He says that their fans are better than those in Los Angeles, louder and not so worried about being cool. I wonder if the newspaper columnists are better there too.
After another terrible game by Kobe Bryant, just 12 points, Simers asks the legitimate question – “was this one of his patented snits after being criticized by folks for shooting too much -- showing everyone what it's like when he doesn't shoot.” It certainly seems that way. Bryant has done this before. His massive ego gets shaken whenever the media, especially the ones from The Los Angeles Times, who so often over-praise the moody star, criticizes him. In game three he stopped passing the ball and fired up numerous bad 3-pointers. Writers like Simers jumped on him for that, and in response, Bryant decided to not shoot at all in game 4, or so it seems. If it’s true, it is more evidence that he will always be immature, and narcissistic, and hard to like.
Later, Simers strangely calls Phil Jackson a “rebel” and “anti-establishment”. What? Jackson played for the famous New York Knicks when they were still relevant, then coached Michael Jordan’s corporate reign of terror in Chicago, and finally moved to Los Angeles to eat sushi with a billionaire’s Playboy-posing daughter and coach the evil Lakers. He’s not anti-establishment. He is the establishment. He is the machine that people rage against.
I love it when inferior basketball teams challenge The Lakers during the playoffs. Not only does it make their coach and star player act like whining cry-babies, it also makes the writers of The Los Angeles Times Sports section dive head first into hyperbole while they morn the loss of their favorite team before it ever happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment