ESPN's reporting that a deal's been made between the Los Angeles Clippers and New Orleans Hornets where the Clippers will get Chris Paul and 2 future 2nd round draft picks in exchange for Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, Al-Farouq Aminu, and Minnesota's unprotected 2012 1st round pick. This took place a couple days after the Clippers refused to include Gordon and Minny's pick (two of their best trade assets).
Here's why I like the deal:
- You need a superstar to win in the NBA. The Clippers have that in Blake Griffin and the whole idea is to keep him around. Making a bold move for another superstar in Chris Paul does this.
- Gordon is the centerpiece of this package and arguably the best young shooting guard in the league. However, it's hard to see how the Clippers would be able to pay him and Chris Paul and Blake Griffin, assuming the three of them will command max (or very close to max) deals, which I think is a fair assumption.
- Kaman and Aminu are not big losses. Kaman's most valuable attribute was his expiring contract as a trade chip. Aminu's a nice young player but likely won't be anything more than an average forward in the NBA.
- I think the pick might be a little overrated. As Clipper fans we were obviously hoping for Minnesota to be terrible so we get a lottery pick, but that's looking a lot less certain than it did last year. The Timberwolves made a great coaching change (dumping Kurt Rambis for Rick Adelman) and have a lot of young talent (Kevin Love, Ricky Rubio, Derrick Williams) and decent depth which should help them in the shortened season. Not that I'd expect them to be a playoff team, but it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
- Chris Paul throwing lobs to Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan. If you're not excited for that, I don't know what to tell you.
Here's why I don't like the deal:
- I was so impressed with the Clippers' refusal to give in to David Stern's demands for basically all of their best trade assets (Gordon, Kaman, Aminu, Minny pick, Eric Bledsoe). There's a report that the Lakers are back in talks and now the Clippers go back and agree to essentially the same deal without Bledsoe (who's injured to start the season)? There's definitely a sense of desperation and weakness here. On the other hand, Chris Paul is the kind of player you take this risk for unless...
- There's evidence that Chris Paul is on the decline. He's missed close to 40 games the past two seasons and does not look like the CHRIS PAUL that he was just a few years ago. Whether or not he still has a gimpy knee, you have to wonder what kind of negative impact his past injuries have already had. As long as he's on the court he's still an elite point guard, but he might not be the unquestioned top dog in the league anymore.
- I thought the point of acquiring Chauncey Billups was to create leverage and show the league that the Clippers didn't need to do a deal for Chris Paul. A Billups/Gordon/Butler/Griffin/Jordan lineup is already pretty formidable in my mind. Now the Clippers (for now) are loaded with Paul, Billups, Mo Williams and Bledsoe at point guard. It looks like Billups will start at the 2 guard alongside Paul with combo guard Randy Foye backing him up.
- They didn't really need to do the deal now in my opinion. Carmelo Anthony wasn't traded for months. The Clippers didn't have any rush to get rid of any of their assets (I guess the Minnesota pick could have decreased in value if they had a hot start) and could have at least seen how their current roster did before revisiting trade talks.
- I'm not sure on the details, but I'm fairly certain there is no guarantee or promise from Paul that he'll stay long term. I think he's agreed to opt in for next season, but beyond that who knows.
Ultimately all roster moves are a crapshoot to some extent. Paul could be back to his pre-injury form and tossing up insane lobs all over the place and, alongside Blake Griffin, lead the Clippers to the playoffs year after year. Or maybe he'll get hurt, leave after two years and Eric Gordon will develop into the best shooting guard in the league. Obviously we don't know, and the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle. It's a high risk-high reward move that could pay off big time for one, both, or neither of the teams. Of course it's that not knowing, the excitement of uncertainty that makes it so fun to be a sports fan.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
If you don't write checks, how do you pay these guys?
When I went to bed last night Randy Moss was just one of hundreds of free agents still out there waiting to be picked up by some team. At best his personality and effort would be described as "mercurial." One of the biggest questions about him was if his major decline last season was caused by a deterioration of skills or a lack of motivation or a combination of both.
This morning, Randy Moss was one of the best wide receivers to ever play the game. His route running and smooth strides put him in a position where his size, hands, and freakish athletic ability allowed him to make seemingly every catch.
It's funny how retirement changes our perspective.
It makes perfect sense of course. When an athlete is still playing we have to view them as they currently are. Sure you respect what they've done in the past, but if you're trying to assess what they can do now, you have to throw out nostalgia and reminiscing.
It's only natural towards the end of their career to look back on what they've done and really appreciate the athlete's body of work as a whole and retirement forces that on us.
In Moss's case, I'm not weighing the risk of drafting him in fantasy football hoping he can latch on with a team (and quarterback) where he can be useful at least to the tune of 700 yards and 8 TDs. Instead we can remember him announcing his arrival to the league with 17 touchdown receptions in 1998 setting a rookie record, then teaming up with Tom Brady for another record with 23 TDs in 2007. We can recall the special role he played on teams that went 15-1 and 16-0 even though neither went on to win the Super Bowl.
In some ways it seems like it might be wrong that our view can change so rapidly with a single announcement. On one hand it feels like as fans we're being too optimistic as we just choose what we want to remember about an athlete. On the other hand, for the great ones, we really aren't choosing at all. They've determined how they'll be remembered as the things they accomplished on the field, court, ring, etc are seared into our brain.
When Shaq is inducted into the basketball hall of fame, no one's going to remember him hobbling up and down the floor for Cleveland and Boston. No, it'll be visions of Young Shaquille sprinting down the court for a massive dunk or joking around with the media nicknaming himself or, my personal favorite, this. Oh goodness, more of that. Please.
Sometimes we're stuck in the awkward position of being close enough to the end to reminisce about an athlete, but far enough away where it feels like we might be dishonoring him (or her) by pretending as if they're done.
When I first started watching mixed martial arts, Fedor Emelianenko was the baddest heavyweight on the planet. The way he fought was like a cyborg. He could fire his rocket of a right hand on the feet or on the ground and there was little his opponents could do. His footwork and speed allowed him to pick apart fighters on the feet, and his incredible hip movement let him ground and pound at will no matter who's guard he was in.
Now he's lost three in a row and his future is up in the air. A part of me wants to look back at his record and point out that he's really only beat three heavyweights at the top of their game (Heath Herring, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira x2, Mirko Filipovic), but another part remembers that for years he smashed everyone in his way and almost never seemed like he was in danger. It's almost like I just want him to decide one way or another, to take a fight or to officially hang up the gloves so that we know whether we should be celebrating his career or wondering if he's still got it.
That's just the brutal world of sports. It's so fast-paced and it's no hyperbole to say that today's hot stuff could easily be tomorrow's old news. Every athlete, without exception, will be slowed by age and/or injuries eventually. There will always be a point where they just don't have it anymore and we'll look on their career in hindsight and inevitably judge it. Some with leave a legendary legacy but others nothing at all.
But as competitors these athletes have no time to think of that. They have to focus on the next game, the next play so that they don't get caught up and distracted by what's to come. All that will take care of itself in time. But for now? Straight cash homey.
This morning, Randy Moss was one of the best wide receivers to ever play the game. His route running and smooth strides put him in a position where his size, hands, and freakish athletic ability allowed him to make seemingly every catch.
It's funny how retirement changes our perspective.
It makes perfect sense of course. When an athlete is still playing we have to view them as they currently are. Sure you respect what they've done in the past, but if you're trying to assess what they can do now, you have to throw out nostalgia and reminiscing.
It's only natural towards the end of their career to look back on what they've done and really appreciate the athlete's body of work as a whole and retirement forces that on us.
In Moss's case, I'm not weighing the risk of drafting him in fantasy football hoping he can latch on with a team (and quarterback) where he can be useful at least to the tune of 700 yards and 8 TDs. Instead we can remember him announcing his arrival to the league with 17 touchdown receptions in 1998 setting a rookie record, then teaming up with Tom Brady for another record with 23 TDs in 2007. We can recall the special role he played on teams that went 15-1 and 16-0 even though neither went on to win the Super Bowl.
In some ways it seems like it might be wrong that our view can change so rapidly with a single announcement. On one hand it feels like as fans we're being too optimistic as we just choose what we want to remember about an athlete. On the other hand, for the great ones, we really aren't choosing at all. They've determined how they'll be remembered as the things they accomplished on the field, court, ring, etc are seared into our brain.
When Shaq is inducted into the basketball hall of fame, no one's going to remember him hobbling up and down the floor for Cleveland and Boston. No, it'll be visions of Young Shaquille sprinting down the court for a massive dunk or joking around with the media nicknaming himself or, my personal favorite, this. Oh goodness, more of that. Please.
Sometimes we're stuck in the awkward position of being close enough to the end to reminisce about an athlete, but far enough away where it feels like we might be dishonoring him (or her) by pretending as if they're done.
When I first started watching mixed martial arts, Fedor Emelianenko was the baddest heavyweight on the planet. The way he fought was like a cyborg. He could fire his rocket of a right hand on the feet or on the ground and there was little his opponents could do. His footwork and speed allowed him to pick apart fighters on the feet, and his incredible hip movement let him ground and pound at will no matter who's guard he was in.
Now he's lost three in a row and his future is up in the air. A part of me wants to look back at his record and point out that he's really only beat three heavyweights at the top of their game (Heath Herring, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira x2, Mirko Filipovic), but another part remembers that for years he smashed everyone in his way and almost never seemed like he was in danger. It's almost like I just want him to decide one way or another, to take a fight or to officially hang up the gloves so that we know whether we should be celebrating his career or wondering if he's still got it.
That's just the brutal world of sports. It's so fast-paced and it's no hyperbole to say that today's hot stuff could easily be tomorrow's old news. Every athlete, without exception, will be slowed by age and/or injuries eventually. There will always be a point where they just don't have it anymore and we'll look on their career in hindsight and inevitably judge it. Some with leave a legendary legacy but others nothing at all.
But as competitors these athletes have no time to think of that. They have to focus on the next game, the next play so that they don't get caught up and distracted by what's to come. All that will take care of itself in time. But for now? Straight cash homey.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Quick Hits: WWC Final
I'll be honest. This is the first women's world cup game I've caught this year. Still, the combination of national pride and all the intensity that comes with the final in an international competition such as this was too much to ignore. Random pre-game thoughts.
- I had no idea what Hope Solo sounded like. Her voice was a lot higher and softer than I was expecting. Not important just random.
- I really wouldn't sleep on Japan. They've beaten some very good teams to make it thus far. Their technical style, ball movement, and execution can cause problems for Team USA if they are unprepared or sloppy.
- It looks like US coach Pia Sundhage has moved Lauren Cheney up and reinserted Megan Rapinoe into the starting lineup at left midfield. Rapinoe's been a sparkplug off the bench and the American offense is much better with her on the field, creating more (and better) shots. We'll see if it makes a difference when she goes the whole 90 as opposed to subbing in for 40 (or so) minutes.
- The montages showing the '99 championship team reminded me how epic those players were. Mia Hamm, Julie Foudy, Michelle Akers, Brandi Chastain, etc. What a talented group.
That's about it. Like I said I haven't really watched much and the game's about to start. Go go USA!
- I had no idea what Hope Solo sounded like. Her voice was a lot higher and softer than I was expecting. Not important just random.
- I really wouldn't sleep on Japan. They've beaten some very good teams to make it thus far. Their technical style, ball movement, and execution can cause problems for Team USA if they are unprepared or sloppy.
- It looks like US coach Pia Sundhage has moved Lauren Cheney up and reinserted Megan Rapinoe into the starting lineup at left midfield. Rapinoe's been a sparkplug off the bench and the American offense is much better with her on the field, creating more (and better) shots. We'll see if it makes a difference when she goes the whole 90 as opposed to subbing in for 40 (or so) minutes.
- The montages showing the '99 championship team reminded me how epic those players were. Mia Hamm, Julie Foudy, Michelle Akers, Brandi Chastain, etc. What a talented group.
That's about it. Like I said I haven't really watched much and the game's about to start. Go go USA!
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
The OTHER C. Anthony
Here are the facts.
Carmelo Anthony
Real name: Carmelo Kiyan Anthony
Place of birth: Brooklyn, NY
Date of birth: May 29, 1984
Height: 6'8"
Weight: 228 lb
Affiliation: New York Knicks, Syracuse
Best known for: Being picked after Darko Milicic in the 2003 NBA Draft, holding the Denver Nuggets hostage during the 2010-2011 NBA season, his ability to score with a variety of methods from a variety of spots on the floor, collapsing during a game as play went on around him, being Mr. La La Vasquez
Waka Flocka Flame
Real name: Juaquin Malphurs
Place of birth: New York, New York
Date of birth: May 31, 1986
Height: 6'4"
Weight: ???
Affiliation: 1017 Brick Squad Records, Warner Bros. Records, Asylum Records
Best known for: Going hard in the mf'in paint, throwin' money while women do it with no hands, being named after Fozzie Bear's catchphrase, saying his name a lot (FLOCKA!)
Marshawn Lynch
Real name: Marshawn Terrell Lynch
Place of birth: Oakland, California
Date of birth: April 22, 1986
Height: 5'11"
Weight: 220 lb
Affiliation: Seattle Seahawks, Cal
Best known for: Being the 12th overall selection by the Buffalo Bills in 2007, breaking the 1,000 yard plateau as a rookie, making the Pro Bowl as an alternate in his second year, disappointing Bills fans and fantasy owners alike in his third year ultimately being replaced by Fred Jackson, most importantly BEAST MODE!!!!!
