NBA tanking: It's no exact science

Do you have writer's block? In need of an idea on a blog post to write? 

Simply turn on sports talk radio for a few minutes while driving back from a tennis match (or whatever you may be doing on a Friday evening), and you'll likely hear an opinion that you completely disagree with. 

Then start punching the keys.

Tonight, I got my inspiration from a couple of buffoons on ESPN Radio who kept talking about the issue of NBA teams tanking. For a good three minutes, the hosts pounded home the point that NBA teams can't possibly tank because it would just take too much effort and planning.

I didn't record the conversation, but I think I heard something about how it would be so difficult to "coordinate the effort" between players, coaches, and, yes, the "GM."

At which point I chuckled, switched over to my favorite classic rock station, rolled down the window of the Civic, and got on with my life.

But now I need to correct these guys. So here's my brief take on "NBA tanking."

1. It exists.

2. There are no "coordinated efforts."

3. It's simple, really. 

Hey, I love the NBA. The collection of talent you see during a given game is incredible. The things players can do, from hanging in the air for an eternity to dropping 81 points to taking over a game (a la LeBron, Game 5, 2007 Eastern Conference Finals — sorry Pistons fans) are incredible.

But it's not hard to see when players aren't, well, completely into a game. There are simply games that players care less about than others. That's reflected in their effort, in sloppiness. 

That's tanking. 

An even easier-to-track tanking occurs when players are "shut down" for the season. 

Do you think LaMarcus Aldridge would have gotten hip surgery immediately if the Blazers were in the playoff race? Meanwhile, Derrick Rose practically had to be handcuffed by management to be kept from playing in the Bulls' pivotal game against the Heat last night despite several ailments.

Players who could play, who are being paid to play the full season, not playing?

That's tanking. 

So, no, tanking doesn't involve Byron Scott or Mark Jackson standing in front of their team and saying, "Guys, we need to lose the rest of our games!! I talked to the GM earlier and we decided it's the right thing to do."

(Although that would be highly entertaining and, I'm sure, would somehow leak onto Twitter.)

No, tanking is a bit more subtle.

But still very alive. And as long as the league retains the current lottery system with the fun ping pong balls, I don't see it going by the wayside anytime soon.

Maybe that'll be my next topic: the lottery system. 

I'll wait until I hear a dumb opinion on it...

Will Tiger pass Jack? Ask me in 15 years

On Sunday afternoon, I had the rarest of experiences. 

I watched more than three hours of The Masters and only when Jim Nantz went down the entire leaderboard did I hear that name. Only then was it mentioned in the Sunday afternoon dialogue. 

Tiger Woods.

Imagine that. The media has found a way, it seems, to tie in every golf story line to Woods, but not as a Woods-less drama unfolded at Augusta National Sunday, with Bubba Watson eventually outlasting Louis Oosthuizen in a two-hole playoff to claim the Green Jacket. 

Woods' performance had everything to do with it. Tiger, 36, put together his worst four-day major championship and finished a career-worst five over par at Augusta. 

So why am I even mentioning Woods? 

Oh, I'm just trying to beat the crowd. Because as great as the Bubba Watson story is, it'll fade within days, and maybe a late-night show appearance (but probably not), just as have the stories of most of the winners of each of the past 14 majors — no player has won two during that span, which dates back to the second of Padraig Harrington's back-to-back majors to close out 2008.

It's appropriate, perhaps, that those majors came right after Woods' last victory, his one-legged miracle at Torrey Pines.

So, of course, the question remains: Will Tiger catch Jack? Will he be able to win five more majors to surpass Nicklaus' 18?

Well, I'm here to tell you that this question is simply not worth addressing. Not now. And unless Woods starts winning majors and eclipses the Golden Bear, probably not for 15 years. 

Nothing that happens to Woods in the next five years could change my mind (barring death or becoming chronically unable to perform physically). Woods could tear his ACL, have another scathing book written about him by a former coach and change his swing again, and I wouldn't change my mind (not that I'm wishing any of these horrible upon him).

I wouldn't alter my stance because it's golf! Because just recently, sanguine 59-year-old Tom Watson was a hole away from winning the British Open. Because just this weekend, Freddy Couples, 52, was in contention. And neither of those guys takes closes to as good care of their bodies as Woods. 

This isn't tennis, where we know, as good as he continues to play, that Roger Federer's window is closing, that in three to four years he simply won't be able to keep up with the competition. 

This isn't basketball, where we know that even though Ray Allen hasn't eaten an ounce of saturated fat during his career, his legs won't be giving him the needed lift at age 45 to elevate above the defense and knock down those 3-pointers.

No, this is golf. 

Will Woods be able to drive the ball 330 yards at age 60? Probably not (although with technology upgrades, don't count that out, either). But players adjust. They mend their game. Focus on the areas they can control. And as any golfer will tell you, a wicked weekend around the greens combined with decent striking of the ball can win a tournament.

Even a major.

So I've said my bit. Now I'm ready to let it rest. 

Will Tigers Woods break Jack Nicklaus' record? 

Here's my surefire answer:

Not in the next four majors.