The scariest verses in God’s Word

For anyone who believes the Bible, the most frightening words in the Bible are in Matthew 7.  They’re part of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, but most people forget them.  Most people think of the Beatitudes or the instruction to bless those who curse you, but these verses are a part of it as well:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”

Matthew 7:21-23 (NIV)

Just picture that scene for a moment.  Here is someone in front of Jesus Christ, perhaps in heaven.  The person pleads with Christ, calling Him “Lord” and then claiming that he prophesied in Christ’s name, cast out demons in His name, and even performed miracles in His name.  (Those things sound good, right?)  Christ responds to them with the harshest of judgments: “I never knew you.  Away from me, you evildoers!” That person, who seemed to be doing good deeds – and even may have believed he was following Christ – is condemned to hell.  Jesus Christ refers to that person as an “evildoer,” or as another translation puts it, “you who practice lawlessness.”

What then distinguishes that person who is condemned to damnation from someone who does the same good works but is a true born again Christian?  Verse 21 tells us: “‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.’”  That means we as Christians need to be doing God’s will.  Part of that is being righteous, which in reality is seeking to bring glory to God’s name.  True Christians seek to glorify God in all that they do.  Those acts may be good by human standards, but if they don’t bring glory to God’s name, then they aren’t within His will.

In my own personal spiritual journey, I’ve done plenty of good works, but until recently those works were not within the will of God.  I taught Sunday School, youth group, and junior church.  I sang in the choir.  I went out on visitation.  I read my Bible and prayed.  But it was all a show because I wasn’t doing them to the glory of God.  I was doing it more to prove something to myself or perhaps to put up a front for others.

These verses in Matthew 7 are frightening in their implications.  They mean that there are many people – millions, I believe – who believe they are saved but really aren’t.  These people are good people; that is, good by human standards.  The problem, though, is that “good” by human standards is evil by God’s standards.  What defines a deed’s true goodness is this singular condition: does this glorify God?  If it doesn’t, then it’s lawlessness, and Matthew 7 tells us that that person will hear the words, “I never knew you!”

To me, that’s scary.

Final Chapter of the Michael Jordan Phenonemon: The Intangibles Effect

I’ve saved the best for last. “The Intangibles Effect” is the most important of the effects of the Michael Jordan Phenomenon (MJP). First, though, an update. Those who profess that Jordan is undeniably the best player ever have their viewpoints affected by five effects. The Bill Russell Effect causes people to elevate Jordan’s greatness simply because he has six championship rings. The Long Term Memory Loss Effect produces a neglect of great players who came before Jordan (like Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Wilt Chamberlain), while the Jim Brown Effect dismisses anyone who comes after him. The Amnesia Effect enables Jordan-worshipers to ignore the facts about his career that don’t fit their argument – i.e., his failures (yes, he had some).

Without a doubt, though, the most insidious of all effects is the Intangibles Effect. This is the one that has gripped more people and perplexed many other. The tendency of Jordan fans is to concentrate on the intangibles. Now I’m not talking about the stupid ones who blurt out, “He has six rings!” or “He just is the best – it’s so obvious!” Those are the uneducated ones who are deluded by the media and highlight videos. No, I’m talking about those who know the facts; they know that Jordan does not have the most rings or the most MVPs or any substantial statistical records, and yet still claim that he is without a question the best player ever and that no one else is in the mix. How do they come to this conclusion? Jordan’s intangibles.

Intangibles are – of course – not tangible. They can’t be measured. That means that they’re subjective in nature. Oh, statistics are somewhat subjective based upon era and team situations (among other things), but it’s undeniable that Jordan’s 6 rings and 5 MVP awards are fewer than Russell’s 11 rings and Abdul-Jabbar’s 6 MVP awards: that’s just simple math. We can all look at the numbers (see the page “The Michael Jordan Phenomenon above” and realize that there is no tangible evidence that Jordan should occupy the same position in basketball that Wayne Gretzky occupies in hockey: the greatest ever, no questions asked. Since there is no tangible evidence, these people turn to the intangibles.

1. Winner/Champion - This term may be the most mysterious word used in sports. What is a “winner?” Is it someone who wins a title? Of course, but there are those who never win a pro championship who are described as winners. Then again, there are also those who have won multiple titles who are not labeled as winners. Jordan has been called by many, “The greatest winner ever.” I’m not even sure what that means. It may be because he won a title each time the Bulls made it to the finals. Does that make him more a winner than someone who made it to the finals more often but didn’t win the title as many times? This one is the most out of control: at the Olympics this year, Bob Costas compared Michael Phelps to the “greatest champions of all time” – the first person Costas listed was Jordan. Even ahead of Tiger Woods! Think about that for a minute. He was talking about personal accomplishment in Michael Phelps, and instead of beginning his list of great champions with Tiger Woods or Muhammad Ali or Jack Nicklaus or Roger Federer, he begins with an athlete on a team sport. I really wish I could talk to Costas sometime and ask him why Jordan is such a “great champion.”
2. Leader – I’ve heard people say that no one impacted the play of his teammates like Jordan did. What evidence is there for that? Certainly none statistically. This one is tied in with the Amnesia Effect. When I asked someone online at Yappi once why Jordan’s stats were significantly better in 1986-87 to 1989-90 (non-championship seasons) than in 1995-96 to 1997-98 (second threepeat), he replied that Jordan was indeed a better player during the second threepeat. His reasoning was that – regardless of what the facts said – Jordan’s “leadership” made him better then. Huh? This person also said that the Bulls didn’t win titles early in Jordan’s career because he needed to “learn how to win.” That one’s a real mystery. The end of it all is that these Jordanites just ascribe the Bulls’ titles to Jordan’s leadership and other intangibles rather than a team effort. Tony Kornheiser made the foolish statement once that Jordan won those titles on his own. I guess that was the leadership, right?
3. Clutch – Someone else on Yappi once said that Jordan “never missed a clutch shot.” That was a surprise to me; off the top of my head I could name three instances when he missed one. Jordan has been branded as “the best clutch player ever.” Why is that? Well, of course he did make plenty of key baskets in his career. Hey, there’s no denying that. But is he any more of a clutch player than Bird or Kareem or Magic? Jordan himself has reminded the masses that he missed more last second shots than he made. There are plenty of highlights of him making clutch shots, but the fact is that he took a huge amount – and no wonder, because the Bulls really didn’t have any other go-to guys. Magic and Kareem played together. Bird played with Dennis Johnson. Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal played together. There were multiple options on those teams, but not really on the Bulls: of course Jordan was going to take more shots, and the more you take, the more you make. Another element to remember in all this is that many of Jordan’s clutch moments came, well, in the clutch! What I mean is that the game has to be close in order to take a clutch shot. The Bulls had more close games – especially finals games – than other teams did. The more close games your team plays, the more opportunities your go-to player has to make clutch shots.
4. Will – Without a doubt, this one is the most undefinable and yet the characteristic that is relied upon the most. The concept is that Jordan had some irresistible “will” that enabled him to win games on his own, regardless of what else was happening. It’s the idea that he was able to engineer victory by force of willpower alone. I’m really not sure who started this one, but it’s a favorite of Jordan nuts like Stuart Scott. When confronted with the facts, they quickly revert to the intangibles and say that “no one had a will like Michael.” What does that even mean? The truth is, no one really knows. When the proponents of this concept give actual examples where Jordan supposedly “willed” the Bulls to victory, I instantly point out other player who had similar moments. Confused, the Jordanite usually then says that Jordan’s will was stronger. What I want to know is why that mythical will was not enough to get the Bulls by the Pistons in 1989 and 1990 or the Magic in 1995.