Like I said on Facebook...has anyone seen these three at the same place at the same time?
Carmelo AnthonyReal name: Carmelo Kiyan Anthony
Place of birth: Brooklyn, NY
Date of birth: May 29, 1984
Height: 6'8"
Weight: 228 lb
Affiliation: New York Knicks, Syracuse
Best known for: Being picked after Darko Milicic in the 2003 NBA Draft, holding the Denver Nuggets hostage during the 2010-2011 NBA season, his ability to score with a variety of methods from a variety of spots on the floor, collapsing during a game as play went on around him, being Mr. La La Vasquez
Waka Flocka Flame
Real name: Juaquin Malphurs
Place of birth: New York, New York
Date of birth: May 31, 1986
Height: 6'4"
Weight: ???
Affiliation: 1017 Brick Squad Records, Warner Bros. Records, Asylum Records
Best known for: Going hard in the mf'in paint, throwin' money while women do it with no hands, being named after Fozzie Bear's catchphrase, saying his name a lot (FLOCKA!)
Marshawn Lynch
Real name: Marshawn Terrell Lynch
Place of birth: Oakland, California
Date of birth: April 22, 1986
Height: 5'11"
Weight: 220 lb
Affiliation: Seattle Seahawks, Cal
Best known for: Being the 12th overall selection by the Buffalo Bills in 2007, breaking the 1,000 yard plateau as a rookie, making the Pro Bowl as an alternate in his second year, disappointing Bills fans and fantasy owners alike in his third year ultimately being replaced by Fred Jackson, most importantly BEAST MODE!!!!!
Like I said on Facebook...has anyone seen these three at the same place at the same time?
An Uninformed Opinion
It seems like the Casey Anthony case swept the nation by storm, culminating in yesterday's "not guilty" verdict. I take no interest in law or legal proceedings nor did I follow this case closely (or at all), but there was a pretty massive barrage of expressions of shock yesterday across social media platforms.
It seemed like everyone had an opinion about the case, mostly how appalled and outraged they were that a cold-blooded murderer of a little girl would walk freely and how justice was not served.
I thought it was pretty crazy how extreme and violent these reactions were. Promises of vigilante justice were made (but hopefully not followed up on) as were comparisons to the infamous OJ Simpson case.
It's funny how quick our seemingly non-judgmental society is to denounce a 25 year old single mother who lost her daughter based on the opinions of talking heads, blogs, and circumstantial evidence.
I'm not saying she did or didn't do it. Like I said, I haven't followed the case much at all, but from what I've read, the case against her was built almost completely on circumstantial and anecdotal evidence and experimental forensic research. By all accounts, she was probably a pretty terrible mother and involved in her daughter's death in some fashion.
But "probably" is not the same as "beyond reasonable doubt" and being a crappy mother is not the same as murder.
It bothers me how easily the general public turned on Casey Anthony using a criteria that certainly none of us would like used against us.
Today it seemed there was no shortage of people wondering who was to blame for what happened. Was the defense just an all-star cast? Did the prosecution fail? Was the jury incompetant?
Those are valid and likely probabilities, sure. But did it occur to anyone else that maybe, just maybe, the judicial system worked exactly how it should? That Casey Anthony was not guilty and the court system saved her from ramifications of crimes she didn't commit? I think this didn't cross the mind of a lot of people, and in that case, I'd ask them why a full trial was even necessary? If "probably" should be enough to put her away, what's the use of judges and attorneys anyway? After all, EVERYONE knows that she did it. Right?
I was listening to the radio on the way home from work today. One caller said that she thought the jury messed up because they came to a verdict so quickly. According to this woman, there's no way the jury spent enough time going over the facts and details of the case.
First of all, no, that's not what a quick verdict means. Second, I thought it was hilarious that this woman would have the gall to say something like that. I highly, highly doubt that she spent more than 1 hour of her life reading or watching anything about this case. And she's doubting the jury, who sat through every minute of the trial and were necessarily consumed by it? That's ridiculous.
Again, I don't want to come off sounding like I think Casey Anthony is some wonderful, innocent human being. But someone can be not guilty without being innocent. I wish that this case had spawned more intelligent discussion, not emotionally charged rants about lawyers drinking champagne or tweets of shock from the daughter of the man who helped OJ Simpson walk free.
Whatever the case may be, it's a sobering reminder that true, real justice is never served on earth. But when it is, it will be swift and unmistakable.
It seemed like everyone had an opinion about the case, mostly how appalled and outraged they were that a cold-blooded murderer of a little girl would walk freely and how justice was not served.
I thought it was pretty crazy how extreme and violent these reactions were. Promises of vigilante justice were made (but hopefully not followed up on) as were comparisons to the infamous OJ Simpson case.
It's funny how quick our seemingly non-judgmental society is to denounce a 25 year old single mother who lost her daughter based on the opinions of talking heads, blogs, and circumstantial evidence.
I'm not saying she did or didn't do it. Like I said, I haven't followed the case much at all, but from what I've read, the case against her was built almost completely on circumstantial and anecdotal evidence and experimental forensic research. By all accounts, she was probably a pretty terrible mother and involved in her daughter's death in some fashion.
But "probably" is not the same as "beyond reasonable doubt" and being a crappy mother is not the same as murder.
It bothers me how easily the general public turned on Casey Anthony using a criteria that certainly none of us would like used against us.
Today it seemed there was no shortage of people wondering who was to blame for what happened. Was the defense just an all-star cast? Did the prosecution fail? Was the jury incompetant?
Those are valid and likely probabilities, sure. But did it occur to anyone else that maybe, just maybe, the judicial system worked exactly how it should? That Casey Anthony was not guilty and the court system saved her from ramifications of crimes she didn't commit? I think this didn't cross the mind of a lot of people, and in that case, I'd ask them why a full trial was even necessary? If "probably" should be enough to put her away, what's the use of judges and attorneys anyway? After all, EVERYONE knows that she did it. Right?
I was listening to the radio on the way home from work today. One caller said that she thought the jury messed up because they came to a verdict so quickly. According to this woman, there's no way the jury spent enough time going over the facts and details of the case.
First of all, no, that's not what a quick verdict means. Second, I thought it was hilarious that this woman would have the gall to say something like that. I highly, highly doubt that she spent more than 1 hour of her life reading or watching anything about this case. And she's doubting the jury, who sat through every minute of the trial and were necessarily consumed by it? That's ridiculous.
Again, I don't want to come off sounding like I think Casey Anthony is some wonderful, innocent human being. But someone can be not guilty without being innocent. I wish that this case had spawned more intelligent discussion, not emotionally charged rants about lawyers drinking champagne or tweets of shock from the daughter of the man who helped OJ Simpson walk free.
Whatever the case may be, it's a sobering reminder that true, real justice is never served on earth. But when it is, it will be swift and unmistakable.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
I think someone left a window open...
...because I feel a draft. (*kills self*)
I was on Grantland.com today reading Ben Cohen's piece on the NBA draft. One thought in particular caught my attention:
He's right. The draft is such an inexact science as teams, GMs, agents, and writers try to navigate the realm of eligible players with video, stats, anecdotes and, sometimes, gut feel. You never quite know what a given player is going to become in the pros, but it's this uncertainty that makes draft night so exhilarating.
This year is no exception. With the draft less than two days away, all the speculation, posturing, trade talks and the like are really heating up. Just wanted to throw down some random thoughts.
- Should probably preface this by saying that I really haven't seen most of these guys play. I really don't have the time (nor interesting in NCAA or Euro ball) to keep up, but I've tried to compensate as much as I could by reading. So there's that.
- It's always interesting to see the changes in players' draft stock as time goes on. Since I really started trying to read up on these prospects (pretty much when the Lakers got eliminated) until now, there have been some dramatic movements. It's weird if you think about how drastically people's views change on certain players without them playing a full game. It's helped a lot for guys like Marshon Brooks and Iman Shumpert, two 2nd rounders a couple weeks ago who are now very likely to crack the mid to late 1st. On the other hand there are also players like Bismack Biyombo. He burst onto the scene at the Nike Hoop Summit and seemed like he would rise into the lottery. However, the emergence of some other players coupled with workouts that showed his weak offensive game (not a great finisher, poor hands, bad shooter) may have knocked him out of that range. I think he's a guy that really needs to be seen in games so his athleticism and defense can really be seen. There are always numerous examples in each draft, and we'll see who the big risers and fallers end up being on Thursday.
- Hype always plays a big factor in drafts. Sometimes this backfires as public opinion drifts too far the other way and player's weaknesses are emphasized too much. I think Jimmer Fredette and Kemba Walker have been the most victimized by that this year (along with Biyombo). Both are seen as scoring guards who might be incapable of being a lead guard for a team. I think the criticisms are fair, but on the other hand they've won and produced in college, and that's worth something as well, at least a shot to prove themselves in the NBA.
- Having said that, Jimmer Fredette's projected as a lottery pick and Ben Hansbrough is a projected low 2nd rounder to undrafted prospect. Not sure I quite understand that wide chasm, and I'm not saying that just because both are white point guards. Ok maybe that's part of it, but Hansbrough is a gritty player, produced when he had the opportunity in college, and is a good shooter with underrated athleticism. I'm not convinced that the gap between the two is really that big, maybe the difference between a 6th man scorer and a 8th man role player?
- None of the LA teams are picking until the 2nd round (with the Lakers picking 4 times), but I'm satisfied with that. A lot of critics have called this a weak draft, but this is mostly referring to the lack of superstars or even surefire All-Stars at the top of the draft. Towards the middle, the draft is fairly deep and there should be a glut of rotation/role players available. Both teams could use a nice big man off the bench, the Clippers continue their search for someone who can fill their hole at the 3 (until Harrison Barnes next year? Crosing my fingers), while the Lakers would like more forward depth and help at the PG spot too. If Jeremy Tyler or Jon Leuer are available, they'd fit nicely with both. Tyler was a highly rated high school prospect who decided to go overseas instead of college and adjusted poorly, but he's still got game and, maybe more importantly, size. Leuer is a hard worker and a good stretch 4 that teams covet nowadays. As for guards, I love the group of guys that might be available. Norris Cole, Nolan Smith, Malcolm Lee, and Shelvin Mack are all among guys that I think can help the Lakers in a year or two.
- Barring trades at the top spots, the unpredictability will start at the 3 spot with the Utah Jazz. It's pretty likely that Kyrie Irving and Derrick Williams will go 1-2 (likely in that order, with maybe a 10% chance that it's reversed), and the next few picks will hinge on whether the Jazz look for a Deron Williams replacement (Brandon Knight, Kemba Walker), an athletic forward to eventually displace Andrei Kirilenko (Jan Vesely), or a big man to play with their Al Jefferson/Paul Millsap combo (Enes Kanter). They've all got big upside but significant risk as well, so this will play a huge role in shaping not just this draft, but the Jazz's future as well.
- Jimmy Butler might be my favorite prospect in this draft. The versatile forward was a beast at Marquette, but his story is incredible. Check out Chad Ford's piece on it here.
- If not Butler, Kenneth Faried might be my favorite. He's an extremely hard worker from a small school and he will almost certainly make a huge mark in the league immediately with his rebounding ability. Historically, in terms of college statistics translating to the pros, rebounding has had the most predictive ability. This bodes well for Faried, whose nose for the ball will serve him well in the next level.
- I thought Bismack Biyombo had the best name in the draft, or if not, then Kahwi Leonard. But yesterday some news changed my mind. Meet possible 2nd round draft pick Tanguy Ngombo.
- I can't be the only one who hopes the Morris twins end up on the same team right? It would just be amusing to me. Only real shot is with Charlotte at 9 and 19, unless some team trades to make it happen.
- Anyhow that's it for now. Eager to read more news/rumors tomorrow.
I was on Grantland.com today reading Ben Cohen's piece on the NBA draft. One thought in particular caught my attention:
"No day on the NBA calendar packs more risk than draft night, and trades are the riskiest part about it. They require front offices to forecast the potential of players who have never set foot on NBA hardwood and then swap these prospects for assets that might be more certain, less certain, or much less certain."
He's right. The draft is such an inexact science as teams, GMs, agents, and writers try to navigate the realm of eligible players with video, stats, anecdotes and, sometimes, gut feel. You never quite know what a given player is going to become in the pros, but it's this uncertainty that makes draft night so exhilarating.
This year is no exception. With the draft less than two days away, all the speculation, posturing, trade talks and the like are really heating up. Just wanted to throw down some random thoughts.
- Should probably preface this by saying that I really haven't seen most of these guys play. I really don't have the time (nor interesting in NCAA or Euro ball) to keep up, but I've tried to compensate as much as I could by reading. So there's that.
- It's always interesting to see the changes in players' draft stock as time goes on. Since I really started trying to read up on these prospects (pretty much when the Lakers got eliminated) until now, there have been some dramatic movements. It's weird if you think about how drastically people's views change on certain players without them playing a full game. It's helped a lot for guys like Marshon Brooks and Iman Shumpert, two 2nd rounders a couple weeks ago who are now very likely to crack the mid to late 1st. On the other hand there are also players like Bismack Biyombo. He burst onto the scene at the Nike Hoop Summit and seemed like he would rise into the lottery. However, the emergence of some other players coupled with workouts that showed his weak offensive game (not a great finisher, poor hands, bad shooter) may have knocked him out of that range. I think he's a guy that really needs to be seen in games so his athleticism and defense can really be seen. There are always numerous examples in each draft, and we'll see who the big risers and fallers end up being on Thursday.
