NBA Playoffs: Round one review

The first round of the playoffs was a mixed bag, and the journey to it was bipolar.  As the regular season was ending, it looked like we weren't going to get the best matchups.  It looked like Houston would face San Antonio and the Thunder would face the Lakers or Jazz.  But then the Rockets lost to the Suns and the perfect playoff bracket was still in play for the West.  Amazingly, the best matchups ended up happening.  We got James Harden facing his old team, the two most successful franchises of the past decade doing battle once again, a rematch of last year's 7-game series, and the "leftovers" being a matchup between two of the most exciting teams in the league.  In the East, we even got a Celtics-Knicks series.  On paper, the matchups looked about as good as possible.  Unfortunately, what looked good on paper didn't really materialize, as injuries wreaked havoc.

Kobe got hurt, as well as almost every other Laker, ruining what may have be the final go-round of a Kobe-Duncan series (at least one that included both guys playing at such a high level).  Injury struck again with Russell Westbrook, delivering a blow to that series.  David Lee got hurt (thankfully that didn't ruin that series, maybe because Denver had their own loss with Gallinari).  Almost every Bull has suffered some type of ailment.  Sensing a theme?  Add in the other injured players for playoff teams and here's the list of important players that didn't contribute in the playoffs: Kobe, Westbrook, Lee, Rose, Rondo, Granger, and Gallinari.  And this list doesn't even include other players who were injured that didn't make the playoffs (Kevin Love and Andrew Bynum); whose teams may have made it, had they been healthy (same goes for the Wizards, had John Wall been healthy the whole year).  Has there ever been a larger quantity of valuable players who missed the playoffs?  Could that group of guys medal in the Olympics?  I think they could.

Between the (probably) unprecedented number of injuries, the predictable Miami sweep, and Boston falling down 3-0 (all but guaranteeing their elimination), the first round ended up being very disappointing.  The saving grace came in the form of two series' (Sorry, Indiana and Atlanta fans. Not one of them): Clippers-Grizzlies and Warriors-Nuggets.  Clippers-Grizzlies was a quality follow-up to last year's series.  The bad blood and physicality makes for some great basketball.  But as good as that series was, my personal favorite was Warriors-Nuggets.  Which wasn't really a surprise to me, because these teams were two of my favorites to watch this year.  From start to finish, I thought the Warriors were the most exciting team to watch.  Their team even provided my favorite highlight clip from this season:

The Nuggets were thoroughly entertaining as well, but I wasn't privy to them until much later in the season.  They didn't become one of my favorites until after their February game against the Lakers, which produced my second favorite highlight clip of the season (coincidentally, the two teams I thought were most exciting provided my two favorite clips of the season, and they did it two days apart):

Those first two dunks are especially incredible.  I hadn't seen much of the Nuggets before this game, but I was a fan of them after it.  They played such a unique style of basketball.  I don't think I've ever seen a team attack the basket as much as they did.

Anyway, back to the series, the only downside to two exciting teams squaring off is that one of them had to be eliminated.  And while having seven games would've been fun, it would've been hard to top game 6.  Steph Curry going off, in front of an electric crowd, with Kevin Harlan calling the game is pretty much basketball at its greatest:

I hope these teams come back even better next year, but for now we'll just have to settle for them providing the highlight of round one.

While pretty much the rest of the first round may have been disappointing, I'm hoping that it at least sets up a very good second round.   We're kicking things off with a rematch of 2011's classic series between the Thunder and Grizzlies (which featured the superb triple overtime game).  Following that up with Pacers-Knicks, which I'm sure will provide plenty of flashbacks to their historic rivalry.  Spurs-Warriors has potential to be really fun.  And we cap it off with the Heat facing the Bulls, teams who have a nice history of tough games (including this year's great game where Miami's win-streak was ended).