The beauty of relying upon intangibles, of course, is that no one can really challenge you. They can’t be measured, so there’s no way to compare. There’s no way to quantify “will,” “leadership,” “clutch play,” and “champion play.” That makes it easy: just claim those qualities as your reasons, and your argument is free from deconstruction.

Just the fact that intangibles are needed shows that the argument is flawed, though. In the case of Gretzky, Jerry Rice, or even Babe Ruth, just the facts – statistical domination and achievements – are enough to warrant a label of “best ever.” Sure, there are intangible characteristics like work ethic and dedication, but no one has to rely on those to prove Gretzky is the best hockey player of all time: the facts speak for themselves. In the case of Jordan, the facts are woefully insufficient; in order to say he’s the best basketball player ever, one must rely upon something that cannot be measured, and that’s an atrocious flaw in logic.

Federer says, “I’m baaaack!”

With his victory Monday over Andy Murray, Roger Federer finally won his 13th Grand Slam title.  When the season began, most people thought the U.S. Open would bring his 15th or at least his 14th, but that just wasn’t the case.  He had a down year – for him, that is.  Federer was right in his interview after his semifinal loss to Novak Djokovic at the Australian Open when he said that he had “created a monster” by being so good for so long; things had gotten to the point where he was expected to win every time.

Last year we saw some chinks in the armor, as Roger dropped nine matches – as many as he had in 2005 and 2006 combined! Still, he won three of the Slams, went to the French Open final, and won the Tennis Masters Cup.  Sure, he seemed to be losing his focus in some of the lesser tournaments, but when he was on the big stage he shined brightly.  Not so this year.  He lost to Djokovic in straight sets in the Australian semifinal and was thrashed by Rafael Nadal in the French Open final.  He had several early exits from tournaments, and his only two titles until Monday were in minor events – events he hadn’t even competed in last year.

Meanwhile, Rafa was on a run.  Oh, he didn’t start off that great.  In fact, he was doused by Mikhail Youzhny 6-0, 6-1 early in the year.  And for the second straight year he was smashed in the Australian Open, this time 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 by Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the semifinals.  Then there was the perplexing finals loss to Nickolay Davydenko in the Miami Masters.  As is his custom, however, he caught fire during clay court season, and then came that incredible victory over Federer at Wimbledon.  By August he was #1, ending Federer’s historic streak at 237 weeks – and his own stretch at #2 at 160 weeks.

Despite Nadal’s great year, though, most people attributed Federer’s fall to his own problems rather than improvements by Rafa.  Oh, everyone had an opinion: Fed was sick, unfocused, spooked, lackadaisical, etc.  What?  It is undeniable, however, that he was slipping by his own standards.  Coming into the U.S. Open he had 12 losses – the most since 2003 – and he wasn’t rolling over people too often anymore.  The chatter about Fed not being “The Mighty Federer” began when his third round match at the Australian Open against Janko Tipsarevic went five sets.  He had cruised the Australian the previous year without dropping a set.  After that, the hits just kept on coming: the straight sets loss to Djokovic in the final, the blowout loss to Mardy Fish at Indian Wells, the upset loss to Radek Stepanek in Rome, and his increasing troubles with Nadal on clay.

The French Open final was the one that had every expert shaking his head.  Federer had looked pretty good, but Nadal gave him a beatdown like he hadn’t suffered in years.  How could Federer win only four games in the match?  He had performed well against Nadal in the 2006 final, and at least took a set off him in the 2007 final.  This time, he came up horribly empty.  Still, he was optimistic, and refused to say that his confidence was dinged in any way.  He bounced back with an excellent grass court season that culminated in a final with Nadal at Wimbledon.  On his way to that final, he didn’t lose a single set.

It’s interesting to look back and see how the whole perspective of the tennis season swung on one match.  If Federer had won that title, he would have two Grand Slams this year rather than Nadal, and his career total would be at 14 – tied with Pete Sampras for best all time.  But that’s not what happened.  Nadal was able to escape with that fifth set 9-7 as they played in darkness.  Federer showed some heart, though.  He clearly was being outplayed after the first two sets, but got it together and made a run.  He had his chance to win, that’s for sure.  Leading 4-3 in the fifth set he had a break point at 30-40.  Had he converted that, he would have served for the match.

The loss at Wimbledon combined with some other lackluster performances caused Federer to lose his #1 ranking.  After Wimbledon he failed to match his performances from 2007 at either the Canada Masters or the Cincinnati Masters.  He also came up short at the Olympics, losing in the quarterfinals to James Blake, a man he has traditionally blown out.  Here he was, coming up on the U.S. Open with only two titles and zero Grand Slams.

It’s interesting, though, that the Olympics helped Federer out in a way no one could have anticipated.  He may have come up short in singles, but he teamed with Stanislas Wawrinka to win the gold medal in doubles.  That experience made him more confident at net, leading him to come to net much more often at the U.S. Open.  He victimized Andy Murray by coming to net quickly after serving, as Murray was playing several feet behind the baseline to return.