- Hype always plays a big factor in drafts. Sometimes this backfires as public opinion drifts too far the other way and player's weaknesses are emphasized too much. I think Jimmer Fredette and Kemba Walker have been the most victimized by that this year (along with Biyombo). Both are seen as scoring guards who might be incapable of being a lead guard for a team. I think the criticisms are fair, but on the other hand they've won and produced in college, and that's worth something as well, at least a shot to prove themselves in the NBA.
- Having said that, Jimmer Fredette's projected as a lottery pick and Ben Hansbrough is a projected low 2nd rounder to undrafted prospect. Not sure I quite understand that wide chasm, and I'm not saying that just because both are white point guards. Ok maybe that's part of it, but Hansbrough is a gritty player, produced when he had the opportunity in college, and is a good shooter with underrated athleticism. I'm not convinced that the gap between the two is really that big, maybe the difference between a 6th man scorer and a 8th man role player?
- None of the LA teams are picking until the 2nd round (with the Lakers picking 4 times), but I'm satisfied with that. A lot of critics have called this a weak draft, but this is mostly referring to the lack of superstars or even surefire All-Stars at the top of the draft. Towards the middle, the draft is fairly deep and there should be a glut of rotation/role players available. Both teams could use a nice big man off the bench, the Clippers continue their search for someone who can fill their hole at the 3 (until Harrison Barnes next year? Crosing my fingers), while the Lakers would like more forward depth and help at the PG spot too. If Jeremy Tyler or Jon Leuer are available, they'd fit nicely with both. Tyler was a highly rated high school prospect who decided to go overseas instead of college and adjusted poorly, but he's still got game and, maybe more importantly, size. Leuer is a hard worker and a good stretch 4 that teams covet nowadays. As for guards, I love the group of guys that might be available. Norris Cole, Nolan Smith, Malcolm Lee, and Shelvin Mack are all among guys that I think can help the Lakers in a year or two.
- Barring trades at the top spots, the unpredictability will start at the 3 spot with the Utah Jazz. It's pretty likely that Kyrie Irving and Derrick Williams will go 1-2 (likely in that order, with maybe a 10% chance that it's reversed), and the next few picks will hinge on whether the Jazz look for a Deron Williams replacement (Brandon Knight, Kemba Walker), an athletic forward to eventually displace Andrei Kirilenko (Jan Vesely), or a big man to play with their Al Jefferson/Paul Millsap combo (Enes Kanter). They've all got big upside but significant risk as well, so this will play a huge role in shaping not just this draft, but the Jazz's future as well.
- Jimmy Butler might be my favorite prospect in this draft. The versatile forward was a beast at Marquette, but his story is incredible. Check out Chad Ford's piece on it here.
- If not Butler, Kenneth Faried might be my favorite. He's an extremely hard worker from a small school and he will almost certainly make a huge mark in the league immediately with his rebounding ability. Historically, in terms of college statistics translating to the pros, rebounding has had the most predictive ability. This bodes well for Faried, whose nose for the ball will serve him well in the next level.
- I thought Bismack Biyombo had the best name in the draft, or if not, then Kahwi Leonard. But yesterday some news changed my mind. Meet possible 2nd round draft pick Tanguy Ngombo.
- I can't be the only one who hopes the Morris twins end up on the same team right? It would just be amusing to me. Only real shot is with Charlotte at 9 and 19, unless some team trades to make it happen.
- Anyhow that's it for now. Eager to read more news/rumors tomorrow.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Picking nits (well technically just one nit) again
I've been known to nitpick grammar a little bit too much. Usually it's all in good fun or perhaps out of annoyance at a simple, stupid mistake that should be so clear that it's impossible to mess up.
But sometimes little details can make a pretty significant difference. Consider the stray letter "s." Anyone who's played Scrabble (or Words With Friends or even Boggle) should be immediately familiar with how powerful that little letter can be.
A single "s" changes a prince into princes, and another one changes them into a princess.
So there is one nitpick that does irritate me related to this. It's not so much the error as how it's basically ignored and not even thought about or noticed that annoys me the most.
This is how Galatians 5:22-23 reads:
Seems basic enough and I don't want to delve into anything too deep, but think about how that little detail changes the perception and meaning of the passage. Sometimes the smallest things make the biggest difference.
But sometimes little details can make a pretty significant difference. Consider the stray letter "s." Anyone who's played Scrabble (or Words With Friends or even Boggle) should be immediately familiar with how powerful that little letter can be.
A single "s" changes a prince into princes, and another one changes them into a princess.
So there is one nitpick that does irritate me related to this. It's not so much the error as how it's basically ignored and not even thought about or noticed that annoys me the most.
This is how Galatians 5:22-23 reads:
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.Catch that? Contrary to what I've heard a lot, this is not a laundry list of positive qualities that Christians should have. It's a description of the singular influence that the Holy Spirit should have in us. There are no "fruits," it's impossible to pick and choose because there is only one fruit of the Spirit.
Seems basic enough and I don't want to delve into anything too deep, but think about how that little detail changes the perception and meaning of the passage. Sometimes the smallest things make the biggest difference.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Quick Hits: NBA Finals
Random stuff. Didn't feel like unleashing a tidal wave of tweets (although I sort of did anyway) of bite sized thoughts.
- Congrats to the Dallas Mavericks first of all. It never gets old seeing veterans taste championship glory for the first time late in their career. Really nice to see Dirk dominate and overcome the playoff demons from 06 and 07.
- Which brings me to this column by Michael Wilbon: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=wilbon%2F110611
He makes some very good points, ones that we should definitely take to heart. Seems weird that the general reaction to Lebron is the same one we had to Dirk after his loss in the same finals where Dirk proved those perceptions to be false.
- But having said that, Lebron didn't come up big when he needed to. I still hesitate to say he has some kind of trouble in the playoffs or can't handle the pressure because of the huge performances he has had in postseasons past, some of which were in these past two series against Boston and Chicago. Still, it was clear that he didn't play up to the level Miami needed him to in order to win. Possibly fatigue? He was playing huge minutes every night for this team. Who knows, but again, I hesitate to leap to judgment about his mental state based on this series.
- I'd like to turn back the clock to 2008. Sidney Crosby was making his first trip to the Stanley Cup finals, and Kobe had taken the Lakers back to the NBA Finals with new acquisition Pau Gasol. This was supposed to be the beginning of both of their reigns, Sidney forcefully announcing his dominance with a cup win and Kobe validating his championships with Shaq. However, the Detroit Red Wings derailed Crosby's hopes and the Boston Celtics famously came out and hit the Lakers in the mouth, as both the Penguins and the Lakers lost in 6 games. Now I don't know if anyone wrote them off as failures, but they put in work in the offseason, and both teams returned to the finals the year after, both winning the championship. Pittsburgh got their revenge against the Wings while the Lakers had to wait one more year to defeat the Celtics. So to recap, both stars were supposed to breeze to a championship one year, lost in 6 games, and came back to win it all the year after. Not saying this will happen with the Heat, but it's clearly dangerous to write off any team with that much talent motivated by a stinging loss.
- Dirk was clearly MVP, but he should at least share some of that with Rick Carlisle. He coached out of his mind. He switched up his rotations and schemes throughout the playoffs and made it look easy.
- To be honest, before the season started, and for several months into the season, I didn't think the Heat would make a deep playoff run. My main concern were chemistry issues and a weak bench. Clearly they meshed well enough to make the Finals this year, so we'll see if they continue to grow or if this was their ceiling. But the biggest difference-maker for them next season (whenever that is) may be a fat guy who played 11 minutes this season. 2nd round pick Dexter Pittman out of Texas has reportedly worked extremely hard and dropped a lot of weight throughout the season. If he's ready to earn a rotation spot, his size and rebounding is going to help Miami a lot. I mean, Juwan Howard was playing minutes at center for them in the finals. That should tell you something about their interior players.
- Dirk shot 9-27. I'm not hearing anyone saying the Mavs won this game despite of him instead of because of him like people were saying after Kobe's 6-24 Game 7 last year. Just saying.
- The playoff picture is going to look interesting in the next few years. The Heat were right there this year, but are they going to continue to develop and add pieces or was this it? Will Dallas be able to sustain their winning ways? Their players aren't getting any younger. Can Dirk continue to carry them on his back? At least the return of Caron Butler will help them a lot, and they'll continue to hope Roddy Beaubois develops into the point guard of the future. Chicago and OKC announced their arrival this year, but can their young cores take one more step into the Finals? Are they going to be motivated or discouraged by coming up short in the conference finals? Speaking of young guns, Philadelphia and Indiana were surprisingly resilient in their first round exits. What kind of moves are they going to make to build their rosters? Can they be a factor without a big superstar, or do they have one already on their roster that just needs time to develop? Boston, San Antonio, and LA all looked old this postseason. Do any of them have a championship run left in the tank, and if not, will they be able to reload in time to challenge the young guns? No one knows the answers to these questions but finding out is going to be wildly entertaining.
- Congrats to the Dallas Mavericks first of all. It never gets old seeing veterans taste championship glory for the first time late in their career. Really nice to see Dirk dominate and overcome the playoff demons from 06 and 07.
- Which brings me to this column by Michael Wilbon: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=wilbon%2F110611
He makes some very good points, ones that we should definitely take to heart. Seems weird that the general reaction to Lebron is the same one we had to Dirk after his loss in the same finals where Dirk proved those perceptions to be false.
- But having said that, Lebron didn't come up big when he needed to. I still hesitate to say he has some kind of trouble in the playoffs or can't handle the pressure because of the huge performances he has had in postseasons past, some of which were in these past two series against Boston and Chicago. Still, it was clear that he didn't play up to the level Miami needed him to in order to win. Possibly fatigue? He was playing huge minutes every night for this team. Who knows, but again, I hesitate to leap to judgment about his mental state based on this series.
- I'd like to turn back the clock to 2008. Sidney Crosby was making his first trip to the Stanley Cup finals, and Kobe had taken the Lakers back to the NBA Finals with new acquisition Pau Gasol. This was supposed to be the beginning of both of their reigns, Sidney forcefully announcing his dominance with a cup win and Kobe validating his championships with Shaq. However, the Detroit Red Wings derailed Crosby's hopes and the Boston Celtics famously came out and hit the Lakers in the mouth, as both the Penguins and the Lakers lost in 6 games. Now I don't know if anyone wrote them off as failures, but they put in work in the offseason, and both teams returned to the finals the year after, both winning the championship. Pittsburgh got their revenge against the Wings while the Lakers had to wait one more year to defeat the Celtics. So to recap, both stars were supposed to breeze to a championship one year, lost in 6 games, and came back to win it all the year after. Not saying this will happen with the Heat, but it's clearly dangerous to write off any team with that much talent motivated by a stinging loss.
- Dirk was clearly MVP, but he should at least share some of that with Rick Carlisle. He coached out of his mind. He switched up his rotations and schemes throughout the playoffs and made it look easy.
- To be honest, before the season started, and for several months into the season, I didn't think the Heat would make a deep playoff run. My main concern were chemistry issues and a weak bench. Clearly they meshed well enough to make the Finals this year, so we'll see if they continue to grow or if this was their ceiling. But the biggest difference-maker for them next season (whenever that is) may be a fat guy who played 11 minutes this season. 2nd round pick Dexter Pittman out of Texas has reportedly worked extremely hard and dropped a lot of weight throughout the season. If he's ready to earn a rotation spot, his size and rebounding is going to help Miami a lot. I mean, Juwan Howard was playing minutes at center for them in the finals. That should tell you something about their interior players.
- Dirk shot 9-27. I'm not hearing anyone saying the Mavs won this game despite of him instead of because of him like people were saying after Kobe's 6-24 Game 7 last year. Just saying.
- The playoff picture is going to look interesting in the next few years. The Heat were right there this year, but are they going to continue to develop and add pieces or was this it? Will Dallas be able to sustain their winning ways? Their players aren't getting any younger. Can Dirk continue to carry them on his back? At least the return of Caron Butler will help them a lot, and they'll continue to hope Roddy Beaubois develops into the point guard of the future. Chicago and OKC announced their arrival this year, but can their young cores take one more step into the Finals? Are they going to be motivated or discouraged by coming up short in the conference finals? Speaking of young guns, Philadelphia and Indiana were surprisingly resilient in their first round exits. What kind of moves are they going to make to build their rosters? Can they be a factor without a big superstar, or do they have one already on their roster that just needs time to develop? Boston, San Antonio, and LA all looked old this postseason. Do any of them have a championship run left in the tank, and if not, will they be able to reload in time to challenge the young guns? No one knows the answers to these questions but finding out is going to be wildly entertaining.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
The Voice
You know, I had a much longer writeup about this planned but got sidetracked, as I mentioned in my last post, and at this point, it's 1 AM and I just want to throw some stuff down and not have to think of any interesting title.
The Voice is a singing competition on NBC. If you've never heard about it, there's plenty of stuff about it online, it's cool, you should check it out.
Like I said, this is pretty much just random stuff I wanted to remark on...starting with the intro to the show.
I really enjoyed episode 1 when the coaches (Blake Shelton, Christina Aguilera, CeeLo Green, Adam Levine) came out performing "Crazy." I thought that was pretty neat. This week's Queen medley however, not so much. In my opinion at least. So take that with a grain of salt. Which is interesting, because I spent two semesters writing for the A&E section at ASU primarily doing album reviews and interviewing artists, but I would still consider myself to be not very knowledgeable when it comes to music and that kind of thing, although I think I've come a ways from when I started. But that's neither here nor there.
