More importantly, the next guy has just been a little bit better …

1. Kobe Bryant

You don’t know how much this kills me. Actually, you probably do. But Mamba passes all three MVP questions …

Question No. 1: When remembering this season 10 years from now, which player will pop into your head first?

Answer: Kobe. The dude scored 62 in three quarters against Dallas, then 81 against Toronto a few weeks later. He’s about to become the fifth player in NBA history to average 35 points a game (along with Wilt, MJ, Elgin and Rick Barry). He made up with Shaq. He made up with Phil. He made up with Nike. He appeared on the cover of Slam Magazine with a Mamba snake wrapped around him. He did everything but make the obligatory cameo on “Will and Grace.” No player took more abuse from writers, broadcasters and radio hosts this season, but Kobe seemed to feed off that negative energy. It was almost Bondsian. And just when it kept seeming like he might wear down, he’d toss up another 50 just to keep you on your toes. Kobe was relentless. That’s the best way to describe him this season.

Question No. 2: In the proverbial giant pickup game with every NBA player waiting to play, who would be the first player picked this season?

Answer: Kobe. He’s the best all-around player in the league, the best scorer, the best competitor, and the one guy who terrifies everyone else. Plus, if you DIDN’T pick him, he would make it his mission to haunt you on the other team.

Question No. 3: If you replaced every MVP candidate with a decent player at their position for the entire season, what would be the effect on their teams’ records?

Answer: If you replaced Kobe with a decent 2-guard (someone like Jamal Crawford) for the entire 2005-06 Lakers season, they would have won between 15 and 20 games. I can say that in complete confidence. Terrible team. When Smush Parker and Kwame Brown are your third- and fourth-best players, you shouldn’t even be allowed to watch the playoffs on TV. Throw Kobe in the mix and they’re headed for 45 wins. So he’s been worth 25 victories for them. Minimum.

In a weird way, Kobe ended up getting what he always wanted: The Lakers completely revolve around him. He gets to shoot 25-30 times per game. He gets to take every big shot at crunch-time. He gets all the credit. Nobody else on the team dares to challenge him. And even better, because he lucked out with the only possible coach who could make this cockamamie situation work, his supporting cast kills itself to make him look good.

Basically, he’s Elvis and everyone else is Joe Esposito. And it’s working! That’s the crazy thing.

Now they’re a sleeper in the West — seriously, do you think Phoenix wants any part of them in Round 1? — and have the only player in the league who can win a playoff series by himself. He’s the Black Mamba, he’s Kobe Bryant, he’s the 2006 MVP, and since we finally have that settled, I will now light myself on fire

Bill Simmons

ESPN page2

I defy you to find a media example of “Thunder-bashing.” In fact, nearly every story I can recall recounted that he was a man of deep faith who overcame great personal tragedy. He was revered as a person and a player.

Which is not to say that the world is that way. This debate centered not on whether racism exists in the world, but rather, whether Brian Windhorst or Terry Pluto or [fill in the writer's name] was exhibiting bias by advocating the merits of Zydrunas Ilgauskas. You very casually said, essentially, the only reason Windhorst et. al. would say good things about Zydrunas was because of a bias toward white, hard-working players (since those same writers came from that background).

There are many statistical arguments that harshly counter that logic. Read my post from Brian’s previous blog entry to find some of them.

Statistics aside, I think that it is wildly inappropriate for someone to idly imply bias without a lot more evidence than you have offered. And, here’s the thing: The reason you really offered this as an explanation is because, frankly, you can’t comprehend how anyone could have such a very different opinion than you regarding Ilgauskas. So it must be the “biased” writer, of course. It couldn’t be that you’re just wrong.

It’s okay to have a different opinion, and bless you for stating different opinions. But when you offer an explanation which racially impugns the integrity of these writers, you better bring a lot more evidence than you did. And you better have a good answer prepared when someone (me) provides a long list of names that pretty thoroughly refutes you claim of preference toward one race of player. Still no response on that, I notice, in — what? — my third answer to you.

I would add to this that — using the same casual way of linking opinions to prejudice — I could and did show you to be biased the same way from your continual berating of certain African-American Cavaliers. How easy it is for you to make the flip comments in this regard because you aren’t accountable for them.

So, I will give you a hypothetical: Two people. One white guy born and raised in Rocky River, one black guy born and raised in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Both nice guys. Both hard working. Problem is, there’s only one more seat available at the table. Which one is your mom and dad gonna choose to invite over for dinner, Kevin?

And funny you should bring up Andre Thornton. My father lived in Moreland Hills, close to Thornton. Ask Andre about the subtle difference in treatment by people. Including a well-publicized incident involving racial profiling by the police.

Sportswriters, including this blog host, are people, too. It involves color, it involves access, as Larry pointedly noted. Both factors play an underlying role in sportswriting bias. It’s just the way it is.