The tournament was not a Federer masterpiece like last year’s Australian Open or the 2006 Wimbledon, but he finished with a flourish.  He did drop only three sets, but two of them were to #23 Igor Andreev in the fourth round.  He struggled with qualifier Gilles Müller in the quarterfinals but came through in straight sets.  Then Federer caught fire; in both the semifinals and finals he opened and closed with gems.  He frustrated Djokovic with some great serving (20 aces) and really whacked him in the fourth set 6-2.  His first sets against both Djokovic and Murray were just clinics.

I think that the fact that Federer won in dominant fashion is almost as important as his winning at all.  He showed that he still had that extra gear – the gear that seemed to be missing this year.  He rose to the occasion against Djokovic and Murray, knocking them off center stage even though they had beaten him earlier in the year.  He showed that at 27, he can still be The Mighty Federer.

The truth is that Federer is still the most consistent player at Grand Slam events – a testament to how difficult it is to take three sets off him.  He has now reached the last three finals, and that’s the longest current streak!  Nadal’s best so far has been two – Federer’s record is 10! His amazing streak of Grand Slam semifinals continues to roll on; it’s now at 18.  By comparison, Nadal’s current streak is at four, and Djokovic’s best of five ended at Wimbledon this year.  John McEnroe put this phenomenal streak into perspective when he said, “How many guys have even played in 18 straight Grand Slam tournaments?”

Is it possible that he’s now hungrier than ever?  I certainly think so.  Not only does he want Sampras’s record, he wants to prove to everyone that he can still play at the elite level that characterized his stint at #1.  He wants to show that he’s still the best when he needs to be.  I look for him to finish 2008 with some strong performances; look for him to dominate at the Tennis Masters Cup.

The Selective Memory Effect

The fourth effect of the Michael Jordan Phenomenon (MJP) I have seen is the Selective Memory Effect when dealing with the facts of Jordan’s own career. The media and the myopic fans especially focus on the six championships. I’ve heard terms like “the ultimate winner” and that he “never missed a clutch shot” or “never lost a key game.” Huh? He played 15 seasons in the NBA, 13 with the Bulls. He didn’t win 13 championships with the Bulls: he won six.

Here are a few of the things that people choose to forget about Jordan because those things don’t support their deification of Jordan:

1. The Bulls’ turnaround in Jordan’s rookie season was in no way monumental. Yes, the Bulls improved, but only 11 games. This improvement does not support the idea that Jordan alone carried the Bulls to championships–if he did, then why didn’t the Bulls improve more when he arrived? Other players effected much better increases in wins upon their arrival. This one is very important, because so many so-called experts try to say that Jordan won the championships “on his own.” If his individual influence was so great, then why weren’t the Bulls a better team quicker when he arrived? Why did it take him seven seasons to win a title?
2. The Bulls did not win a title until Jordan’s seventh season. Does that mean that Jordan was just improving and getting better and that made the Bulls win a title in his seventh season? No. The stats clearly show that he was better before he won a title, and he already had won an MVP in 1987-88. The team, however, did improve, and the competition faded in strength. Jordan was great before the Bulls won a title; as with any individual in a team sport, he needed help.
3. The Bulls did not collapse when Jordan left in 1993. This one is something that most Jordan-worshipers don’t even know about. In 1992-93 the Bulls went 57-25. The next season they went 55-27–without Jordan for the entire season! If Jordan was virtually the sole reason the Bulls won any titles (as Tony Kornheiser has postulated), then why did his absence produce only a two-game decline? Other great teams have suffered much more from their star’s absence.
4. Jordan was NOT a winner for the rest of his Bulls career after winning that first title. This one is another that Bulls fans tend to ignore. Jordan was there for the 1995 playoffs and the Bulls lost in the Eastern Conference Semifinals. Remember that? He came back in the second half of the season. He may have been a bit rusty at first, but in time the would-be experts said he was the same old Michael. Hey, he dropped 55 on the Knicks, didn’t he? In the playoffs, though, the Bulls were knocked off in six games by the Magic. How’s that? If Michael’s back, then the Bulls should win, right? Here’s the missing evidence: the 1994-95 Bulls did not have a complete team as neither Horace Grant from the first threepeat nor Dennis Rodman from the second threepeat were there that year. They were weak in rebounding and low post defense.
5. The Bulls never played any truly great teams when winning championships. Hey, a title is a title, but to be truly great you should be beating another great team. The Bulls did not play great teams, and the list of starting centers they faced shows that: Vlade Divac, Kevin Duckworth, Mark West, Ervin Johnson, and Greg Ostertag. In the historical context of the NBA, no one is going to confuse the 1996 Sonics or the 1997-98 Jazz with, say, the 1970 Lakers, the 1974 Bucks, the 1980 76ers, the 1984 Lakers, the 1987 Celtics, the 2004 Lakers, or the 2005 Pistons (that is, great teams who lost the title). When there were stronger teams around (e.g. the Bad Boys Pistons), the Bulls could not win a title.
6. While Michael Jordan won six Finals MVPs, only his first three were truly great performances. Take a look at the stats sometime: http://www.basketball-reference.com/…inals_mvp.html. His second three were basically by default: who else were they going to give it to? This wasn’t the Lakers of Magic/Kareem/Worthy. Here’s a telling stat: his FG% in those second three championship series was .415, .456, and .427; that’s mediocre shooting at best and actually quite poor for Jordan standards.

The Selective Memory Effect causes people to contract Jordan’s career to just 1990-91 to 1997-98. You know what? There was a lot more to his career! Remember his first six seasons? Three straight first round exits to start with, including back-to-back sweeps by the Celtics in 1986 and 1987. They started getting better, but couldn’t get past the Pistons, who beat them 4-1 in the 1988 Conference Semifinals, and then 4-2 and 4-3 in the 1989 and 1990 Conference Finals. How about Jordan’s last two seasons? I’m talking about his comeback with the Wizards. OK, I’ll admit that no one expected him to be the same old Michael, but those two seasons produced nothing substantial for Washington. As for Jordan, he looked slow compared with the players of that time. His performances in his late thirties certainly didn’t measure up with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s in the same age frame.