(Actually, I realized I am going to reference that again at least once so stay tuned)
I had been wondering how they were going to fit 16 performances in the live shows, so I was happy to hear that only 2 teams (Blake and Christina's) would be performing tonight. In my mind, the artists tiered themselves out a bit on Tuesday, and it was more clear who really had potential and who didn't, although judging from various recaps/internet comments I've read, it might not have been as clear as I thought.
To start, there were a couple singers who performed who hadn't impressed me during the battle rounds. Lily Elise and her rendition of "Big Girls Don't Cry" was glaring in this regard, as it was just an awkward performance with four male dancers up there with her. I thought Cherie Oakley clearly outsung her and that she didn't have much to offer other than random runs and wailing...but then it made sense why Christina Aguilera picked her.
The other young Team Xtina (I hate myself for using that) member, Raquel Castro, likewise didn't impress me much with "Blow." To be fair, Ke$ha wouldn't really top my list of songs I'd think of to showcase one's singing ability. Raquel is a sparkplug, a mini diva, Cee Lo's "Lil Mama" and she brings a lot of energy, but I just didn't think she was that good. Her battle round was okay, although I think you could have made a case that Julia Eason was better, and I think Raquel was helped a lot by her youth and potential. But she doesn't strike me as anything beyond a middle of the pack Disney star. Maybe that would fit her better. After all, she was in Jersey Girl.
The third person who didn't impress me was Team Blake's Patrick Thomas. His performance was good, I guess, but it just seemed rather boring to me. His battle with Tyler Robinson was tight, the other three coaches actually thought Tyler won it, but in the end Blake went with Patrick the country boy, who Christina had asked to take off his pants during the blind audition. She did it AGAIN (a couple times I think) after this performance, and I know she was just trying to be funny (I hope), but it came across as really strange and kind of creepy and desperate. I can't imagine the backlash if one of the male judges said something like that to a female singer, although CeeLo's been ogling pretty much every girl up there.
Also about Christina, what the heck was up with her wardrobe? Her eyeshadow looked like it was applied wrong or something (I have no idea if that's even possible, I know nothing about eyeshadow believe it or not), and she was wearing super short short shorts. As in I could see her thighs. I'm not altogether sure she looked in the mirror before coming out.
As far as the other singers, I have to say Jared Blake kind of bored me too. He's alright, but his "Use Somebody" was nothing special, and I think he was pretty lucky to have made it through the battle rounds when Elenowen crapped their pants (in a LeBron Finals 4th quarter fashion) and had a terrible showing. If he had been matched up against Tyler or Serabee, I'm not sure he would have made it through.
Frenchie I thought did well. A lot of commenters were saying she was flat or missing notes, but I didn't really notice, although that probably says a lot more about me than anything. She's performed on Broadway, and that earns a ton of respect in my book. Blake said she has the strongest voice in the competition. I don't know if I agree with that (as in I really don't know as in I forgot what some of the others sound like), but she's definitely in the running.
Bev McClellan might as well be the poster child for this show. She's so easy to judge based on her looks as a bald lesbian who's clothing choice for the live performance was compared to a Nazi by more than one person (something like a leather jacket and checkered red kilt). But boy can she sing. She irritates me sometimes as she walks the singing/wailing/screaming line, but she's very confident in what she does and I think that has a lot of value.
Then there was Xenia. Boy...you know I really don't know if I like her or not. On one hand, her tone (you really can't talk about Xenia without talking about her tone. Or her lack of a last name) is incredible. It's sultry, smoky, and just overall very pleasing to the ear. That's a unique trait that has the potential to carry her far. On the other hand, her battle round was pretty terrible. She and her opponent Sara O were missing notes left and right and that potential (and maybe she sucked a little less) made the difference in the end. She looked and sounded a bit uncomfortable performing "Price Tag" and it was just kind of awkward. And yet the way she sounds when she's singing is so infectious, I think simply performing more is going to help her a lot. But there was just one thing I couldn't get out of my head. With Xenia standing up there with a mic stand, a band and blue lights behind her, I really imagine her true calling to be a lounge singer. It just seems to fit so perfectly.
And finally Dia Frampton. You know what, I'm not even going to try to hide the fact that I'm biased. She is probably my favorite in this competition (favorite as in personal favorite, not betting favorite). Back in my freshman year I had reviewed one of her band's albums and I loved it. Don't think of this as some weird kind of self-promotion. There are plenty of artists/groups I've reviewed that would not interest me at all on this show. But Dia's voice, which I had described as "distinct and diverse" which I think was code for "I have no idea how to describe this but I like it," has a really smooth, earthy quality that's just so easy to listen to (Check out their YouTube for more).
Her singing style is a lot less aggressive than many of the others in this competition, and I think that's mistaken for shyness or a lack of confidence. You can always tell when people haven't heard of her before because they'll say things like, "Oh, if only she had more experience she would be so much better!" Hate to break it to you, but Meg and Dia was formed in 2004 and have received critical acclaim (Rolling Stone's "New Artist You Should Know About") so at this point it's take it or leave it.
Her performance of "Heartless," which had cracked the top 30 on iTunes last I checked, should have dispelled those notions, as she really got after it, which Christina really noticed, calling her a "fighter"...although she also said she wanted to curl up with her on the couch. I think she might have been slightly drunk before coming on the show.
It was easily the standout performance of the night. I would be absolutely shocked if she did not make it through to the next round. As for the others, I really don't know. Either of the remaining 3 Team Blake members I wouldn't have a huge problem with. I think Frenchie and Bev should go on from Christina's team, but audience voting can be so random, and Christina's proven that her selections can be as well.
Well now, I guess this wasn't as short as I would have liked. But hey, maybe you should watch the show so you can know what I'm talking about. It's probably not the greatest show I've watched, but it's pulling down monster ratings so it must be doing something right.
Next week is a great week to jump in on as it has, by my reckoning, four of the top five (Dia as the fifth) singers on the show: Vicci Martinez, Nakia, Jeff Jenkins, and Javier Colon. Looking forward to it!
The Voice is a singing competition on NBC. If you've never heard about it, there's plenty of stuff about it online, it's cool, you should check it out.
Like I said, this is pretty much just random stuff I wanted to remark on...starting with the intro to the show.
I really enjoyed episode 1 when the coaches (Blake Shelton, Christina Aguilera, CeeLo Green, Adam Levine) came out performing "Crazy." I thought that was pretty neat. This week's Queen medley however, not so much. In my opinion at least. So take that with a grain of salt. Which is interesting, because I spent two semesters writing for the A&E section at ASU primarily doing album reviews and interviewing artists, but I would still consider myself to be not very knowledgeable when it comes to music and that kind of thing, although I think I've come a ways from when I started. But that's neither here nor there.
(Actually, I realized I am going to reference that again at least once so stay tuned)
I had been wondering how they were going to fit 16 performances in the live shows, so I was happy to hear that only 2 teams (Blake and Christina's) would be performing tonight. In my mind, the artists tiered themselves out a bit on Tuesday, and it was more clear who really had potential and who didn't, although judging from various recaps/internet comments I've read, it might not have been as clear as I thought.
To start, there were a couple singers who performed who hadn't impressed me during the battle rounds. Lily Elise and her rendition of "Big Girls Don't Cry" was glaring in this regard, as it was just an awkward performance with four male dancers up there with her. I thought Cherie Oakley clearly outsung her and that she didn't have much to offer other than random runs and wailing...but then it made sense why Christina Aguilera picked her.
The other young Team Xtina (I hate myself for using that) member, Raquel Castro, likewise didn't impress me much with "Blow." To be fair, Ke$ha wouldn't really top my list of songs I'd think of to showcase one's singing ability. Raquel is a sparkplug, a mini diva, Cee Lo's "Lil Mama" and she brings a lot of energy, but I just didn't think she was that good. Her battle round was okay, although I think you could have made a case that Julia Eason was better, and I think Raquel was helped a lot by her youth and potential. But she doesn't strike me as anything beyond a middle of the pack Disney star. Maybe that would fit her better. After all, she was in Jersey Girl.
The third person who didn't impress me was Team Blake's Patrick Thomas. His performance was good, I guess, but it just seemed rather boring to me. His battle with Tyler Robinson was tight, the other three coaches actually thought Tyler won it, but in the end Blake went with Patrick the country boy, who Christina had asked to take off his pants during the blind audition. She did it AGAIN (a couple times I think) after this performance, and I know she was just trying to be funny (I hope), but it came across as really strange and kind of creepy and desperate. I can't imagine the backlash if one of the male judges said something like that to a female singer, although CeeLo's been ogling pretty much every girl up there.
Also about Christina, what the heck was up with her wardrobe? Her eyeshadow looked like it was applied wrong or something (I have no idea if that's even possible, I know nothing about eyeshadow believe it or not), and she was wearing super short short shorts. As in I could see her thighs. I'm not altogether sure she looked in the mirror before coming out.
As far as the other singers, I have to say Jared Blake kind of bored me too. He's alright, but his "Use Somebody" was nothing special, and I think he was pretty lucky to have made it through the battle rounds when Elenowen crapped their pants (in a LeBron Finals 4th quarter fashion) and had a terrible showing. If he had been matched up against Tyler or Serabee, I'm not sure he would have made it through.
Frenchie I thought did well. A lot of commenters were saying she was flat or missing notes, but I didn't really notice, although that probably says a lot more about me than anything. She's performed on Broadway, and that earns a ton of respect in my book. Blake said she has the strongest voice in the competition. I don't know if I agree with that (as in I really don't know as in I forgot what some of the others sound like), but she's definitely in the running.
Bev McClellan might as well be the poster child for this show. She's so easy to judge based on her looks as a bald lesbian who's clothing choice for the live performance was compared to a Nazi by more than one person (something like a leather jacket and checkered red kilt). But boy can she sing. She irritates me sometimes as she walks the singing/wailing/screaming line, but she's very confident in what she does and I think that has a lot of value.
Then there was Xenia. Boy...you know I really don't know if I like her or not. On one hand, her tone (you really can't talk about Xenia without talking about her tone. Or her lack of a last name) is incredible. It's sultry, smoky, and just overall very pleasing to the ear. That's a unique trait that has the potential to carry her far. On the other hand, her battle round was pretty terrible. She and her opponent Sara O were missing notes left and right and that potential (and maybe she sucked a little less) made the difference in the end. She looked and sounded a bit uncomfortable performing "Price Tag" and it was just kind of awkward. And yet the way she sounds when she's singing is so infectious, I think simply performing more is going to help her a lot. But there was just one thing I couldn't get out of my head. With Xenia standing up there with a mic stand, a band and blue lights behind her, I really imagine her true calling to be a lounge singer. It just seems to fit so perfectly.
And finally Dia Frampton. You know what, I'm not even going to try to hide the fact that I'm biased. She is probably my favorite in this competition (favorite as in personal favorite, not betting favorite). Back in my freshman year I had reviewed one of her band's albums and I loved it. Don't think of this as some weird kind of self-promotion. There are plenty of artists/groups I've reviewed that would not interest me at all on this show. But Dia's voice, which I had described as "distinct and diverse" which I think was code for "I have no idea how to describe this but I like it," has a really smooth, earthy quality that's just so easy to listen to (Check out their YouTube for more).
Her singing style is a lot less aggressive than many of the others in this competition, and I think that's mistaken for shyness or a lack of confidence. You can always tell when people haven't heard of her before because they'll say things like, "Oh, if only she had more experience she would be so much better!" Hate to break it to you, but Meg and Dia was formed in 2004 and have received critical acclaim (Rolling Stone's "New Artist You Should Know About") so at this point it's take it or leave it.
Her performance of "Heartless," which had cracked the top 30 on iTunes last I checked, should have dispelled those notions, as she really got after it, which Christina really noticed, calling her a "fighter"...although she also said she wanted to curl up with her on the couch. I think she might have been slightly drunk before coming on the show.
It was easily the standout performance of the night. I would be absolutely shocked if she did not make it through to the next round. As for the others, I really don't know. Either of the remaining 3 Team Blake members I wouldn't have a huge problem with. I think Frenchie and Bev should go on from Christina's team, but audience voting can be so random, and Christina's proven that her selections can be as well.
Well now, I guess this wasn't as short as I would have liked. But hey, maybe you should watch the show so you can know what I'm talking about. It's probably not the greatest show I've watched, but it's pulling down monster ratings so it must be doing something right.
Next week is a great week to jump in on as it has, by my reckoning, four of the top five (Dia as the fifth) singers on the show: Vicci Martinez, Nakia, Jeff Jenkins, and Javier Colon. Looking forward to it!
Thursday, June 9, 2011
One of these things is not like the other...
So I've been wanting to write a post about The Voice, but I've been distracted these past couple days by my computer getting owned by viruses. Which is not fun and which I have not quite successfully navigated through yet, if at all.
But I just wanted to hop on and make a quick remark about LeBron James, since that seems to be the cool thing to do. I'm not sure if this is going to be at all accurate, but it's just something I was thinking about.
I think we've seen that LeBron doesn't necessarily compare all that well to other superstars. Clearly, the whole Jordan thing is BS, not because LeBron isn't a great player, but because the comparison simply falls flat and makes no sense.
As ESPN's Tom Haberstroh writes:
Think about it this way. What makes LeBron such a dynamic basketball player? He has a tremendous combination of size and speed. For his position, he is an A+ rebounder, passer, and ball-handler. Combined with his exceptional court vision and basketball IQ, this makes him very scary from everywhere on the floor because he can see what's happening, then dissect the situation and execute the correct action as quick or quicker than pretty much anyone in the league. On the other hand, he's known for lacking a post game despite his considerable bulk. His outside shooting and foul shooting are mediocre. I believe that his other qualities allow him to get away with these deficiencies because he is able to get to the rim (and attempt much easier shots) and create for his teammates (who have more developed offensive weapons).
