The last few years I've been taking a step back and looking at life from a different angle. More specifically religion and Christianity. I was never a very "strong" Christian and lately I've been pulling farther away from it. I just want to say I'm not an atheist and these are just my opinions, but I have my questions and doubts on various topics. My biggest issue with Christianity is that the people and the message itself seem so contradictory and hypocritical. Anyone who is not a Christian is given the "oh he/she isn't a Christian treatment." I've seen it everywhere and I really don't understand why. They're looked down upon as bad people. That seems contradictory to the "love your neighbor as yourself," and "do unto others as you would want done unto you." Doesn't that completely go against the message? Or am I just crazy and seeing something totally off the wall? One of the foundations of Christianity is accepting and loving others for who they are. Just like the song we would sing in kindergarten "red or yellow, black or white, we are perfect in his sight..." Why does religious or not religious matter? If you have genuine to your family, friends, and anyone else, then why does it matter if you believe or not? It makes no sense to me and goes against the whole message and basis of Christianity. That's a constant theme in sermons, messages or whatever you want to call them, but it's not being practiced. How can you preach it to others and judge others for not doing so when you don't even do it? I admit that I have my stereotypes and prejudices, who doesn't? But I don't put on the act of being a devoted Christian. It's funny because I actually have more friends that share the same views as me and some friends that are atheists who are better quality individuals than most of my religious friends. They're more trustworthy, loyal, sincere, and they're all-around more genuine to myself and others. They also have great lives and are on the path for a very bright future. The majority of my friends who are the most judgmental people I know are strongly devoted Christians. I find that interesting.
Again, these are just my opinions and what I've observed over the past few years. I realize that nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes, but just because a non-Christian messes up doesn't mean they're "bad" people. I don't understand why they're looked down upon and portrayed in such a negative way. I have no problem with people believing in Christianity or any other religion, all I'm saying is practice what you preach. I may be way off-base with my interpretations, but they seem logical to me and have bothered me for quite sometime. If anyone else has comments please lay them out here I'd like some feedback and other views on the topic.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
Los Angeles Kobe
The 2010 NBA Finals MVP Award goes to...Kobe Bryant! I think it's safe to say that nobody was suprised. Why would it surprise anyone? I mean, it's Kobe we're talking about. Without him the Lakers would not have won the championship. I don't know how many times I've heard this from Lakers fans. I'm not a Laker hater, or even a Kobe hater for that matter, but it's these kinds of comments that bother me. Kobe is one of the greatest Guards to play the game. No question. I just don't agree that he has the same impact in the game as he used to. He still has impressive games and puts up some solid numbers, but nobody seems to focus on the most impactful game stats. This is what I want to focus on right now.
In the absolute biggest game of the series, Game 7 obviously, he poured in 23 points and grabbed 15 rebounds. Pretty solid numbers. What people fail to take in to account is that he was only 6-24 from the field (25%) and had only 2 assists. The most eye-popping statistic for me was how many turnovers he had for the entire series. Not only did Kobe have more than anyone else on the Lakers, but he had 9 more than any of the Celtics. Now, an argument against that, which I have heard many times, is that when a player handles the ball that much in a game he's bound to make a number of turnovers. That makes sense. So, based on that logic, a point guard should have a higher average of turnovers than a 2-guard, right? Rajon Rondo had the second highest turnover total with 19 for the whole series, or 2.7 per game. So, that's really a moot point because the point guard clearly handles the ball more than anyone else on the court. In addition, Rondo had a better feild goal percentage than Kobe at 46%. I realize that Rondo could not have been awarded the MVP because they lost, but I'm just trying to put this all into perspective. What I would like to do now is list two sets of statistics for the entire series and see which player you think matches the stats. 48.7% FG, 26 Ast/3.7 per game, and 13 TOs/1.9 per game. And the last one: 40.8% FG, 27 Ast/3.9 per game, and 27 TOs/3.9 per game. First set is Kobe, right? Wrong. The first set of statistics is actually Pau Gasol, and yes, the second set is Kobe. Still think Kobe was the MVP? Remember, he did put up 23 points and 15 rebounds in Game 7. He also went 6-24 from the field and only 2 assists. Pretty pedestrian numbers from someone who handles the ball for such a large part of the game. What rattles my cage is that nobody, specifically Lakers fans, even bothers to look at the stats outside of points and rebounds, depending on which is a higher total. Are you telling me that if any other player in the NBA had 24 shots that they couldn't put up at least 23 points? Are people really that centralized on Kobe? The common argument for this point is "that's just one game! You can't just focus on one game!" That's true it is one game, he just managed to have 5 "one games." In that series he had a grand total of 2 games that were actually MVP caliber.
Once again, I'm not a Laker hater or a Kobe hater, I just get tired of hearing all these Lakers fans praising Kobe as though he's the greatest player to ever play the game. He has become one of the greatest Guards in history, but he's not at that level now. He still puts up solid points and can have an impact in the game, but not enough to warrant the praise he still receives. I think the wrong player was named MVP of last year's Finals merely because of a name, but that's just how it works these days. My main point here was to lay out the statistics that nobody seems to think are important and see the responses that fans may have.
In the absolute biggest game of the series, Game 7 obviously, he poured in 23 points and grabbed 15 rebounds. Pretty solid numbers. What people fail to take in to account is that he was only 6-24 from the field (25%) and had only 2 assists. The most eye-popping statistic for me was how many turnovers he had for the entire series. Not only did Kobe have more than anyone else on the Lakers, but he had 9 more than any of the Celtics. Now, an argument against that, which I have heard many times, is that when a player handles the ball that much in a game he's bound to make a number of turnovers. That makes sense. So, based on that logic, a point guard should have a higher average of turnovers than a 2-guard, right? Rajon Rondo had the second highest turnover total with 19 for the whole series, or 2.7 per game. So, that's really a moot point because the point guard clearly handles the ball more than anyone else on the court. In addition, Rondo had a better feild goal percentage than Kobe at 46%. I realize that Rondo could not have been awarded the MVP because they lost, but I'm just trying to put this all into perspective. What I would like to do now is list two sets of statistics for the entire series and see which player you think matches the stats. 48.7% FG, 26 Ast/3.7 per game, and 13 TOs/1.9 per game. And the last one: 40.8% FG, 27 Ast/3.9 per game, and 27 TOs/3.9 per game. First set is Kobe, right? Wrong. The first set of statistics is actually Pau Gasol, and yes, the second set is Kobe. Still think Kobe was the MVP? Remember, he did put up 23 points and 15 rebounds in Game 7. He also went 6-24 from the field and only 2 assists. Pretty pedestrian numbers from someone who handles the ball for such a large part of the game. What rattles my cage is that nobody, specifically Lakers fans, even bothers to look at the stats outside of points and rebounds, depending on which is a higher total. Are you telling me that if any other player in the NBA had 24 shots that they couldn't put up at least 23 points? Are people really that centralized on Kobe? The common argument for this point is "that's just one game! You can't just focus on one game!" That's true it is one game, he just managed to have 5 "one games." In that series he had a grand total of 2 games that were actually MVP caliber.
Once again, I'm not a Laker hater or a Kobe hater, I just get tired of hearing all these Lakers fans praising Kobe as though he's the greatest player to ever play the game. He has become one of the greatest Guards in history, but he's not at that level now. He still puts up solid points and can have an impact in the game, but not enough to warrant the praise he still receives. I think the wrong player was named MVP of last year's Finals merely because of a name, but that's just how it works these days. My main point here was to lay out the statistics that nobody seems to think are important and see the responses that fans may have.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)