There are two things would make round two even better.  One, no more injuries (additionally, the guys that are banged up become or stay capable of contributing).  Two, Derrick Rose returns.  Now I'm not one of those people saying he has to play.  If he's not comfortable yet, he shouldn't play.  Fans are fickle.  They may say he should play now, but if he came back and got hurt, then they would say he shouldn't have played.  Or if he doesn't play, but goes on to continue having a great career, no ones really going to care about him sitting out.  Perceptions change (just ask LeBron).  So I'm not saying I think he's ready to play; I'm just hoping that he is (A surprise return in game 3 would be especially fun. Chicago would go insane).

As it is, round two has a lot of potential to be great.  Let's just hope that, unlike round one, the potential is actually realized.

Chael Sonnen versus himself

After losing to Jon Jones, Chael Sonnen hinted that he was probably going to retire.  He said that there's no point in fighting, if you can't work your way to a title fight.  Unless he was actually planning on retiring, that was a dumb thing to say.  He put himself in a no-win situation, because now he's either forced to do something he doesn't want to do (retire) or something he said he wasn't going to do (continue fighting without contending).  He boxed himself into a corner. 

Or did he?

Maybe there's actually a way Sonnen could capitalize on what he said, instead of backtracking from it.  Right now, Sonnen's in this middle ground where he's not close to a title shot and he might not be close to retirement.  So if he can't fight to prove he's a contender, why not fight to prove that he's not ready to retire?  How he should do that is by putting his career on the line.  He should announce that he will in fact retire...once he's beaten.

Sonnen has said he doesn't really have any interesting fights at Middleweight.  That's true.  But by putting his career on the line, it wouldn't be Chael Sonnen vs. Mark Munoz, Vitor Belfort etc., it would be Chael Sonnen vs. his career.  It's perfect, because it provides a built-in angle to promote his fights.  He doesn't have to be promoted as a contender, nor does he have to be relegated to being a gatekeeper.  It's just about him trying to save his career. 

The irony is that it's not only the best way to keep him relevant outside of the title picture, but it's also his best (and probably only) path back into it.  Imagine the buzz it would create if he put together a winning streak.  Every win would raise the stakes for his next fight; and it could do the seemingly impossible and make the prospect of Sonnen fighting for a title actually interesting (not to mention that it could actually set up the fight Sonnen proposed once upon a time: title vs. career).  I think it would sell too, because it wouldn't be about Sonnen facing Silva (assuming Silva was still the champion).  It would be about Sonnen facing the ultimate stakes a fighter ever could: he'd either reaching the highest point of his career or the end of it.  No middle ground.  It would truly be "go big or go home".

Unfortunately, Sonnen's already basically backtracked on his retirement by calling out Wanderlei Silva (just as Dave Doyle predicted).  But if he doesn't want to fully undermine his post-fight comments, and would rather capitalize on them, all he has to do is put his career on the line. 

The key to keeping Chael Sonnen's career relevant is for him to risk ending it.

UFC on Fox 7 review

The 7th installment of the UFC on Fox was a good to very good show, which I was fortunate enough to be able to attend live.  I missed the two Facebook prelims, but I arrived before the Dillashaw-Viana fight that kicked off the FX broadcast; which turned out to be a great way to get things started and the decisive finish was a preview of things to come.  This event was chock-full of (T)KOs, tying a UFC record with 8, which included impressive performances by Chad Mendes, Joseph Benavidez, and Matt Brown.  But the performance that stands out the most to me was the one turned in by Josh Thomson.  To be the first one to TKO Nate Diaz, and have it include Diaz's corner throwing in the towel, is pretty remarkable and it was quite a sight to see.  It was definitely the highlight of the night.  The only downside to having so many finishes is the delay between fights.  Most of the time it was manageable, but I think there was about a 30 minute gap between the last fight on FX and the first fight on Fox.

As far as the fights that went the distance, they were mostly ok.  The only one that didn't really hold my interest was the Carmont-Larkin fight; which apparently was a good thing, considering the controversy surrounding the decision.  The Mir-Cormier fight was disappointing for a couple of reasons.  First off, a fight that primarily consists of clinching isn't the most exciting display, especially without the benefit of commentary.  It's just not a style that translates well live.  The other reason that it was disappointing was that I was personally hoping to see Mir get dominated.  Him and Tito are probably the two fighters I enjoy booing the most.  Ironically, the only other event I've been to had Tito fighting Rashad Evans.  So I've had the pleasure of booing both guys, but neither fight was particularly satisfying (from a results standpoint).  The Tito-Rashad fight had a little more back and forth and had better crowd involvement (including "Tito" and "Tito sucks" chants), which wasn't the case with Mir-Cormier.