You think about Dirk and his ridiculous spin moves and fadeaways. Kevin Durant launching one handed floaters from the top of the key. Jordan and Kobe with their footwork, jabs, fading jumpers. The two-step (if you're talking about Wade) or Euro-step (if you're talking about Manu). I don't think LeBron really has a move or a standout offensive tactic like these guys, unless you count the charge to the rim which, while very effective, isn't in the same category as those other moves in my book.
It's just weird to think that someone's offense can be so good while his pure scoring ability isn't on a superstar level, but I think that's the case with LeBron.
Now I'm not excusing his play recently. At times, notably game 4, he's seemed a bit detached, maybe a little too passive. I obviously don't know what the explanation is, and there might well be a good, legitimate explanation.
I do think that we're seeing a different kind of superstar with LeBron though. There's no doubt he's an elite player, one of the greatest talents that's come into the league in a while. Maybe he really isn't a closer, not necessarily the guy you want scoring the ball late. I'm not sure that's true, given his previous series and playoff history with Cleveland, but at this point it's just shots in the dark anyway.
Will we be able to come to grips with and accept an ubertalent that doesn't (or maybe can't) score like what we're used to seeing?
But I just wanted to hop on and make a quick remark about LeBron James, since that seems to be the cool thing to do. I'm not sure if this is going to be at all accurate, but it's just something I was thinking about.
I think we've seen that LeBron doesn't necessarily compare all that well to other superstars. Clearly, the whole Jordan thing is BS, not because LeBron isn't a great player, but because the comparison simply falls flat and makes no sense.
As ESPN's Tom Haberstroh writes:
Every time we compare this James to that Jordan, we're reminded of an essential detail:To me, LeBron doesn't necessarily compare well with the traditional stars because his value and ability have as little to do with scoring as any true superstar I can think of. Obviously, he can score the ball, but if you think of superstar wings like Jordan, Kobe, or Durant, their value is very strongly tied to how many points they score. They happen to do other things very well, which is what makes them superstars, but I feel like for LeBron it's the reverse, so much so that one might say that his offense is the weakest part of his game.
Jordan had the license, ability and desire to shoot 26 times per game; James does not.
And this is the big elephant in the room. James and Jordan are different players playing in very different situations in very different eras. They are both great -- both all-time greats. But Jordan didn't have Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh on his team, begging for 32 shots every game. And Jordan will probably maintain that he wouldn't want them anyway. He wanted the ball every time down the court and we have deified him for that. That's part of made him the best basketball player to ever play the game.
There is no denying that James stunk up the joint in Game 4 when he shot just 3-for-11. But the real reason Jordan would have never scored just eight points in a Finals game is because he would have never taken just 11 shots from the floor like James did.
Why?
Because Jordan is not James, and James is not Jordan.
Think about it this way. What makes LeBron such a dynamic basketball player? He has a tremendous combination of size and speed. For his position, he is an A+ rebounder, passer, and ball-handler. Combined with his exceptional court vision and basketball IQ, this makes him very scary from everywhere on the floor because he can see what's happening, then dissect the situation and execute the correct action as quick or quicker than pretty much anyone in the league. On the other hand, he's known for lacking a post game despite his considerable bulk. His outside shooting and foul shooting are mediocre. I believe that his other qualities allow him to get away with these deficiencies because he is able to get to the rim (and attempt much easier shots) and create for his teammates (who have more developed offensive weapons).
You think about Dirk and his ridiculous spin moves and fadeaways. Kevin Durant launching one handed floaters from the top of the key. Jordan and Kobe with their footwork, jabs, fading jumpers. The two-step (if you're talking about Wade) or Euro-step (if you're talking about Manu). I don't think LeBron really has a move or a standout offensive tactic like these guys, unless you count the charge to the rim which, while very effective, isn't in the same category as those other moves in my book.
It's just weird to think that someone's offense can be so good while his pure scoring ability isn't on a superstar level, but I think that's the case with LeBron.
Now I'm not excusing his play recently. At times, notably game 4, he's seemed a bit detached, maybe a little too passive. I obviously don't know what the explanation is, and there might well be a good, legitimate explanation.
I do think that we're seeing a different kind of superstar with LeBron though. There's no doubt he's an elite player, one of the greatest talents that's come into the league in a while. Maybe he really isn't a closer, not necessarily the guy you want scoring the ball late. I'm not sure that's true, given his previous series and playoff history with Cleveland, but at this point it's just shots in the dark anyway.
Will we be able to come to grips with and accept an ubertalent that doesn't (or maybe can't) score like what we're used to seeing?
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Playoffs? Don't talk about playoffs. Playoffs?
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwq7BYOnDrM for those who don't understand the reference)
(Upfront warning, this post is long. Random commentary at the top, first round picks/previews at the bottom. And the back button is at the top of your browser if you're done reading at this point already. Which I can't really blame you for. Anyway.)
Shifting gears to the NBA playoffs, starting in about 8 hours. I wasn't going to write a post about this. Honestly I feel I have not much to contribute and there's a ton of stuff online, in newspapers, and on tv about it.
But (and I really do not intend to throw any of my colleagues under the bus or anything) I recently read this article/column in our school's paper: http://www.statepress.com/2011/04/11/picking-the-nba-playoffs-more-celtics-and-lakers/
Again to reiterate, I don't mean to be going into ombudsman-mode or criticizing unfairly...but I really question our sports' section decision to run this before the playoff matchups were even set. Luckily, there was not much movement, but two of the first round series this article previews is San Antonio vs. New Orleans and Los Angeles vs. Memphis, neither of which is happening.
Furthermore, even with an allowance for a word limit, analysis is light and, in my opinion, straight up uninformed in spots.
Once again for a third time, really don't mean to hate or anything here...but I can't really take this piece seriously when it's suggesting that the offensive prowess of Danny Granger, Darren Collison and Roy Hibbert will help the Indiana Pacers extend the Chicago Bulls to 6 games. Has the author looked at advanced stats? Or any stats? Or watched the teams play?
Not to mention the assertion that the Atlanta Hawks somehow lack "identity and purpose" and that the Dwight Howard led Orlando Magic will crush them in five games. Hey, I'm as big a Hawks hater as anybody. I think they're mediocre at best, are currently carrying the worst contract in basketball, and are constructed to remain mediocre for years to come. BUT. Matchups, matchups, matchups. Jason Collins is underrated in that most people don't realize he can actually do an adequate job defending Dwight Howard by himself in the post, somewhat containing him and freeing up the rest of the Hawks to stick to their men, also reducing the effectiveness of the Magic's 3 point attack. The Magic have no one else who can create and none of the guards should be problematic for Kirk Hinrich. Also, while a top 3 defensive team, Orlando has no above-average defenders aside from Howard, the likely defensive player of the year, meaning that players like (sigh) Joe Johnson and Jamal Crawford are liable to go off, not to mention the nightmare that Josh Smith will be for Orlando's 3s and 4s. I still would struggle to pick the Hawks, but this is just an example of a minimum amount of depth I'd expect any playoff discussion, or respectable one at least, to scratch the surface of.
Look (for one last time, no disrespect intended, I don't want to get in trouble lol), I'm no guru. Honestly, most of what I know is some kind of amalgamation/regurgitation of what I read from people much smarter and more knowledgeable (<-- a surprisingly hard word to spell at 2:30 AM) than I am (not to say I take everything at face value. It's gotta at least make sense/be confirmed by numbers and the eye test). But don't you have to at least look at something instead of just trying to go it yourself? What do I know. I'm just an A&E writer.
But real quick, might as well take a brief, brief look at these series. Picking series length is never an exact science, and I'm going to say right up front for the most part it might just be numbers I think sound good.
WEST
1. Spurs vs 8. Grizzlies.
Not sure why the Grizz would want to tank for this matchup. Ginobili's injury takes away a primary ball-handler/scorer/wing defender for SA so it's important for them that he comes back soon, probably Game 2 at the latest. Memphis's frontcourt of Randolph and Gasol is nasty, but I don't trust them to be consistent enough to dominate the Duncan/Blair/McDyess trio for a whole series. The Spurs' experience (Parker, Manu, Duncan) and youth (Hill, Blair, Neal) are a dangerous combination. The Grizzlies start Sam Young.
Spurs in 6
2. Lakers vs 7. Hornets
Honestly the Hornets are the least scary team in the playoffs not named the Indiana Pacers. Chris Paul is a phenomenal point guard, but he has no help whatsoever, especially now that David West is out. As good as he is, he can't beat the Lakers on his own. Okafor is a nice defensive center, but he can't contain Pau and Bynum (not to mention Odom off the bench) himself. The Lakers are too tall, long, and even deep for the Hornets. This is a sweepable series for the Lakers. Knowing them, this means this could go 6 or 7 games.
Lakers in 5
3. Mavericks vs 6. Trail Blazers
Ah, the first round upset special of so many pundits. I get it. LaMarcus Aldridge is going to be a handful for Dallas, the Blazers have ridiculous athleticism and length, especially at the wing spots, Gerald Wallace has injected them with grit since his arrival, the Mavericks have no one behind Dirk, a not-so-great recent playoff history, no Caron Butler, and I'm honestly not sure what it is that Jason Kidd does on the floor (though he always seems to dish a ton of assists, grab a few rebounds and maybe hit a three pointer). Still...wait, no. There's no turn. Unless Dirk can carry Dallas on his back, which I'm not going to rule out, this is a dangerous matchup for the Mavericks. They need Jason Terry to light it up off the bench, maybe a vintage Matrix performance from Shawn Marion. I feel like both teams are good, not great, and not likely to last more than a round.
Blazers in 7
4. Thunder vs 5. Nuggets
I love this Denver Nuggets team. They have 7 or 8 guys who can go off for 20 points a game and, since the Melo trade, they've played without fear and their offense is clicking in a way it couldn't have with Anthony, an elite scorer but isolation specialist and all-world ball stopper. They can put out small or big lineups and not miss a beat. But OKC also made an important deadline move. More than any points, rebounds, or blocks, Kendrick Perkins brings intangibles. We saw how Boston cried their way to the end of the season without him. Perk gives OKC a nasty edge, and his defensive abilities frees up Serge Ibaka to become a weakside shotblocking menace. Add that to a Westbrook/Durant led offense and you have a team that can play with anyone on both sides of the floor.
OKC in 6
EAST
1. Bulls vs 8. Pacers
Ugh, really? The 37-45 Pacers are in the playoffs? For perspective, the Golden State Warriors finished 36-46 and their coach is probably going to get fired. Despite my previous comments, I like the Granger/Collison/Hibbert core as well as Tyler Hansbrough as an energy guy/sixth man type, and if Paul George ever puts it together, he can be a starting wing who can do a bit of everything. None of this matters for this series. The Bulls elite defense will stifle the Pacers' bottom 10 offense, Derrick Rose will do whatever he wants, and Chicago will walk through Indy.
Bulls in 4 (given that this game is at 1 ET Saturday, it's also the first series that could make me look like an incredible idiot)
2. Heat vs. 7. Sixers
I like the 76ers also. Doug Collins has done a good job with this young team and they have solid athletes and players across the board. But honestly, and I can't believe I'm about to say this, I think people might be underestimating the Heat a little bit. Philly has a good defense, but Miami has an elite defense AND an elite offense. Aside from Elton Brand, the Sixers' best players are guards and wings (Holiday, Iguodala, Williams, Young), which plays right into Miami's strength. Udonis Haslem hopes to return soon and, in the playoffs, coaches can shorten up their rotation and increase their stars' minutes, all of which benefits Miami.
Heat in 5
3. Celtics vs. 6. Knicks
Not sure why some people like the Knicks to upset Boston. Amare and Melo are elite offensive players who love to work out of iso sets. They'll get their points, but Boston will make them work for it. They're a proven team with one of the best defenses in the league. When it comes down to it, Boston will be able to get stops while the Knicks' defense basically consists of hoping that Boston misses a bunch of shots.
Celtics in 5
4. Magic vs. 5. Hawks
Kind of went into detail on this series earlier in the post. I still like the Magic here because Jason Collins is banged up and I just can't bring myself to pick the Hawks. Yes, Johnson and Crawford could go off...but they could also settle for and miss bad jumpers for however many games this last. Josh Smith could dominate...but he could also choose to not use his incredible athleticism and just jack up threes. I want to pick the Hawks here, I really do, but they're just so amazingly average and unimpressive that I can't trust them to beat a Magic team that was in the NBA Finals just two years ago. Atlanta matches up decently, but I've got a feeling that even if they start off on the right foot, Dwight will wear them down until he gets his and opens it up for his shooters as well. Given the Hawks' inconsistencies, this should be the closest series in the East but also could be a train wreck of a sweep as well.
Magic in 6
(Upfront warning, this post is long. Random commentary at the top, first round picks/previews at the bottom. And the back button is at the top of your browser if you're done reading at this point already. Which I can't really blame you for. Anyway.)
Shifting gears to the NBA playoffs, starting in about 8 hours. I wasn't going to write a post about this. Honestly I feel I have not much to contribute and there's a ton of stuff online, in newspapers, and on tv about it.