Yes, Michael Jordan won six championships, and that is impressive. However, six titles in 15 seasons is no singular achievement. Not even 6 in 13 seasons with the Bulls. Hey, Magic Johnson won 5 in 12 seasons, and he appeared in 9 Finals in that time, whereas Jordan only appeared in those 6 Finals. Jordan’s title rings are a great accomplishment, but they don’t separate him from the rest of the pack. Discard the context of his career, though, and it’s easy to see his accomplishments outshine the others.

The Jim Brown Effect

The third contributing effect to the Michael Jordan Phenomenon (MJP) is the “Jim Brown Effect.” While the Long Term Memory Loss Effect serves to eliminate from consideration those who came before Jordan, this effect removes those who came after Jordan.

The foundation for this effect came – of course – from Jim Brown, a running back for the Cleveland Browns from 1957 to 1965. Brown retired after only nine seasons of play, but his total of 12,312 rushing yards stood until 1984. While his total is now well down on the all-time totals list, his accomplishments are still impressive. He played in only nine seasons, but he still amassed 12,312 yards and 126 total touchdowns. Both those records have fallen, but Brown’s achievements are still respected due to the fact that he played before the 16-game season. In fact, four of his seasons were only 12 games: his career comprised 118 regular season games (he never missed a game), whereas the same length career today would consist of 144 games. Plus, Brown’s 5.2 yards per carry is still the best ever for any running back who has gained over 10,000 yards in his career.

Is Jim Brown the best ever? The predominant opinion of the sports world is that he is. I’ve seen multiple magazines listing the best running backs of all time, and each of them has put Brown at #1. Very rarely have I ever heard a so-called expert say that someone else is the best ever – and never someone older than 40. What are they basing their opinions upon? Stats? Not really, since there are others with comparable stats. Dominance in his time? Many state that, saying how much better Brown was than his contemporaries. It’s always good to remember, though, that Brown was a top notch athlete playing football in an era when the best athletes went more to baseball – and even to boxing – than then did to football. He was a 225 lb RB at a time when linebackers weighed less than 200 lb. He outweighed the majority of the defenders he faced; there were no 350 lb nose tackles clogging the line, no 250 lb linebackers with sprinter’s speed, no 220 lb safeties waiting to unload on him.

Why then is Brown held in such high esteem? It’s the effect of word-of-mouth. Those who played in that time and covered football in that time – people who are at least 60 now – believed he was the best and said so. The running backs in the next two decades really didn’t prove to be superior, although they were good (e.g., O.J. Simpson, Franco Harris, Earl Campbell, Walter Payton). As a result, the next generation just adopted the philosophy of those who actually saw Brown play. When Simpson and Harris were playing in the 1970′s, those who saw Brown play just said, “They’re good, but not as good as Jim Brown.” Into the 1980′s this continued with Campbell and Payton. During those two decades, though, people who never saw Brown play took the same stance; at first they were just agreeing with the older generation, but eventually they agreed with them even after the older guys were gone.

The effect just continued this way and continues to persist today. I remember watching an ESPN special on the Monday Night Football franchise; on this show all the “analysts” held the opinion that Brown was the best running back ever. The panel consisted of Chris Berman, Tom Jackson, Michael Irvin, and Ron Jaworski. OK, Jackson and Jaworski are 57, Berman is 53, and Irvin is 42. Let’s do a little math here: Jackson and Jaworski were 14 when Brown retired, Berman was 10, and Irvin wasn’t even born yet! Translation: they have little to no memory of Jim Brown playing football. Yet they firmly stated that he was the best ever. Huh? Is Brown better than all those they actually watched? Maybe, but their opinions were just carried over from those who came before them.

It’s the old story of a son listening to his father’s opinion. You know, the boy likes, say, LaDainian Tomlinson and thinks he’s the best. Dad says to him, “Son, he’s a good running back, but he’s really nothing compared to Walter Payton.” Dad regales him with stories about Payton’s greatness, maybe shows him a few videos off of YouTube, and the son – respecting his dad – begins to think Payton is the better running back. Grandpa then chimes in, “Payton was great, but he couldn’t hold a candle to Jim Brown.” Dad, having already been indoctrinated by Grandpa, agrees. As a result, the son starts thinking Brown is the best ever – even though he never saw him play. He passes the opinion onto his son, and so forth.

Twenty years from now we’ll still hear people saying Jim Brown was the best ever, even though it will be 60 years after his retirement. The majority of the people in 2028 will never have seen Brown play, but the sports magazines will still claim Brown as #1.

So how does this apply to Michael Jordan? Well, we can already see this occurring. Right now in the NBA we have some extraordinary players: great athletes with amazing all-around games and impressive stat lines. Think LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. What happens, though, if someone tries to say that those players are just as good as Jordan – or even if someone says that he has the potential to be as good as Jordan? That person is ridiculed. “No one was a great as Jordan. No one can come close to him.” The people who say that don’t even give LeBron or Kobe the chance to finish their careers and possibly show that they are as good.

I’ve already seen this happening, and Jordan’s primary career – with the Bulls – has been over for 10 seasons. There are people in their early twenties who say Jordan is the best ever, but they have virtually no first-hand experience; they were just little kids when Jordan was in his prime. Of course, the Bill Russell Effect contributes here, because it was when the Bulls won the second threepeat that the so-called experts really began touting Jordan as unquestionably the best ever. The guys who were 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 at that time were indoctrinated that Jordan was clearly the best ever. Now those same guys are in their early to mid-twenties right now, and they are passing on their philosophy to the youth of today.

Think about it. How many people do you know who never saw Jordan play for the Bulls – or at least never saw him at least in their adolescent stages – who now say he’s the best ever? I have read it on online forums quite often. Even the 12 to 18 year olds rarely say that LeBron or Kobe or anyone else is comparable to Jordan.

Personally, I think Jordan was better than LeBron or Kobe. It’s not a landslide, though. Statistics don’t show Jordan as being dominant. Better, yes, but not dominant. Kobe has just as many 60-point games as Jordan had in his career (4), and his career best of 81 is significantly better than Jordan’s best of 69. LeBron has already shown himself to be a superior passer than Jordan. Most of all, though, both of them are still playing, and LeBron at least has room to improve. Is it really fair to say that no matter what today’s players accomplish in the future that they will never be as good as Jordan?

What is true Christianity?