The main event was good, but not great.  I think the problem was that both fighters fought similar stylistically, so it ended up being more of a stalemate.  There weren't really any big exchanges or any moments where it looked like one fighter might be finished.  It was more just point, counterpoint.  The fight playing out this way also led to a close decision, with fans split on who won.  This seems to be a frequent occurrence in the division (Edgar-Penn, Edgar-Maynard, Edgar-Henderson and now Henderson-Melendez).  And with Maynard-Grant being a number one contender's fight, it's possible that such a fight could happen again (if Maynard wins).  This is where Pettis moving down to face Aldo hurts the division, because Pettis' style would force Henderson to be offensive.  I don't think you can go conservative against Pettis or he'll make you pay.  So hopefully Pettis moves back up in the near future (Aldo can move up too).

While the main event wasn't as good as anticipated, it didn't really hamper the event.  It's always fun seeing the fighter's live; even the ones who aren't on the card.  I was a couple sections over from the preshow desk, so of course I saw Dominick Cruz, Chael Sonnen and Brian Stann (I saw Brian take some pictures with fans in between the FX and Fox broadcasts).  The other fighter's I saw were Nick Diaz, Jake Shields, Cain Velasquez, and Ronda Rousey.  Diaz and Shields came out during the prelim fights.  Nick wasn't out very long (don't know if he had something to do or if he didn't want the attention), but Jake seemed to sign every autograph and take every picture.  Big props to him, as well as Ronda.  She was signing autographs and taking pictures for what seemed like forever, as her presence created the biggest commotion.  Doesn't seem like it will be long before she's in the top two or three most popular fighters (if she's not there already).  I think Cain signed some autographs as well (not sure for how long though).  Uriah Faber was also there, but I only saw him on the big screen.  I don't believe they showed Cain or Ronda on the big screen, which surprised me.  The only other famous person I recognized was Aldon Smith, who was most likely there to support Cormier.

All in all, I'd say it was a good show.  Most of the fights delivered, and that's all you can really ask for.  I'd probably rate the event somewhere between an 8 and an 8.9.

The Dream Fight

In the MMA world, the major dream fight being talked about right now is Anderson Silva versus Georges St. Pierre.  I was completely on board with this fight happening...three years ago.  But some things have happened since then that has made me change my mind.  The first was that it was pointed out that the risk-reward for each fighter is disproportionate.  GSP has more to gain than to lose and Silva has more to lose than to gain.  What shame does GSP have in losing to Silva?  On the other hand, what is there to gain from Silva beating a smaller fighter?  Silva beating GSP wouldn't be that impressive.  The same even goes for GSP beating Silva, after what happened at UFC 117 (where Chael Sonnen took, and held down, Silva at will).  Yes, there were questionable circumstances surrounding the fight (Silva being injured, Sonnen on PEDs etc.), but the fact remains that the novelty of seeing Silva dominated through wrestling is gone.  That's the problem with this fight.  The outcome will almost certainly resemble either GSP-Serra I (albeit more legitimately) or Silva-Sonnen I (albeit more legitimately).  It doesn't have the unpredictable nature that a dream fight should have.

The next thing that happened was UFC 128 and the beginning of Jon Jones' ascension up the P4P rankings.  Jones' victory over Shogun was the most dominant title win I'd seen since that of one Anderson Silva.  It was this precise moment that the prospect of a Jones-Silva fight surpassed Silva-GSP.  Silva and Jones are two of the, if not the, best and most creative strikers in the sport.  This fight is not predictable.  Technically Jones could employ a Sonnen-like gameplan, but there's also the possibility that something happens that's never been done before (Jones getting picked apart or vice versa); something that's not possible with GSP.  Not to mention that, unlike GSP-Silva, the loser doesn't take a big hit.  If Jones were to lose, then it would be to the greatest fighter of all-time.  And if Silva were to lose, it would be to a younger fighter just entering his prime (and could be on his way to being the greatest of all-time).  It's a win-win.  Both fighters would be helped by a win and not that hurt by a loss.