But (and I really do not intend to throw any of my colleagues under the bus or anything) I recently read this article/column in our school's paper: http://www.statepress.com/2011/04/11/picking-the-nba-playoffs-more-celtics-and-lakers/
Again to reiterate, I don't mean to be going into ombudsman-mode or criticizing unfairly...but I really question our sports' section decision to run this before the playoff matchups were even set. Luckily, there was not much movement, but two of the first round series this article previews is San Antonio vs. New Orleans and Los Angeles vs. Memphis, neither of which is happening.
Furthermore, even with an allowance for a word limit, analysis is light and, in my opinion, straight up uninformed in spots.
Once again for a third time, really don't mean to hate or anything here...but I can't really take this piece seriously when it's suggesting that the offensive prowess of Danny Granger, Darren Collison and Roy Hibbert will help the Indiana Pacers extend the Chicago Bulls to 6 games. Has the author looked at advanced stats? Or any stats? Or watched the teams play?
Not to mention the assertion that the Atlanta Hawks somehow lack "identity and purpose" and that the Dwight Howard led Orlando Magic will crush them in five games. Hey, I'm as big a Hawks hater as anybody. I think they're mediocre at best, are currently carrying the worst contract in basketball, and are constructed to remain mediocre for years to come. BUT. Matchups, matchups, matchups. Jason Collins is underrated in that most people don't realize he can actually do an adequate job defending Dwight Howard by himself in the post, somewhat containing him and freeing up the rest of the Hawks to stick to their men, also reducing the effectiveness of the Magic's 3 point attack. The Magic have no one else who can create and none of the guards should be problematic for Kirk Hinrich. Also, while a top 3 defensive team, Orlando has no above-average defenders aside from Howard, the likely defensive player of the year, meaning that players like (sigh) Joe Johnson and Jamal Crawford are liable to go off, not to mention the nightmare that Josh Smith will be for Orlando's 3s and 4s. I still would struggle to pick the Hawks, but this is just an example of a minimum amount of depth I'd expect any playoff discussion, or respectable one at least, to scratch the surface of.
Look (for one last time, no disrespect intended, I don't want to get in trouble lol), I'm no guru. Honestly, most of what I know is some kind of amalgamation/regurgitation of what I read from people much smarter and more knowledgeable (<-- a surprisingly hard word to spell at 2:30 AM) than I am (not to say I take everything at face value. It's gotta at least make sense/be confirmed by numbers and the eye test). But don't you have to at least look at something instead of just trying to go it yourself? What do I know. I'm just an A&E writer.
But real quick, might as well take a brief, brief look at these series. Picking series length is never an exact science, and I'm going to say right up front for the most part it might just be numbers I think sound good.
WEST
1. Spurs vs 8. Grizzlies.
Not sure why the Grizz would want to tank for this matchup. Ginobili's injury takes away a primary ball-handler/scorer/wing defender for SA so it's important for them that he comes back soon, probably Game 2 at the latest. Memphis's frontcourt of Randolph and Gasol is nasty, but I don't trust them to be consistent enough to dominate the Duncan/Blair/McDyess trio for a whole series. The Spurs' experience (Parker, Manu, Duncan) and youth (Hill, Blair, Neal) are a dangerous combination. The Grizzlies start Sam Young.
Spurs in 6
2. Lakers vs 7. Hornets
Honestly the Hornets are the least scary team in the playoffs not named the Indiana Pacers. Chris Paul is a phenomenal point guard, but he has no help whatsoever, especially now that David West is out. As good as he is, he can't beat the Lakers on his own. Okafor is a nice defensive center, but he can't contain Pau and Bynum (not to mention Odom off the bench) himself. The Lakers are too tall, long, and even deep for the Hornets. This is a sweepable series for the Lakers. Knowing them, this means this could go 6 or 7 games.
Lakers in 5
3. Mavericks vs 6. Trail Blazers
Ah, the first round upset special of so many pundits. I get it. LaMarcus Aldridge is going to be a handful for Dallas, the Blazers have ridiculous athleticism and length, especially at the wing spots, Gerald Wallace has injected them with grit since his arrival, the Mavericks have no one behind Dirk, a not-so-great recent playoff history, no Caron Butler, and I'm honestly not sure what it is that Jason Kidd does on the floor (though he always seems to dish a ton of assists, grab a few rebounds and maybe hit a three pointer). Still...wait, no. There's no turn. Unless Dirk can carry Dallas on his back, which I'm not going to rule out, this is a dangerous matchup for the Mavericks. They need Jason Terry to light it up off the bench, maybe a vintage Matrix performance from Shawn Marion. I feel like both teams are good, not great, and not likely to last more than a round.
Blazers in 7
4. Thunder vs 5. Nuggets
I love this Denver Nuggets team. They have 7 or 8 guys who can go off for 20 points a game and, since the Melo trade, they've played without fear and their offense is clicking in a way it couldn't have with Anthony, an elite scorer but isolation specialist and all-world ball stopper. They can put out small or big lineups and not miss a beat. But OKC also made an important deadline move. More than any points, rebounds, or blocks, Kendrick Perkins brings intangibles. We saw how Boston cried their way to the end of the season without him. Perk gives OKC a nasty edge, and his defensive abilities frees up Serge Ibaka to become a weakside shotblocking menace. Add that to a Westbrook/Durant led offense and you have a team that can play with anyone on both sides of the floor.
OKC in 6
EAST
1. Bulls vs 8. Pacers
Ugh, really? The 37-45 Pacers are in the playoffs? For perspective, the Golden State Warriors finished 36-46 and their coach is probably going to get fired. Despite my previous comments, I like the Granger/Collison/Hibbert core as well as Tyler Hansbrough as an energy guy/sixth man type, and if Paul George ever puts it together, he can be a starting wing who can do a bit of everything. None of this matters for this series. The Bulls elite defense will stifle the Pacers' bottom 10 offense, Derrick Rose will do whatever he wants, and Chicago will walk through Indy.
Bulls in 4 (given that this game is at 1 ET Saturday, it's also the first series that could make me look like an incredible idiot)
2. Heat vs. 7. Sixers
I like the 76ers also. Doug Collins has done a good job with this young team and they have solid athletes and players across the board. But honestly, and I can't believe I'm about to say this, I think people might be underestimating the Heat a little bit. Philly has a good defense, but Miami has an elite defense AND an elite offense. Aside from Elton Brand, the Sixers' best players are guards and wings (Holiday, Iguodala, Williams, Young), which plays right into Miami's strength. Udonis Haslem hopes to return soon and, in the playoffs, coaches can shorten up their rotation and increase their stars' minutes, all of which benefits Miami.
Heat in 5
3. Celtics vs. 6. Knicks
Not sure why some people like the Knicks to upset Boston. Amare and Melo are elite offensive players who love to work out of iso sets. They'll get their points, but Boston will make them work for it. They're a proven team with one of the best defenses in the league. When it comes down to it, Boston will be able to get stops while the Knicks' defense basically consists of hoping that Boston misses a bunch of shots.
Celtics in 5
4. Magic vs. 5. Hawks
Kind of went into detail on this series earlier in the post. I still like the Magic here because Jason Collins is banged up and I just can't bring myself to pick the Hawks. Yes, Johnson and Crawford could go off...but they could also settle for and miss bad jumpers for however many games this last. Josh Smith could dominate...but he could also choose to not use his incredible athleticism and just jack up threes. I want to pick the Hawks here, I really do, but they're just so amazingly average and unimpressive that I can't trust them to beat a Magic team that was in the NBA Finals just two years ago. Atlanta matches up decently, but I've got a feeling that even if they start off on the right foot, Dwight will wear them down until he gets his and opens it up for his shooters as well. Given the Hawks' inconsistencies, this should be the closest series in the East but also could be a train wreck of a sweep as well.
Magic in 6
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Talkin about playoffs
I love the NHL playoffs. There's really nothing that comes close in terms of intensity, excitement, and playoff beards.
But I think what really sets it apart, especially this year, is a combination of parity and storylines. Pretty much every opening round series has a chance for an upset, or at least a legitimate chance to stretch the full seven games. Can you say that about the NBA where most observers are already looking ahead to 2nd round matchups, if not the conference finals?
The storylines are really the interesting part though as there are so many of them.
Take for example the 4v5 Western Conference series starring my beloved Anaheim Ducks and the Nashville Predators. I am older than both of these teams, so it would be reasonable to think that there wouldn't be that much to talk about in this matchup. But you would be wrong.
For starters, the Ducks charged to the 4th seed after the All-Star break, an impressive feat considering they were fighting for their playoff lives as recently as last week. Not to mention they've had a revolving door at goalie ever since All-Star Jonas Hiller came down with symptoms of vertigo, which led to the incredible comeback story of Ray Emery.
It's a high powered offense led by a 50 goal scoring Hart Trophy (MVP) candidate (Corey Perry), two 30 goal scorers (Bobby Ryan, Teemu Selanne) and the league's top point-getting defenseman (Lubomir Visnovsky) facing off against the best defensive tandem in the NHL (Ryan Suter & Shea Weber) backstopped by a Vezina trophy candidate (Pekka Rinne).
Speaking of Selanne, he's a 40 year old man performing near the peak of his abilities. How else do you explain an 80 point (31 g, 49 a) season skating nearly 18 minutes a game?
To top it all off, the Predators are dealing with not just the Ducks, but their own playoff history as well. The franchise has never won a round in the playoffs. Just last year, they were primed to go up 3-2 against the Chicago Blackhawks when they were up by 1 in game 5 with a power play and less than a minute to go. A costly turnover led to a Chicago goal, OT victory, and eventual Stanley Cup winning run while the Predators got sent home early.
All this from one series which, in all honesty, probably is not featuring a Cup contender.
On the other side you have the Boston Bruins vs Montreal Canadiens. Bad blood is an understatement. This rivalry between Original Six teams goes back to the origins of the league and the current incarnations hate each other as well, in no small part due to Zdeno Chara's brutal check on Max Pacioretty which led to Pacioretty being carried off the ice on a stretcher. There will be fireworks, good old-fashioned hockey, and two top 5 goalies (Tim Thomas, Carey Price) in net which should make for an interesting series.
That's why I love these playoffs. You can't go wrong with any of these series. It doesn't matter whether it's Eastern Conference or Western, new teams or old teams, there's going to be some great hockey to be played and great narratives to be discussed, closed, and created. To quote the famous DJ Pauly D, "I love it this time of year!"
EDIT:
Forgot to add this ESPN.com article, which pretty much encapsulates what I'm talking about.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs/2011/news/story?id=6344535
But I think what really sets it apart, especially this year, is a combination of parity and storylines. Pretty much every opening round series has a chance for an upset, or at least a legitimate chance to stretch the full seven games. Can you say that about the NBA where most observers are already looking ahead to 2nd round matchups, if not the conference finals?
The storylines are really the interesting part though as there are so many of them.
Take for example the 4v5 Western Conference series starring my beloved Anaheim Ducks and the Nashville Predators. I am older than both of these teams, so it would be reasonable to think that there wouldn't be that much to talk about in this matchup. But you would be wrong.
For starters, the Ducks charged to the 4th seed after the All-Star break, an impressive feat considering they were fighting for their playoff lives as recently as last week. Not to mention they've had a revolving door at goalie ever since All-Star Jonas Hiller came down with symptoms of vertigo, which led to the incredible comeback story of Ray Emery.
It's a high powered offense led by a 50 goal scoring Hart Trophy (MVP) candidate (Corey Perry), two 30 goal scorers (Bobby Ryan, Teemu Selanne) and the league's top point-getting defenseman (Lubomir Visnovsky) facing off against the best defensive tandem in the NHL (Ryan Suter & Shea Weber) backstopped by a Vezina trophy candidate (Pekka Rinne).
Speaking of Selanne, he's a 40 year old man performing near the peak of his abilities. How else do you explain an 80 point (31 g, 49 a) season skating nearly 18 minutes a game?
To top it all off, the Predators are dealing with not just the Ducks, but their own playoff history as well. The franchise has never won a round in the playoffs. Just last year, they were primed to go up 3-2 against the Chicago Blackhawks when they were up by 1 in game 5 with a power play and less than a minute to go. A costly turnover led to a Chicago goal, OT victory, and eventual Stanley Cup winning run while the Predators got sent home early.
All this from one series which, in all honesty, probably is not featuring a Cup contender.
On the other side you have the Boston Bruins vs Montreal Canadiens. Bad blood is an understatement. This rivalry between Original Six teams goes back to the origins of the league and the current incarnations hate each other as well, in no small part due to Zdeno Chara's brutal check on Max Pacioretty which led to Pacioretty being carried off the ice on a stretcher. There will be fireworks, good old-fashioned hockey, and two top 5 goalies (Tim Thomas, Carey Price) in net which should make for an interesting series.
That's why I love these playoffs. You can't go wrong with any of these series. It doesn't matter whether it's Eastern Conference or Western, new teams or old teams, there's going to be some great hockey to be played and great narratives to be discussed, closed, and created. To quote the famous DJ Pauly D, "I love it this time of year!"
EDIT:
Forgot to add this ESPN.com article, which pretty much encapsulates what I'm talking about.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs/2011/news/story?id=6344535
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Coming Home
(With all due respect to Diddy)
It's that time of year for us students. That last sprint to the finish where we're pretty much just hanging on at this point and trying not to screw up or get burnt out too badly. Everything just sort of seems to ramp up in intensity and stress.
So it was nice that I got to spend last week back in Irvine over spring break. One of my favorite things about going home is simply that it always feels like home to me. It makes sense, given that I was born and raised there my entire life before college, but everything always feels so familiar. Driving down the same streets, walking around the same places, it just feels right. It's something that's hard to put into words, that sense of belonging and identity that's attached to a location, but it's always so powerful when I get back.