As far as breadth of definitions go, the word “Christian” may have the broadest range.  Do two random people hold the same definition of “Christian?”  It can be astonishingly broad, as in anyone who has any kind of belief in Jesus.  This belief is regardless of how they view Jesus: divine or just man.  There are millions who profess to believe in Jesus who simply hold him to be another great human teacher.  The definition can be broader still as it can include anyone who believes in a god – not necessarily the God, but a god, as long as the belief is based upon the Bible (not necessarily the Bible in its entirety, but something in the Bible).

The term “Christian” can be defined quite narrowly as well.  I look at this as the biblical definition of “Christian.”  The word first appears in the Bible in Acts 11:26, where we are told that the followers of Jesus Christ were first called “Christians” at the church of Antioch.  Paul and Barnabas had spent a year at that church, and it became the launching point for Paul’s missionary journeys.  Why was that term so significant at that time?  Well, up to that point the Gentile world had for the most part clumped Christ’s followers with the Jews.  After all, they believed in the same scriptures (the Old Testament of today) and worshiped the same God (the Yahweh of the O.T.).  However, over time the distinctions between the Jews and the now-called-Christians became quite apparent.  The central distinction, of course, was in how the two faiths viewed Jesus.

The Christians believed that Jesus was both human and divine.  The held that Jesus was the Son of God and that He fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.  The believed that he was the Christ – the Messiah – and that He lived a sinless life.   He was born of a virgin: the Holy Spirit implanted a fertilized egg into Mary’s womb, meaning He did not possess a sin nature and did not carry the imputed sin of Adam – His parents were not human.  The Christians believed the Jesus rose from the dead.  Christ had been executed by the Romans based upon accusations from the Jewish religious leaders.  However, His tomb was found to be empty and His body not located.  Hundreds of people, however, professed to have seen Him after He had been killed.  The gospels contain accounts of eyewitnesses who confirmed that Christ had risen from the dead.  These were not random accounts that didn’t jive with one another; instead, they complemented each other and made eyewitness accounts stronger.

The Christians believed that Jesus ascended to heaven 40 days after His resurrection and that he was going to someday return to earth and establish His kingdom.  They had been given a commission by Jesus to preach the gospel to all nations.  Their faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior was manifested in their works of spreading the good news of the gospel.  They ended up enduring many trial and tribulations, with persecution claiming the lives of many (of the original twelve, only John died a natural death).  Their faith was based upon a hope of eternal life in the presence of Christ.

These early Christians begot a next generation of believers (second century A.D.) that assembled the writings of those founding Christians (Peter, Paul, John, Luke, etc.): those writings became the canon of the New Testament as we know it today.  By A.D. 135 the 27 books of the N.T. were agreed upon, and took their place with the 39 books of the O.T.  The doctrine of the N.T. – especially the Pauline doctrine – became foundational to Christian beliefs.  The Christians were persecuted still, yet they continued to prevail.  Their faith was based upon God’s Word: 66 books that they believed were the inspired work of God.  That is, the Holy Spirit breathed the words to the human authors: the Bible contains the words of God, not simply the words of man.

Does this coincide with your view of Christianity?  There are many groups out there today labeled as “Christian:” Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Each one of these believes in the existence of Christ and believes He is divine.  But do their beliefs match up with the beliefs of the those at Antioch and those of the first and second generation Christians?  No way!  The Catholics believe that Mary was divine and that she mediates between man and Christ.  They also hold tradition and papal decrees as being equal to God’s Word.  The Lutherans believe that baptism saves a person – belief stated nowhere in the Bible.  The Mormons have “another testament of Jesus Christ” – the Book of Mormon – that tells of another coming of Jesus Christ.  Just having another testament is contrary to the teachings of the Bible, which tell man to not add or take away from the Word of God.  The Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Jesus is just  a son of God, not the Son of God.  In fact, they say that all of us are sons of God: salvation is not through Jesus Christ alone.

Another flawed perception in the interpretation of the word “Christian” is the connection to works or a certain lifestyle.  Rather than look at the beliefs and convictions a person has, we tend to look at how a person lives.  For example, is someone a church-goer or a giver to charities?  That doesn’t make one a Christian.  Jesus Himself tells us in Matthew 7 that many will come before Him in final judgment and say that they did amazing things in His name.  His response will be, “I never knew you!  Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness” (7:23).  That is not true Christianity since it’s just an outward appearance.  True Christianity is in our belief in Jesus Christ alone for salvation – the divine Christ spoken of in the Bible, who died for our sins, rose from the grave, and lives today to give us hope of eternal life.

Analyzing the Michael Jordan Phenomenon: The Long Term Memory Loss Effect

The next two effects work together. The Long Term Memory Loss Effect takes care of players before and contemporary with Jordan, while the Jim Brown Effect deals with players after Jordan.

The Long Term Memory Loss Effect is the effect where Jordan’s worshipers conveniently forget the great players who came before him. The two most notable players affected by this in this effect are Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. When those two were still in the league, there were very few people who came forward to say Jordan was the best ever. In fact, most experts didn’t even apply the label of best current player to Jordan until Bird and Magic were gone. Why is that? Did Jordan get better? No, and that stats support that. OK, he won some more championships (see the Bill Russell Effect), but that correlates with the decline of the other great teams (Lakers, Celtics, Pistons).

I grew up in the 1980′s, so I’ve seen Jordan’s entire career. I also remember the revival of the NBA and how the experts viewed Bird and Magic. You know, in 1981 there was an article in Sports Illustrated (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas…1981flash.html) that described Bird as the most complete player since Oscar Robertson and made the case that he may be the most complete (not necessarily the best) player ever. That was only after two seasons for Bird! In his seventh season, Bird was touted as the best player EVER (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas…1986flash.htm). Yes, in only his seventh year he was being hailed as the best player ever. What is perhaps most amazing is that his next two seasons were even better than ever. How did Larry Bird’s greatness get lost in the mix?

Toward the end of the 1980′s and then into the 1990′s, Magic Johnson began showing his all-around game. He won three MVPs in his last five seasons in LA (not including his short comeback in 1995-96), and the experts were starting to label him as the best player of his generations – some were even calling him the best ever. He and Jordan would meet in the 1991 finals, but at that time the two were viewed as equals: if anything, Magic was looked at as being the better player.  (Interesting note: most experts now view Magic as being better than Bird, whereas when both were in their primes, the predominant opinion was that Bird was better – more on that at another time.)

