Some more words to forget

You know a silly phrase isn't just a slip of the tongue (or typing finger), that it has become fully entrenched in the language, when it appears in a headline written by sharp copy editors like ours.

I think the phrase "most dominant" gained popularity in connection with Shaquille O'Neal. At first, it described how Shaq's size and skill allowed him to take over games -- dominate them -- like no other basketball player.

Then it came to be used as a fancy way of saying "best." People debated who really is the "most dominant" player in the NBA.

Well, first of all, saying someone or something is "most dominant" is like saying something is "most unique." It's either dominant or it isn't, unique or it isn't, there are no degrees. If someone is "most dominant," then somebody else must be "second-most dominant," and that makes no sense at all.

Second, if you have to debate who's dominant, then the answer probably is nobody -- nobody dominates the scene, controls things, stands out.

How about the Lakers and Spurs, who the column today said are playing to decide which is the dominant team of the decade? They've each won three NBA championships in the 2000s. Even if the winner of the current conference-championship series goes on to win the title next month, that'll make it only a 4-3 edge for somebody.

They're playing this series for the title of Best Team of the Decade, but not Dominant Team of the Decade, and definitely not Most Dominant Team of the Decade.

In the 1950s, the Minneapolis Lakers won four titles, Boston two. In the '60s, the count was Boston 9, Philadelphia 1. In the '80s, it was L.A. Lakers 5, Boston 3. In the '90s, it was Chicago 6, Houston 2. Only in the '70s, when New York and Boston each won two titles, was there less dominance than there has been so far in the first decade of the 2000s.