It's funny because whenever I come back to ASU, there's also a certain sense of familiarity. I remember the first time I came out here, it was an adjustment simply because I wasn't used to where things were. I like to group trips based on what's near each other and that process is different out here because, obviously, stores/restaurants aren't clustered in exactly the same way. There were other things too, like how big the street signs are here compared to back home or the speed cameras which are all over or the lack of a double yellow line on the carpool lane.
But now it feels pretty ordinary coming back. Getting off the 10 east to get back to my place here feels the same to me whether I started in Orange County or somewhere in Phoenix. And yet even though it's much more natural now, there's still a distinct difference. Being in Tempe feels normal, but being in Irvine feels home.
I was thinking about this when I reading Hebrews 11:13-16 earlier this week.
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country--a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
As Christians we often talk about how we're citizens of heaven and strangers of this world, but I don't know how often I personally really think about that and what it means. I know I don't have a perfect understanding of that at all. Conceptually I know that being a citizen of heaven means having that longing to be away from this world which pales so much in comparison to our heavenly home but also representing our Father while we're still here.
I think it's so easy to keep that in the back of our heads and act like we hold dual citizenship. We fool ourselves into thinking that we can keep our citizenship in heaven while temporarily having citizenship of this earth as well and access the "privileges" that it entails. But that's not the case at all and shouldn't be how we think. It's impossible to be both.
Rather I think it's more appropriate to take on the perspective that we have a working visa for this world. We're all here for a designated amount of time and all have a job to do and responsibilities during our stay. Then once we're done, we leave. We go back to that "better country" that's talked about in Hebrews. And even though we haven't been there yet, once we get there we will know it and love it and it'll be like we've been there forever. Because that's what it's like to go home.
It's that time of year for us students. That last sprint to the finish where we're pretty much just hanging on at this point and trying not to screw up or get burnt out too badly. Everything just sort of seems to ramp up in intensity and stress.
So it was nice that I got to spend last week back in Irvine over spring break. One of my favorite things about going home is simply that it always feels like home to me. It makes sense, given that I was born and raised there my entire life before college, but everything always feels so familiar. Driving down the same streets, walking around the same places, it just feels right. It's something that's hard to put into words, that sense of belonging and identity that's attached to a location, but it's always so powerful when I get back.
It's funny because whenever I come back to ASU, there's also a certain sense of familiarity. I remember the first time I came out here, it was an adjustment simply because I wasn't used to where things were. I like to group trips based on what's near each other and that process is different out here because, obviously, stores/restaurants aren't clustered in exactly the same way. There were other things too, like how big the street signs are here compared to back home or the speed cameras which are all over or the lack of a double yellow line on the carpool lane.
But now it feels pretty ordinary coming back. Getting off the 10 east to get back to my place here feels the same to me whether I started in Orange County or somewhere in Phoenix. And yet even though it's much more natural now, there's still a distinct difference. Being in Tempe feels normal, but being in Irvine feels home.
I was thinking about this when I reading Hebrews 11:13-16 earlier this week.
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country--a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
As Christians we often talk about how we're citizens of heaven and strangers of this world, but I don't know how often I personally really think about that and what it means. I know I don't have a perfect understanding of that at all. Conceptually I know that being a citizen of heaven means having that longing to be away from this world which pales so much in comparison to our heavenly home but also representing our Father while we're still here.
I think it's so easy to keep that in the back of our heads and act like we hold dual citizenship. We fool ourselves into thinking that we can keep our citizenship in heaven while temporarily having citizenship of this earth as well and access the "privileges" that it entails. But that's not the case at all and shouldn't be how we think. It's impossible to be both.
Rather I think it's more appropriate to take on the perspective that we have a working visa for this world. We're all here for a designated amount of time and all have a job to do and responsibilities during our stay. Then once we're done, we leave. We go back to that "better country" that's talked about in Hebrews. And even though we haven't been there yet, once we get there we will know it and love it and it'll be like we've been there forever. Because that's what it's like to go home.
Quick Hits: Ultimate Fight Night 24
Haven't done one of these in a while, but this Ultimate Fight Night was pretty unique as a whopping nine fights off this card were made available. The first three on the card (Lentz/Lowe, Simpson/Miranda, Hendricks/Waldburger) were dark, but the UFC aired the remaining five undercard fights live on Facebook, followed by a live (or tape delayed, for us West Coasters) broadcast of the main card on Spike TV. Quick, random thoughts from the night.
- I didn't expect much from the first FB fight featuring Sean McCorkle and Christian Morecraft, but Morecraft actually looked decent on his way to a 2nd round submission. He was tagging McCorkle on the feet and showed some okay grappling as well before locking up a standing guillotine that put "Big Sexy" to sleep. I doubt he'll ever be of much consequence in the heavyweight division, and this fight was probably more notable for the sheer size of the competitors (6'6" 265 for Morecraft and 6'7" 266 for McCorkle), but Morecraft put on a good show and was rewarded with a victory.
- Michael McDonald vs Edwin Figueroa may have been my favorite fight of the night. Two young guns, 20 and 26 respectively, in an all out war. The standup exchanges were exciting with both men landing shots and neither backing down. McDonald had Figueroa in a bunch of tight spots on the ground, and even though it looked like he was going to finish a few times, Figueroa hung tough, refused to tap and managed to escape. Though he put in a great effort taking the fight on just six days notice, Figueroa didn't have enough as McDonald grabbed a convincing decision with a 30-27 verdict on all scorecards. Still, a super entertaining fight and a bright future for both guys.
- Figueroa had my favorite quote of the night after Joe Rogan asked how he handled taking the fight on such short notice. He said, "If God takes me to it, He'll take me through it." Such a simple truth that's so easily forgotten and would take away a lot of our stress and worry.
- John Hathaway nearly finished Kris "Savage" McCray early on in the fight with a leglock but ended up pulling out a split decision victory. It was a good, not great win in my opinion as, other than that initial submission attempt, Hathaway did not threaten to finish McCray in the fight. Still he was able to score on the feet and on the ground and remains a well-rounded threat in the welterweight division. Would like to see him take a step up in competition, which he's undoubtedly ready for.
- Really glad Chan Sung Jung, aka the Korean Zombie, picked up a win over Leonard Garcia in their rematch tonight. Many thought he should have won the first time around, and he left no doubt as he finished Garcia with a twister in the 2nd. I had never actually seen anyone do that before, and apparently it was the first time it's been used as a finish in the UFC so congrats to Jung for that. He obviously can hold his own on the feet and his grappling looked sick tonight. Hope to see him again on a main card soon.
- Amir Sadollah looked good in finishing DaMarques Johnson. Johnson took the fight on late notice and was game as usual, but Sadollah was really able to dominate in the 2nd round. He got taken down and hit a couple times but was never in trouble and kept calm until he was able to put Johnson down himself before controlling him and dropping punches and elbows until he got the win.
- I will never understand how Anthony "Rumble" Johnson cuts down from a walking weight of around 230 all the way to 170/171, but he does and he was able to use his strength to his advantage tonight. I, and most others I would assume, was expecting a slugfest, but aside from a big head kick that knocked Dan Hardy down in the 1st, Johnson focused on his takedowns and ground and pound to impose his will. Sometimes I forget how good his wrestling is as he's often content to bomb away on opponents, but Rumble used his size to his advantage, dragging Hardy down every round and keeping him there, sealing a dominant victory.
- In the main event, Phil "Mr. Wonderful" Davis was able to take a decision over Antoino Rogerio "Minotoro" Nogueira, overcoming a 1st round in which all his takedown attempts where stuffed. Lil Nog got the better of the standup exchanges, but Davis adapted in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, shooting for single instead of double-leg takedowns and scoring with them. I'm a little surprised Lil Nog didn't use his guard a little more offensively as it looked like he was more focused on defending from Davis's ground and pound and pushing him away to get back on his feet. I get that he (correctly) felt he had an advantage there, but he's a black belt and a Nogueira, so I would have thought he'd spend a little more time working his lethal guard play, especially towards the end of the fight when he had to know he was behind on the scorecards. Still, it was a good fight. Nogueira is clearly still relevant in the 205 division although he will probably never be a title contender. Davis is a #sowonderful up-and-comer with some serious skills but some serious work to do as well. I think he's ready to test himself against another world-ranked opponent.
Overall a nice night of fights. A couple snoozers here and there (Madsen/Russow, ugh), but several high-paced barnburners as well (Semerzier/Cacares was fun while it lasted). Good show, looking forward to GSP/Shields in April.
- I didn't expect much from the first FB fight featuring Sean McCorkle and Christian Morecraft, but Morecraft actually looked decent on his way to a 2nd round submission. He was tagging McCorkle on the feet and showed some okay grappling as well before locking up a standing guillotine that put "Big Sexy" to sleep. I doubt he'll ever be of much consequence in the heavyweight division, and this fight was probably more notable for the sheer size of the competitors (6'6" 265 for Morecraft and 6'7" 266 for McCorkle), but Morecraft put on a good show and was rewarded with a victory.
- Michael McDonald vs Edwin Figueroa may have been my favorite fight of the night. Two young guns, 20 and 26 respectively, in an all out war. The standup exchanges were exciting with both men landing shots and neither backing down. McDonald had Figueroa in a bunch of tight spots on the ground, and even though it looked like he was going to finish a few times, Figueroa hung tough, refused to tap and managed to escape. Though he put in a great effort taking the fight on just six days notice, Figueroa didn't have enough as McDonald grabbed a convincing decision with a 30-27 verdict on all scorecards. Still, a super entertaining fight and a bright future for both guys.
- Figueroa had my favorite quote of the night after Joe Rogan asked how he handled taking the fight on such short notice. He said, "If God takes me to it, He'll take me through it." Such a simple truth that's so easily forgotten and would take away a lot of our stress and worry.
- John Hathaway nearly finished Kris "Savage" McCray early on in the fight with a leglock but ended up pulling out a split decision victory. It was a good, not great win in my opinion as, other than that initial submission attempt, Hathaway did not threaten to finish McCray in the fight. Still he was able to score on the feet and on the ground and remains a well-rounded threat in the welterweight division. Would like to see him take a step up in competition, which he's undoubtedly ready for.
- Really glad Chan Sung Jung, aka the Korean Zombie, picked up a win over Leonard Garcia in their rematch tonight. Many thought he should have won the first time around, and he left no doubt as he finished Garcia with a twister in the 2nd. I had never actually seen anyone do that before, and apparently it was the first time it's been used as a finish in the UFC so congrats to Jung for that. He obviously can hold his own on the feet and his grappling looked sick tonight. Hope to see him again on a main card soon.
- Amir Sadollah looked good in finishing DaMarques Johnson. Johnson took the fight on late notice and was game as usual, but Sadollah was really able to dominate in the 2nd round. He got taken down and hit a couple times but was never in trouble and kept calm until he was able to put Johnson down himself before controlling him and dropping punches and elbows until he got the win.
- I will never understand how Anthony "Rumble" Johnson cuts down from a walking weight of around 230 all the way to 170/171, but he does and he was able to use his strength to his advantage tonight. I, and most others I would assume, was expecting a slugfest, but aside from a big head kick that knocked Dan Hardy down in the 1st, Johnson focused on his takedowns and ground and pound to impose his will. Sometimes I forget how good his wrestling is as he's often content to bomb away on opponents, but Rumble used his size to his advantage, dragging Hardy down every round and keeping him there, sealing a dominant victory.
- In the main event, Phil "Mr. Wonderful" Davis was able to take a decision over Antoino Rogerio "Minotoro" Nogueira, overcoming a 1st round in which all his takedown attempts where stuffed. Lil Nog got the better of the standup exchanges, but Davis adapted in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, shooting for single instead of double-leg takedowns and scoring with them. I'm a little surprised Lil Nog didn't use his guard a little more offensively as it looked like he was more focused on defending from Davis's ground and pound and pushing him away to get back on his feet. I get that he (correctly) felt he had an advantage there, but he's a black belt and a Nogueira, so I would have thought he'd spend a little more time working his lethal guard play, especially towards the end of the fight when he had to know he was behind on the scorecards. Still, it was a good fight. Nogueira is clearly still relevant in the 205 division although he will probably never be a title contender. Davis is a #sowonderful up-and-comer with some serious skills but some serious work to do as well. I think he's ready to test himself against another world-ranked opponent.
Overall a nice night of fights. A couple snoozers here and there (Madsen/Russow, ugh), but several high-paced barnburners as well (Semerzier/Cacares was fun while it lasted). Good show, looking forward to GSP/Shields in April.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Derrick Rose: Is he who we think he is?
In the past few weeks there has been so much buzz about Derrick Rose's MVP candidacy, whether it's Stan Van Gundy claiming that the media has all but crowned him MVP already, ESPN.com essentially agreeing, or a number of outlets vehemently stating that he should or should not win the award and how they can't see how the other side of the argument even exists.
It seems like so long ago that we were talking about LeBron James, after his 2nd consecutive MVP with fans and media alike already wondering if it a 3rd straight was inevitable, or Kevin Durant, with his humility, leadership, and 30 points per game making his case, as surefire MVP candidates.
But now it seems as if it's Rose's award to lose. Personally, I don't see it. Not to say I don't think he's a great player, which he clearly his. His defense seems to be getting better, and while his jump shot has very clearly not improved as much as some might lead you to think (his percentages on mid and long 2s is actually worse than last year), he has at least replaced relatively inefficient 2 pointers with 3 attempts, which effectively makes him a better shooter. He has clearly taken ownership of this Chicago Bulls team which has risen into the elite class of the Eastern Conference.