What happened? What caused the view of Jordan to skyrocket past Bird and Magic? His stats were not dominant in that comparison. How about accomplishments? Jordan had five MVPs to Bird’s and Magic’s three apiece, but a closer analysis sheds some light on that. Bird had his three by his seventh seasons (Jordan had two after seven seasons), while in Magic’s early years he had to share the spotlight with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. In 1986-87 and 1987-88 Bird, Jordan and Magic were playing at their peaks: the 1987 MVP voting was Magic-Jordan-Bird (Bird’s teammate Kevin McHale was also in the top five that year, meaning that Bird’s scoring and rebounding totals were not as high as they could have been) and the 1988 voting was Jordan-Bird-Magic. They were viewed as equals – actually, Bird and Magic were viewed as being on a higher plane at that time.

Since Jordan’s second retirement in 1998, the fans and many of the experts have turned their backs on the two men who revived the NBA and set the stage for Jordan to become what he was. Were Jordan’s accomplishments or stats significantly better than Magic or Bird? No, of course not. In reality, the metamorphosis began with the first threepeat and really escalated during his hiatus from the NBA. When he returned – especially after the Bulls went 72-10 in 1995-96 – the media just hailed him as the greatest ever and began stating that as if it were just as much as fact as his being 6’6″. How come? Well, for one thing he was undeniably the NBA’s biggest star; no longer did he have to share the stage with Bird and Magic. He also benefited from the dilution of talent in the NBA, enabling the Bulls to face Seattle and Utah in the second threepeat – second tier teams in the whole scheme of NBA history.

Of course, the Long Term Memory Loss Effect applies to those before Magic and Bird. How about Wilt Chamberlain? His statistical accomplishments dwarf Jordan’s. How did Wilt get forgotten? What about Kareem? I saw that one poster mentioned Kareem as the best ever earlier on this thread. He had six MVPs in the first 11 seasons of his career: 6 MVP/6 championship rings. Their greatness is lost in the wash of Jordan worship: people are choosing to forget past greats.

Analyzing the Michael Jordan Phenomenon: The Bill Russell Effect

For a definition of the Michael Jordan Phenomenon (MJP), check my page titled as such.

If the stats and the accomplishments don’t render Jordan as unquestionably the best ever, then why do so many people believe that as if it were obvious fact? Well, there are several reasons:

1. The Bill Russell Effect
2. The Long Term Memory Loss Effect
3. The Jim Brown Effect
4. The Selective Memory Effect
5. The Intangibles Effect

I’m going to deal with the first one here – “The Bill Russell Effect.” It’s the magical way that players with lots of championship rings are viewed as so much better than comparable players without so many championship rings. I reference Bill Russell because of the way history has been retro-written for him. Now I’m 36 years old so I remember the glory days of Magic and Bird in the 1980’s. Back then, virtually no one thought Russell was the best center ever, let alone the best player ever. The opinion was split between Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem. In this millennium, however, things have somehow changed. There are those who boldly say that Russell is the best center ever, and I’ve even heard so-called experts say that he is the best player ever.

How did that happen? Russell’s stats and accomplishments didn’t change, and since the 1980’s we’ve seen other great centers like Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, and Shaquille O’Neal. So how did Russell get so good retroactively? Well, the reason is his 11 championship rings. With the great overemphasis on winning championships as the foundation – and not just as a component – of greatness, his 11 rings have catapulted him up the ladder of greatness. I remember Wilbon and Kornheiser debating who was the best center of all time on PTI once. Kornheiser said it was Russell, citing only his 11 rings. Huh?

You see, this is the same thing that has happened with Otto Graham in football. He has entered the discussion of the best quarterbacks of all time, when 20-30 years ago he was not in the mix. Why? Simply because the records show him appearing in 10 title games in 10 seasons of professional football, winning seven titles. This effect is also seen in how people view Tom Brady today: his three rings alone put him ahead of Peyton Manning for many fans and so-called experts.

This is one of the effects that has helped to deify Jordan. Even though his six championship rings are by no means a record, they do outrank his contemporaries (excluding Robert Horry, who never was the leader of a championship team), particularly Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. Jordan won three in a row twice; neither Magic nor Bird won three in a row. Kobe Bryant may have won three straight, but he wasn’t the undisputed leader of his team.

Jordan’s six titles are bolstered by his six Finals MVP awards. No one else is close there: Shaq, Magic, and Tim Duncan have three. However, the award has only been given since 1969. In addition, the Bulls had a lower level of individual talent than other great teams. Magic won three Finals MVPs with Hall of Famers Kareem and James Worthy on the team. Larry Bird won two Finals MVPs with Hall of Famers Robert Parish, Kevin McHale and should-be HOF Dennis Johnson on the squad. Let’s face it: if the Bulls won, Jordan was going to be the MVP, even if he shot miserably like he did in 1996 (.415 FG%).

Was Jordan any better in 1998 than he was in 1988? Not really. From a statistical standpoint, he was significantly worse in 1998 than 1988. Did winning titles make him a better player? In reality, no, but because of the modern view of winning – the Bill Russell Effect – his six rings have helped catapult him to another level.

Tribute to Roger Federer’s period of domination

It’s official now: Rafael Nadal will supplant Roger Federer as the #1 men’s tennis player in the world. In two week, the rankings will show Nadal in the #1 position, thanks to Federer’s recent failures to match last season’s performances. Nadal certainly deserves it – now we wait to see how long he can hold on.

Federer’s reign as #1 may be over for now, but his period of dominance will not be forgotten. First off, he spent 235 consecutive weeks at #1. Before that, the record was 160 by Jimmy Connors; Federer surpassed that by almost a year and a half. The great Pete Sampras’s longest reign was 102 weeks. Here’s something even more incredible: Nadal has been #2 for 158 weeks, almost as long as anyone other than Federer was #1!. That means that for three years Nadal has been there, but he couldn’t get past Federer. Translation: Federer was consistently better than Nadal over that time.

Next, let’s compare Federer’s period of dominance with Sampras’s most impressive span of dominance. I’ve looked at the best five year performances for them. I’m including 2003 for Federer rather than 2008, since his winning percentage was better that year. For Sampras, I’m looking at ten years before Federer: 1993-1997. I’m going to look at their performances each year, then the cumulative totals. Specific title wins will be listed for Grand Slams, Masters series events, and the Tennis Masters Cup.

