Why are you so gentle on Mike Dunleavy of the Golden State Warriors? He's a former No. 3 overall pick that has proved to be not much more than a "white hope," yet most of your comments put the onus on Baron Davis. Why the kid-glove treatment of Dunleavy? I enjoy your column, but you're as easy on him as the local press tends to be. They really pander to the readers from the suburbs. We in the inner city clearly see the double standard. You shouldn't play to it.

Steven Millner
San Jose, Calif.

Steven, the reason I don't mention Dunleavy in the "Why aren't the Warriors making progress?" discussion is that I don't think he's capable of making a big difference. The difference maker on the team is Davis because when he's right and in shape he's an incredible player. Dunleavy is what he is: a decent NBA three man who is way overpaid. But if he has a really good year, I don't think it will matter that much to Golden State. They're still not going to be very good. Davis, on the other hand, can take the Warriors to the next level because he's amazingly gifted and can control a game. The onus in the NBA is always on the stars, regardless of race, color or creed. If Steve Nash has a bad year, the Suns won't be that great. If Kobe is injured, the Lakers won't be any good. So why would I waste my time ripping Raja Bell or Chris Mihm? Stars are stars; role players are role players. It's not my fault the Warriors made a huge mistake giving 45 million bucks to Dunleavy.