Not only is Silva-Jones a more exciting, even, and unpredictable matchup, but both fighters are in similar situations of not really having imminent contenders.  Other than postponing a potential Dan Henderson-Jon Jones fight (which could've been avoided had the UFC just rescheduled Henderson-Jones, instead of irrationally plugging in a completely undeserving Chael Sonnen), neither division would be held up by a super fight. That's not the case with the Welterweight division.  GSP has both Nick Diaz and Johnny Hendricks waiting in the wings (not to mention Rory MacDonald closing in on a title shot).  In fact, I'd much rather see GSP fight Diaz over Silva.  Diaz's boxing and Jiu-Jitsu make for a good stylistic matchup with GSP.  Even if he couldn't beat GSP, he should at least be able to get a great fight out of him (much like Condit just did).

Thankfully, GSP-Diaz is exactly the direction the UFC is going in.   The next step is moving on from the idea of GSP fighting Silva and switching to the true dream fight: Silva versus Jon Jones.

Who's up first?

When I broke down the AL MVP race, one of the things I mentioned was how RBIs are somewhat circumstantial.  Being a good hitter doesn't automatically get you RBIs; you do need runners on base (obviously).  In the same way, having runners on base could lead to RBIs, even if a player isn't hitting great.  For a perfect example of this, look no further than Hunter Pence.  Pence finished 14th in baseball with 104 RBIs, even though he only hit .253 (106th in the league).  But that doesn't tell the full story.  Because Pence was on two different teams, you can see the difference in production.

In Philly, Pence hit 59 RBIs in 398 at-bats.  In San Francisco, he had 45 RBIs in 219 at-bats.  In order to give a clearer comparison, let's look at how many RBIs he would have had if he had played a full year in each location.  Pence was on pace for 630 at-bats in Philly and 594 at-bats in San Francisco.  We'll just average the two and set the hypothetical number at 612 at-bats.  Assuming he had 612 ABs, Pence was on pace for 91 RBIs in Philly and 126 RBIs in San Francisco.  What's even crazier?  Pence was hitting .271 in Philly and only .219 with the Giants.  Using the same 612 ABs, that's the difference between finishing with 166 hits and 134.  Pence would have 35 more RBIs, despite getting 32 less hits!  If you can hit worse, yet drive in more runs, something tells me that the who bats in front of you does make a pretty big difference.

UFC on Fox 5 review

On paper, the UFC's latest Fox event offered easily the best card to date.  It didn't quite live up to my lofty expectations, but it was still a good show.  Part of the problem was the inclusion of Shogun and BJ Penn.  This isn't to criticize the matchmaking.  As I said, these were all great fights (on paper).  The problem is that Shogun and Penn aren't the same fighters anymore, which makes them a gamble.  There's no way of knowing how the fighters are going to show up.  Is it going to be the Shogun from the Dan Henderson/Machida fights or the Shogun from the Vera fight?  Because Shogun is so hit or miss, it makes it hard to judge Gustafsson's performance.  Did he pick him apart because he's just better or because the underwhelming Shogun showed up?  It was still an impressive performance from Gustafsson, but not as much as it could've been, if we could tell for sure that it was the good Shogun that he dominated.

Penn's case is more extreme than Shogun's.  Obviously questions of his preparedness and endurance have surrounded him virtually his whole career.  But as the fight was going on, I started thinking less about how those questions pertained to this fight and more about how they pertained to his career; which led me to this question: has any athlete ever achieved so much while simultaneously leaving so much on the table?  He's the greatest Lightweight fighter of all-time and only the second person in UFC history to hold a title in multiple weight classes, yet it still feels like he greatly underachieved.  If only he had trained with a real trainer and was in shape for every fight, he probably would have beaten GSP the first time, Hughes the second time, Edgar both times, and Fitch.  Could you imagine if BJ had the stamina that Ben Henderson has?  He would've been virtually unbeatable.  Instead, he might be the most accomplished underachiever ever.