2003 Federer: 78-17 record, 23 tournaments, 9 finals, 7 titles. Won Wimbledon and Masters Cup.

1993 Sampras: 85-16 record, 24 tournaments, 9 finals, 8 titles. Won Wimbledon, U.S. Open, and Miami Masters.

2004 Federer: 74-6 record, 17 tournaments, 11 finals, 11 titles. Won Australian Open, Wimbledon, U.S. Open, Masters Cup, Indian Wells Masters, Hamburg Masters, and Canada Masters.

1994 Sampras: 77-12 record, 22 tournaments, 12 finals, 10 titles. Won Australian Open, Wimbledon, Masters Cup, Indian Wells Masters, Miami Masters, and Rome Masters.

2005 Federer: 81-4 record, 15 tournaments, 12 finals, 11 titles. Won Wimbledon, U.S. Open, Indian Wells Masters, Miami Masters, Hamburg Masters, and Cincinnati Masters.

1995 Sampras: 72-16 record, 21 tournaments, 9 finals, 5 titles. Won Wimbledon, U.S. Open, Indian Wells Masters, and Paris Masters.

2006 Federer: 92-5 record, 17 tournaments, 16 finals, 12 titles. Won Australian Open, Wimbledon, U.S. Open, Masters Cup, Indian Wells Masters, Miami Masters, Canada Masters, and Madrid Masters.

1996 Sampras: 65-11 record, 19 tournaments, 9 finals, 8 titles. Won U.S. Open and Masters Cup.

2007 Federer: 68-9 record, 16 tournaments, 12 finals, 8 titles. Won Australian Open, Wimbledon, U.S. Open, Masters Cup, Hamburg Masters, and Cincinnati Masters.

1997 Sampras: 55-12 record, 20 tournaments, 8 finals, 8 titles. Won Australian Open, Wimbledon, Masters Cup, Cincinnati Masters, and Paris Masters.

All right, let’s tally up the totals for those five-year spans:

Sampras: 354-67 record, 106 tournaments*, 47 finals, 39 titles. Won 9 Grand Slams, 3 Masters Cups, and 8 Masters Series events. (*- I’m not entirely sure about the total tournaments played since Wikipedia doesn’t say for him. I added his titles to his losses to come up with this number, but that’s assuming he went 3-0 in round robin play at the Masters Cup. Sampras very well may have lost one match in round robin play in some years. This total, though, is no more than five off.)

Federer: 393-41 record, 88 tournaments, 60 finals, 49 titles. Won 12 Grand Slams, 4 Masters Cups, and 13 Masters Series events.

That is flat out stunning: Federer rules every category of that comparison. He won more Grand Slams, Masters Series events, Masters Cups, and overall titles than Sampras. (In case you were wondering, the five year span I selected for Sampras was his career best by far. He won 39 tournaments in that period and only 25 for the entire rest of his career.) Federer’s overall record was tremendously more dominant than Sampras’s. Consider just these two facts:

1. In his entire career, Sampras won 10 tournaments in a season only once (1994). Federer did it in three consecutive seasons (2004-2006).
2. In a full season (at least 15 tournaments played), Sampras never had fewer than 10 losses in a season. Federer accomplished that four seasons in a row (2004-2007).

Here are a few more of Federer’s amazing records:

• Grass court winning streak: 65 matches from 2003 to 2008. Second best: Bjorn Borg 41.
• Hardcourt winning streak: 56 matches from 2005 to 2006.
• Consecutive finals won: 24 from 2003 to 2005. Second best: John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg 12.
• He is the only player to win at least three times in three separate Grand Slam tournaments (3 Australian Open, 5 Wimbledon, 4 U.S. Open).
• He is the only player to win three Grand Slam tournaments in a single season three times in his career (Australian Open, Wimbledon, U.S. Open in 2004, 2006, 2007).
• He has the record for consecutive Grand Slam finals reached: 10, from the 2005 Wimbledon to the 2007 U.S. Open.
• He has a current streak of 17 consecutive semifinals reached in Grand Slam tournaments. Second best: Ivan Lendl 8. (By comparison, Rafael Nadal’s best streak, albeit current, is 3.)
• Highest rankings point total ever: 8370 at the end of the 2006 season.
• From October 2003 to January 2005, Federer won a record 26 consecutive matches against top 10 opponents.

I think this final stat tells Federer’s dominance story the best. In Borg’s streak of five straight Wimbledon titles, he lost a total of 19 sets. In Sampras’s streak of four straight, he lost 14 sets. In Federer’s five-year streak, he lost only 8!

Nadal may be #1, but he has a long way to go to ever be considered along with Federer as the greatest of all time.

Definitely a three sport guy now

---

Now that I’m married, I don’t watch sports nearly as much as I used to. At least, I don’t watch as many live sports. In my spare time I still watch a fair amount of sports–especially NBA classic games–on video. In addition to being married, I have experienced a spiritual revival in the last eight months. I don’t feel quite so controlled by sports anymore.

As an adult, I’ve seen my sports focus narrow. My belief has always been that only sports nuts follow everything religiously. Those who seem to know everything (think “Stump the Schwab”) either cover sports for a living or they just have no lives. I’m always suspicious of someone who seems to know all the up-to-date information on every sport. They either have a near-photographic memory or they don’t pay much attention to other areas of their lives.

Hey, I used to follow lots of sports, especially in the 1980′s when I was growing up. In 1982 my parents bought me my first World Almanac and Book of Facts. This was long before the Internet, of course, so books that that were the sources of sports truth. Well, that book had lots of facts in it, but I concentrated most on the sports sections. Oh, I couldn’t put that book down. Each Christmas someone bought me a new almanac and over the years I kept the sports sections as references (I cut them out and bound them together with packing tape). I couldn’t get enough information.

