's.  I mean, they haven't really had long history of success, (their first championship coming less than 20 years ago) and have had to endure some pretty terrible teams since Jordan retired.  But the Lakers have been winning championships since 1948.  That's all we strive for and that's all we care about.  Until free tacos came along that is.

I understand the concept of free stuff.  Everyone likes winning and getting something for free that they otherwise wouldn't have possessed, but come on Lakers fans.  Let's readjust our viewpoint to what really matters and put our team above shitty low grade tacos and stop with that horrendous chant.  It makes us look petty and misguided, like we're from Boston.

By the way, the Lakers won 104-100, with that 100th Nugget point coming with 2 second remaining.  I just hope that the win and a 2-0 series lead was a nice consolation to the fans missing out on their beloved tacos.