It’s insane how much I want the Lakers to lose. First thing I’m doing if they do is reposting all the smug comments Laker “fans” have posted on their various thought pages. I can’t believe they’d root for a coach who sold his soul for championships (apparently a decent haircut wasn’t included in the deal), a selfish adulterer whose own teammates hate him, and a bunch of lazy players who can’t be bothered to try. Even Derek Fisher and his What Would Jesus Do bracelet annoys me. I’ll tell you what Jesus wouldn’t do, he wouldn’t go 3 for 15 in the first 2 games of the NBA Finals. Probably have more assists also. Dunno about steals.

Scott’s comment on Larry Brown got me thinking. I think when a coach is really good, his particular shortcomings are more apparent than for a mediocre or bad coach. Because, come on, Larry Brown is a great coach, his record speaks for itself. His teams do better when he comes and worse when he leaves. Do that long enough and you can’t chalk it up to coincidence.

But I find myself doing the same thing with Montgomery. Concentrating on his legitimate shortcomings, like the fact that his offense is too rigid, that he was too stubborn against using a zone for so long and his adamant refusal to use timeouts to kill momentum. I find myself thinking, he’s not that great a coach. But that’s ridiculous, he’s demonstrably a great coach.

Maybe that’s true with more than coaching? That with excellent people, their fewer faults become more apparent so you appreciate them less than you should? I dunno.

SN, Slate’s “coverage” of Reagan’s death was so blatantly one-sided it sickened me. If you only read that site you’d think Reagan singlehandedly plunged this country into ruin. You can legitimately quibble with his policy, but you can’t deny that he was an effective President. Even the Merc granted that. But Slate, nothing. Ridiculous.