(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
Saturday, April 16, 2011
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)