In my review of UFC's last Fox event, I mentioned how the UFC is in a tough place because all of their previous superstars are fading.  That continued with this show, as the doors closed more and more for Shogun and Penn.  However, I had also mentioned some new fighters that were becoming must-see (Jon Jones, Junior Dos Santos, Cain Velasquez, and Jose Aldo).  The big positive from this event?  Add Benson Henderson to that list.  On the heels of his fights with Clay Guida and Frankie Edgar, Henderson put together another stellar performance on Saturday night.  He's now what I would call the most entertaining "decision fighter" in the sport.  He's so active and aggressive; it doesn't feel like he's just trying to outpoint his opponent or play it safe.  Great showing from the champ.

In total, the show was a mixed bag.  Swick-Brown was pretty good and Henderson-Diaz was great, but Shogun-Gustafsson and Penn-MacDonald felt more like two stars falling than it did two stars rising; which is a shame.  Hopefully their next fights will be against more consistent fighters (like Machida and Condit, respectively), where potentially dominant performances would say more about them than it would their opponents.  And thankfully there's a quick turnaround to the next Fox event, where two of the three fights (Johnson-Dodson and Pettis-Cerrone) won't be subject to "declining superstar sabotage".  Should be good.

The Case for Kaepernick

For the past week or two, the hot topic in the NFL has been the quarterback situation in San Francisco.  Some think Alex Smith should start, while others think Colin Kaepernick should start.  Personally, I don't think there's a wrong answer.  I think the Niners would be perfectly fine with Smith starting.  But with that said, here's the case for why Kapernick was the right choice.

For starters, a Niners blog post points out that "the 49ers have [had] fewer really bad plays – and more really good plays – with Kaepernick at the controls".  One stat given in that blog post is that, in his two starts, Kaepernick has 10 completions of 20+ yard passes, while Alex only has 22 such completions in the eight full games he has played.  This is reflected in Kapernick's 9.9 yards/attempt, compared to 8.0 yards/attempt for Smith.  Here's some other stat comparisons of Smith's eight starts to Kaepernick's two:

Smith:
Completion percentage- 70.0%
Third down efficiency- 38.0%
Touchdown percentage- 6.0%
Interception percentage- 2.3%
Sack percentage- 10.0%

Kaepernick:
Completion percentage- 66.7%
Third down efficiency- 40.0%
Touchdown percentage- 6.3%
Interception percentage- 2.1%
Sack percentage- 2.0%

People think Kaepernick was chosen because he's a high-risk, high-reward player; that he can provide the big plays that Smith rarely does.  The thing is, he hasn't been high-risk (so far).  Smith's calling card has been ball security.  Kaepernick has been just as proficient in that area, but hasn't needed to take sacks or throw shorter passes to achieve that.  Smith wasn't benched just because he was injured.  He was benched because Kaepernick has been able to play Smith's style and more.

Of course one could (wisely) point out that Kaepernick's stats consist of a very small sample size.  It's possible that defenses eventually adjust to him and that he becomes less effective.  But here's the thing, if that happens, going back to Smith is easy.  It's not like Smith is going to struggle if they go right back to him in three or four weeks.  But on the flip side, what if Harbaugh had gone with Smith over Kaepernick and then there was a visible dropoff from Kaepernick?  The media and fan base would be clamoring for a change.  And if that happened, and a change was made at that point, then going back to Smith is completely off the table.  Right now, Smith isn't benched because he was playing bad; he's benched because Kaepernick happens to be playing better.  If you went back to Smith and then benched him, it would actually be an indictment of his play.  And that you can't come back from.  You can go from Kaepernick to Smith.  But if you went from Smith to Kaepernick, you can't go back to Smith.  In that instance, you're stuck with Kaepernick and would have to hope he really is good enough to win in the playoffs.

Which is better: going with Kaepernick and having Smith as the safety net or going with Smith and having Kaepernick as the safety net?  Harbaugh didn't just go with the option that had the biggest upside, he went with the one that also had the safest plan B.