I loved to just memorize facts. Now I never really tried, let me say. It just came naturally from looking at those books so much. Let me add here that “those books” included other references later on, such as sports almanacs and encyclopedias. It’s crazy to think that I still retain much of that information even though I haven’t followed some sports for years. Let me test my knowledge here. Hmm, I haven’t followed college basketball for 15+ years except for the Final Four. I think I can still name the winners of the tournaments in the 1980′s and the MOPs.
1979 – Michigan State 75, Indiana State 64, Magic Johnson MOP
1980 – Louisville over UCLA 70-59 (?), Sidney Moncrief MOP (?)
1981 – Indiana over North Carolina 63-50, Isiah Thomas MOP
1982 – North Carolina over Georgetown 63-62, James Worthy MOP
1983 – N.C. State 54, Houston 52, Akeem Olajuwon MOP
1984 – Georgetown 84, Houston 75, Patrick Ewing MOP
1985 – Villanova 66, Georgetown 64, Ed Pinckney MOP
1986 – Louisville 72, Duke 69, Pervis Ellison MOP
1987 – Indiana 74, Syracuse 73, Keith Smart MOP
1988 – Kansas over Oklahoma 83-79 (?), Danny Manning MOP
1989 – Michigan over Seton Hall 80-79 (OT), Glen Rice MOP
1990 – UNLV over Duke 103-73, Anderson Hunt MOP
1991 – Duke over ???? (I want to say Kentucky), Christian Laettner MOP
1992 – Duke over Michigan 71-51, Bobby Hurley MOP
1993 – North Carolina over Michigan 77-71, ???? MOP
After 1993 my memory kind of fades.

All right, let me reference that info to see how accurate my memory is. OK, I was wrong about the 1980 game score: it was 59-54. The 1991 score was 72-65 over Kansas, not Kentucky. I was wrong about the MOP in 1980 as well: it was Darrell Griffith. I couldn’t remember the MOP in 1993 because it was Donald Williamson.

It’s the same way with the World Series. I remember watching the World Series in the 1980′s. If I recall correctly, I watched all seven games of the 1987 series of Twins vs. Cardinals. I vividly remember watching Kirk Gibson hit that homer in Game 1 of the 1988 series. I cheered for the Tigers in 1984. As a Phillies fan, I’ll always remember Tug McGraw striking out Willie Wilson to end their 1980 title run, and then there were the “Wheeze Kids” in 1983. Yeah, I liked baseball back then.

College football is much the same as college basketball. My dad is a Penn State alumnus so he follows their season every year. I used to watch plenty of college football, even in the regular season. I was on the Nebraska bandwagon in 1983 and was heartbroken when they lost to Miami in the Orange Bowl. I’ll never forget seeing Doug Flutie’s Hail Mary in 1984. Let’s not forget Jimmy Johnson going nuts when Miami won the championship in 1987. There were memorable Penn State games too, like their championship games in 1982 and 1986 (“…intercepted Giftopolous!”). I think the one I remember most was in 1981 when they beat Pittsburgh. The Panthers were up 14-0 and were about to score again when Penn State intercepted Dan Marino in the end zone. The momentum shifted instantaneously and the Nittany Lions won 48-14.

Now I watched tennis, too, but not nearly to the degree that I do now. I do remember seeing Borg-McEnroe in 1980 and 1981 at Wimbledon. I liked Borg and was upset when he lost in 1981. More often, though, I watched women’s tennis because that’s what my mom watched. Dad doesn’t like tennis. I was a fan of Marina Navratilova (Mom liked Chris Evert) and later of Steffi Graf.

Since I became an adult, though, I gradually stopped following all sports so closely. By the new millennium, my focus had narrowed to three sports: the NFL, the NBA, and women’s tennis. Yes, women’s tennis, not men’s. I wish I had been following men’s tennis back then: I would have seen some of the great Sampras-Agassi matchups. Instead, I continued to follow women’s tennis. I remember Steffi Graf’s French Open title in 1999 and her run to the Wimbledon final later that year. I remember the Williams sisters finals in 2000-2003. I certainly remember Justine Henin’s match with Serena Williams in Roland Garros in 2003 (the one where Justine called time but the umpire called a fault on Serena).

In 2004, though, a strange evolution began taking place. I heard about Roger Federer and began tuning in to see him play. I was amazed by his ability–no one else could play like him. I still watched women’s tennis mostly, but I kept track of Federer. I remember watching his great Wimbledon final against Andy Roddick in 2004. Now at that time I did not have ESPN as I had cut my cable down for financial reasons. In 2005, though, I upgraded my cable and started watching more tennis on ESPN and USA. I checked out every Federer match I could, and as I watched him more I began to fall in love with the men’s game: speed, power, amazing angles. Rafael Nadal surfaced in 2005 and he and Federer would begin a great rivalry. I grew interested in more than just Federer, although he was–and still is–my favorite player. Since 2005 my focus has fully shifted to the men’s game. I rarely watch women’s tennis anymore, especially since Justine Henin, Martina Hingis, and Kim Clijsters retired. Men’s tennis, however, I can’t get enough of. My wife and I have agreed to keep our cable cut down to just the minimum until I’m off probation. It’s tough since I don’t get ESPN2; if I did, I’d be watching the Cincinnati Masters tournament this week. Come April 2009, though, I’ll be watching some more tennis.

The other two sports I follow are the NFL and the NBA. Yes, I am somewhat disappointed with the NBA game today. It’s so inferior to the glory days of Magic and Bird. I prefer to watch classic games (I have 30+ on tape or DVD), but I do follow the current seasons closely. Now I don’t watch many games during the regular season (especially without TNT), but I check the standings, stats, and box scores almost every day. In the playoffs, I tune in more, but certain teams are just unwatchable. I prefer the Western Conference style. I hate the grind-to-a-halt style of the Celtics, Pistons, and others in the Eastern Conference. I found the Cavs-Celtics series this year agonizing: poor shooting and sloppy play across the board. Still, there are always some gems in the playoffs. I had really started to sour on the NBA until the 2006 playoffs. Man, there were some great series and incredible games that year; my interest in the NBA was revived.

I’ve always been high on the NFL, and unlike the NBA, it hasn’t morphed into a shell of its former self. Yeah, I don’t like all the pass-first offenses, but overall the game is great. The playoffs continue to deliver and the athletes just get better and better. I’d say, though, that men’s tennis has replaced the NFL as #1 for me, especially since I got the Internet and can track the entire tennis season.

The truth may be that the NBA is #2 for me now. Oh, I still prefer the current NFL seasons to the current NBA seasons, but I watch classic NBA games all year round whereas I rarely think about the NFL during the offseason. Once the season begins, though, I’m more dialed into the NFL than I am into the NBA.

So, it’s three sports for me: men’s tennis, the NBA, and the NFL. I am a casual (very casual) follower of women’s tennis, baseball, college football, and college basketball. I don’t follow the NHL, NASCAR, or boxing at all.