On this whole LeBron James thing

Now, the media has been its usual self, jumping to conclusions about his heirness LBJ.

And while I am going to end up dying of trying to convince people that it's pretty unlikely LeBron will ever surpass Kobe (much less Jordan), this guy is getting a bit of a bad rap.

I've always been a guy who is unconvinced by close games as determinants of the better team. It no doubt suggests and supports it, but if you're telling me a 3-point win is as meaningful as a 10-point one, I'm not buying it.

Now, take a look at the first two games of the Eastern Conference Finals:

Game 1- LeBron charges the lane and dishes to a wide-open Marshall, who misses the game-winning 3-pointer. LeBron is subsequently lambasted for his inability to put the team on his back when the game is on the line.

Game 2- Lebron charges the lane and takes a heavily contested shot (and is likely fouled on the play, but it is not called). The ball bounces to a wide-open Larry Hughes, who proceeds to miss his jump shot from 7 feet away.

Now, while LeBron's game 1 numbers were not impressive, his team still managed to be a wide-open 3 away from stealing one at Detroit. Give them that win and people would be claiming it a new era in the East, and perhaps in the NBA.

Moreover, game 2 could have been the exact same thing.

So why exactly are people being so critical? How are the Pistons being lauded for winning games that they SHOULD win, when they were an open 3 and 2 questionable late-game calls from losing home court advantage?

There's a lot to be said about how Cleveland could be trying harder and win those games, but that's just who they are. Despite who they are, they were 2 possessions in 2 games away from absolutely destroying the Detroit Pistons. Who is it that people should be worried about, really?