“Native Northeast Ohio sportswriters love guys they can relate to. White, blue collar, hard-working guys that treat them and their handheld microphones, as well as Northeast Ohio, with respect over a long period of time.”

It’s all assertion and no meat.

I listed a long list of non-white players who have been treated exceptionally well by some of the same sportswriters you are accusing of “bias.” For them to be biased toward those white, blue-collar types as you claim, you would have to show that similar treatment toward similar players who were people of color was not similarly forthcoming. That simply hasn’t happened. Andre Thornton, for example, was maybe the most identifiable star of the Indians from about 1975 until about 1983. I can’t remember a negative column about the guy, and I remember many, many, many that were favorable in the extreme.

Phil Hubbard was the lunch bucket linchpin of some very bad Cavalers teams, and he was very favorably treated by the press while here.

Your argument — unsubstantiated — is that people like people like them, but when I submit a list of people racially unlike these writers and who have also gotten wonderful treatment (because they were likewise good, hard-working people), you ignore it.

You made a stupid statement, and when I throw up a plethora of examples which stand that statement on its head, you ignore them.

And Z has a real great underdog story whatever his color — broken foot, battled back, didn’t give up, etc.

There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the possibility that bias is evident in our sports pages, as Alan does.

There is an important distinction between the words bias and racism, however; bias is something we all have to fight in ourselves, while racism conjures images of white robes and Aryan lunatics. Alan doesn’t seem to infer the latter at all.

That said, I think a much more common problem in sports coverage arises from the issue of access. Athletes who are eager to talk to reporters are more apt to be lionized or overrated, while those who won’t are often depicted unfairly.

Eddie Murray is a good example. In Baltimore and L.A., Murray often refused to talk to reporters and thus was consistently portrayed in print as a surly clubhouse cancer. Of course, when he retired many players, including media darling Cal Ripken Jr., lauded Murray for his leadership and professionalism.

When reporters defend and overrate certain athletes beyond all reason, I often suspect it has something to do with the player’s willingness to buddy up to the writer. It happens all the time.

Listen, Kevin, let’s cut the ignorant political correctness crap, O.K.? Native Northeast Ohio sportswriters love guys they can relate to. White, blue collar, hard-working guys that treat them and their handheld microphones, as well as Northeast Ohio, with respect over a long period of time.

Yes, “white” happens to be part of it. Yes, partially because they’re white. And partially because you’ll find very few black guys that move in super slow-motion and jump like a gassy penguin. Guys that every native Cleveland/Akron area white guy sportswriter, guys who grew up in the mean streets of Rocky River and Parma and the parking lot of the Goodyear tire factory, can certainly relate to.

Sports is a microcosm of society. Go chat with Boston Celtics management for the past 50 years, and ask them why they make a concerted effort to put white guys on the roster. Ask sportswriter Bob Ryan. Hell, ask Wayne Embry. It’s not malicious, but it’s just the way it is.

Your post made a point of labeling those writers as favoring a certain type of player, and “white” was an integral criterion in that profile. So don’t try and back down now and say that you weren’t implying racism on the part of the writers. You were.

In the first part, your claim is just silly. I’ve been reading the Beac web for a few years now, and I was a devoted PD reader for around 30 years before that. I know about what I’m talking. Do you?

You’re showing ignorance in your comments. If you truly were the long-time reader as you purport, you would have mentioned how players such as Ozzie Newsome, Andre Thornton, Joe Carter, Phil Hubbard, Larry Nance, Brad Daugherty, Carlos Baerga, Coco Crisp, Frank Minnifield, Hanford Dixon, Reggie Rucker, Paul Warfield, Greg Pruitt, and so forth were lionized by writers. For you to imply that there was a devotion to Danny Ferry that was not extended to Ozzie Newsome, for example, is just flat wrong.

And herein lies the problem with that loathesome post of yours: You used your perception in a highly selective and highly inflammatory way. Shame on you.

In about two minutes of thinking, I just named 13 players of color who have been well treated by the Cleveland media (and deservedly so). Given more time, I could create a much more extensive list.

Because it didn’t make your point, you made no effort to do so. Which is fine when you’re mentioning randomly a person whom you dislike. But it isn’t okay when you’re making a blanket racial statement. Then it’s irresponsible, which pretty much sums up your post.

Lastly (and I can’t believe this didn’t make more of an impression on you), you didn’t get it when I “tuckerized” my post? Don’t you see that by using the same goofy kind of selective characterizations that you casually use, I can quite easily build a case for you being the same type of person which you incorrectly brand the Cleveland media? In the same way that you can manipulate the information in your post (thereby discrediting credible people) I can selectively use your posts to prove (to the person who doesn’t review the whole of your work) that Alan Tucker is a racist.

Is that fair to you? Then why would you do it to others?