Still...I don't think any of this makes him a lock for the MVP. Defense in the NBA is clearly a team effort. Sure, great individual lockdown players always helps but only to an extent. The arrival of guru Tom Thibodeau and the continued maturation of players like Taj Gibson definitely played a big role in Chicago's improved defense. Rose may be getting better, but many people count the point guard spot as one of the least important spots in a team's defense. His offensive stats are impressive, and yet look at this comparison.
Player A: 22.2 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 8.3 APG, 1.8 SPG, 3.9 TO, 44.4% FG, 84.1% FT, 53.9 TS%, 23.8 PER
Player B: 24.9 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 7.8 APG, 1.1 SPG, 3.4 TO, 44.0% FG, 84.7% FT, 54.0 TS%, 23.3 PER
Pretty freakin identical right? So why is Player B, Derrick Rose, talked about like he absolutely deserves the MVP above and beyond everyone else while Player A, Russell Westbrook, is not even in the discussion? Yes, Rose took a team that was .500 and an 8 seed last year to the top of the conference (for now). But I think it's equally impressive that Westbrook's team, the Oklahoma City Thunder, has moved into the upper half of the deeper Western Conference this year while also being an 8 seed last year. OKC was a 50 win team last year and, avoiding a massive losing streak, will win over 50 this year, due in no small part to Westbrook's emergence as not just a second fiddle to Durant, but a sidekick and equal.
And this is before we even talk about James, still putting up gaudy statlines, Dwight Howard, a defensive juggernaut and growing offensive weapon, or Dirk Nowitzki, who can still ball and whose Dallas Mavericks looked lost without when he went down.
I'm not trying to diminish Rose at all here. He and his team have kicked their play up another level this year and that is certainly to be commended. But it seems like there are too many holes in his MVP argument and too many other viable and legitimate candidates to be speaking of him as a lock.
The bigger problem is one that's familiar with sports fan. What exactly does the MVP award mean? How do we weigh a player's stats with his team's record with the simple eye test we all use when we watch him play? The MVP means something different to every person, which is why there's often such great debate over it.
In the end, because the definition of the MVP is so nebulous and vague, I think it's remarkable that Rose is even in this position. He is no doubt a legitimate candidate for the award, and, in just his third season, that's saying a lot. The rest is for the voters to decide.
It seems like so long ago that we were talking about LeBron James, after his 2nd consecutive MVP with fans and media alike already wondering if it a 3rd straight was inevitable, or Kevin Durant, with his humility, leadership, and 30 points per game making his case, as surefire MVP candidates.
But now it seems as if it's Rose's award to lose. Personally, I don't see it. Not to say I don't think he's a great player, which he clearly his. His defense seems to be getting better, and while his jump shot has very clearly not improved as much as some might lead you to think (his percentages on mid and long 2s is actually worse than last year), he has at least replaced relatively inefficient 2 pointers with 3 attempts, which effectively makes him a better shooter. He has clearly taken ownership of this Chicago Bulls team which has risen into the elite class of the Eastern Conference.
Still...I don't think any of this makes him a lock for the MVP. Defense in the NBA is clearly a team effort. Sure, great individual lockdown players always helps but only to an extent. The arrival of guru Tom Thibodeau and the continued maturation of players like Taj Gibson definitely played a big role in Chicago's improved defense. Rose may be getting better, but many people count the point guard spot as one of the least important spots in a team's defense. His offensive stats are impressive, and yet look at this comparison.
Player A: 22.2 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 8.3 APG, 1.8 SPG, 3.9 TO, 44.4% FG, 84.1% FT, 53.9 TS%, 23.8 PER
Player B: 24.9 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 7.8 APG, 1.1 SPG, 3.4 TO, 44.0% FG, 84.7% FT, 54.0 TS%, 23.3 PER
Pretty freakin identical right? So why is Player B, Derrick Rose, talked about like he absolutely deserves the MVP above and beyond everyone else while Player A, Russell Westbrook, is not even in the discussion? Yes, Rose took a team that was .500 and an 8 seed last year to the top of the conference (for now). But I think it's equally impressive that Westbrook's team, the Oklahoma City Thunder, has moved into the upper half of the deeper Western Conference this year while also being an 8 seed last year. OKC was a 50 win team last year and, avoiding a massive losing streak, will win over 50 this year, due in no small part to Westbrook's emergence as not just a second fiddle to Durant, but a sidekick and equal.
And this is before we even talk about James, still putting up gaudy statlines, Dwight Howard, a defensive juggernaut and growing offensive weapon, or Dirk Nowitzki, who can still ball and whose Dallas Mavericks looked lost without when he went down.
I'm not trying to diminish Rose at all here. He and his team have kicked their play up another level this year and that is certainly to be commended. But it seems like there are too many holes in his MVP argument and too many other viable and legitimate candidates to be speaking of him as a lock.
The bigger problem is one that's familiar with sports fan. What exactly does the MVP award mean? How do we weigh a player's stats with his team's record with the simple eye test we all use when we watch him play? The MVP means something different to every person, which is why there's often such great debate over it.
In the end, because the definition of the MVP is so nebulous and vague, I think it's remarkable that Rose is even in this position. He is no doubt a legitimate candidate for the award, and, in just his third season, that's saying a lot. The rest is for the voters to decide.
P.S. I should note I looked into the Rose/Westbrook comparison because of this post from Hoopdata.com: http://hoopdata.com/blogengine/post/2011/03/26/Nix-The-Knicks-Offense-is-Fine-Chatter.aspx
"Rose is definitely a terrific talent. If all NBA contracts were declared null and void at midnight tonight, and all NBA players were re-drafted, would Rose go first? Can you find meaningful statistical differences this year between Rose and Russell Westbrook (they sit next to each other on this page)? It takes some significant rhetorical limbo to get a point guard on an offense that's only a point per 100 possessions better than league average as the MVP...particularly when it's DEFENSE that's taken the team to new heights...and he plays one of the least important defensive positions."
Sunday, February 27, 2011
I'm sleepy
I wish I could write.
Don't get me wrong, I think (and I'm trying not to sound like I'm patting myself on the back here) that I do have some sort of ability. A few people have told me I'm a good writer, and I'm assuming since I've gotten several positions related to writing, that means I do have skill of some sort.
But the more I read, the more I realize I can't write. Sure, I'll have spurts of inspiration and plop down something that's pretty good. I'll be honest and say that I've read some of the things I've written and really enjoyed how I framed it or my clever use of language or the clarity with which I got my point across or something like that. Or perhaps it's an article I've written and I had some good insights or summarized the key points in a particularly effective way. But these moments are few and far between.
Look at this blog. My last post was just about two months ago. And even then, those instances where I'm writing and I really feel like I know what I'm doing are outweighed by the much more common occurrence where my fingers rattle away at the keyboard, but 500 words later I've just rambled on without a coherent point. Of course I know, these things happen, but I never feel like I can fix it.
I don't read a lot of books, but I read a lot online. And everywhere I turn, I find myself wishing I could adapt things into my own writing. I try to read CNN for news when I get the chance. I love the way their reporters succinctly break down and pass on what's happening in the world and how they can write in a neutral voice but still insert just enough of their own opinion to give it a human aspect. I read a lot of basketball blogs and ESPN stuff as well, and while both the sports world and blogosphere don't always get their due, some of these guys (and gals) can really write. They mix humor and a deep knowledge of sports, easily making fun of Hasheem Thabeet in one sentence then explaining the finer points of advanced stats in the next without missing a beat, creating an entertaining yet informative read. I like reading my friends' blogs as well, whether it's on Blogger, Tumblr, or just Facebook Notes and there are so many things I love about those. It's open and raw, it's direct, it's clear, and most of all, it's real. Unlike the other stuff I read, I know what the writer's talking about, or I can go to him or her and ask.
I'm struck by the conviction people seem to have when they write or post. It seems natural, and holds true for myself as well, that the strongest material comes when someone believes in what they're writing and/or really wants to be writing it as opposed to just BSing something for the sake of doing it.
I wish I could have that all the time rather than this listless, rambling thing I seem to have going on most of the time. It's frustrating for me to be sitting at the keyboard stuck without much direction of where I want something to go.
The search for the perfect phrasing never ends. I'm working on a piece for the State Press right now about YouTube artists and I must have taken 20-30 minutes trying to figure out what I wanted the intro to sound like, and I'm still not sure I've gotten it where I wanted it to be.
(Quick sidenote: I got to interview Christina Grimmie and Tyler Ward for the story, and that was a really great experience. They were both so nice and open, and it's also really cool to see them both as Christians taking advantage of their God-given gifts and not forgetting who they're from. The story should be out this week and I'm going to try to transcribe a Q&A on here at some point also.)
It's weird. I feel like when I write I alternate between looking for perfection and just good enough. Even on this post there have been some sentences I've deleted and reworked a few times to try to get it right and some I knew didn't sound or flow great but moved on anyway. And for some, both are true.
I'm not prolific, I'm not consistent, I'm not perfect (but sometimes I try to hard to get there anyway), and half the time I don't even know what I'm writing about. But there's something about putting the pen to paper (or words to screen as the case may be) to convey a message or idea, even if I don't know what it is exactly, that's infectious and exciting. I can't help it; even if it doesn't make sense and even if it's flawed, I have to put something down. The random Facebook statuses and 140 character Tweets are great for short quips and quick hits, but eventually I need to put down something like this.
If you've made it this far, congratulations, and thanks for sticking with me. I really do appreciate whoever reads these things even if you don't tell me (actually I might even prefer if you didn't) or even if I don't know you. It's nice when someone takes some time for what you've written.
It's for myself, that I want to feel like I have an idea of what I'm doing, but it's also for you the reader, that I want you to feel like the time you spent reading was worthwhile. That's why I wish I could write.
Don't get me wrong, I think (and I'm trying not to sound like I'm patting myself on the back here) that I do have some sort of ability. A few people have told me I'm a good writer, and I'm assuming since I've gotten several positions related to writing, that means I do have skill of some sort.
But the more I read, the more I realize I can't write. Sure, I'll have spurts of inspiration and plop down something that's pretty good. I'll be honest and say that I've read some of the things I've written and really enjoyed how I framed it or my clever use of language or the clarity with which I got my point across or something like that. Or perhaps it's an article I've written and I had some good insights or summarized the key points in a particularly effective way. But these moments are few and far between.
Look at this blog. My last post was just about two months ago. And even then, those instances where I'm writing and I really feel like I know what I'm doing are outweighed by the much more common occurrence where my fingers rattle away at the keyboard, but 500 words later I've just rambled on without a coherent point. Of course I know, these things happen, but I never feel like I can fix it.
I don't read a lot of books, but I read a lot online. And everywhere I turn, I find myself wishing I could adapt things into my own writing. I try to read CNN for news when I get the chance. I love the way their reporters succinctly break down and pass on what's happening in the world and how they can write in a neutral voice but still insert just enough of their own opinion to give it a human aspect. I read a lot of basketball blogs and ESPN stuff as well, and while both the sports world and blogosphere don't always get their due, some of these guys (and gals) can really write. They mix humor and a deep knowledge of sports, easily making fun of Hasheem Thabeet in one sentence then explaining the finer points of advanced stats in the next without missing a beat, creating an entertaining yet informative read. I like reading my friends' blogs as well, whether it's on Blogger, Tumblr, or just Facebook Notes and there are so many things I love about those. It's open and raw, it's direct, it's clear, and most of all, it's real. Unlike the other stuff I read, I know what the writer's talking about, or I can go to him or her and ask.
I'm struck by the conviction people seem to have when they write or post. It seems natural, and holds true for myself as well, that the strongest material comes when someone believes in what they're writing and/or really wants to be writing it as opposed to just BSing something for the sake of doing it.
I wish I could have that all the time rather than this listless, rambling thing I seem to have going on most of the time. It's frustrating for me to be sitting at the keyboard stuck without much direction of where I want something to go.
The search for the perfect phrasing never ends. I'm working on a piece for the State Press right now about YouTube artists and I must have taken 20-30 minutes trying to figure out what I wanted the intro to sound like, and I'm still not sure I've gotten it where I wanted it to be.
(Quick sidenote: I got to interview Christina Grimmie and Tyler Ward for the story, and that was a really great experience. They were both so nice and open, and it's also really cool to see them both as Christians taking advantage of their God-given gifts and not forgetting who they're from. The story should be out this week and I'm going to try to transcribe a Q&A on here at some point also.)
It's weird. I feel like when I write I alternate between looking for perfection and just good enough. Even on this post there have been some sentences I've deleted and reworked a few times to try to get it right and some I knew didn't sound or flow great but moved on anyway. And for some, both are true.
I'm not prolific, I'm not consistent, I'm not perfect (but sometimes I try to hard to get there anyway), and half the time I don't even know what I'm writing about. But there's something about putting the pen to paper (or words to screen as the case may be) to convey a message or idea, even if I don't know what it is exactly, that's infectious and exciting. I can't help it; even if it doesn't make sense and even if it's flawed, I have to put something down. The random Facebook statuses and 140 character Tweets are great for short quips and quick hits, but eventually I need to put down something like this.
If you've made it this far, congratulations, and thanks for sticking with me. I really do appreciate whoever reads these things even if you don't tell me (actually I might even prefer if you didn't) or even if I don't know you. It's nice when someone takes some time for what you've written.
It's for myself, that I want to feel like I have an idea of what I'm doing, but it's also for you the reader, that I want you to feel like the time you spent reading was worthwhile. That's why I wish I could write.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)