It's been a week since the Heat won the title, and I'm stilled pretty bummed. Not because of the team that won, but because the series ended. Going into the Finals, I was excited about Duncan-LeBron and the two best teams in the league squaring off. All three delivered. It was great to see the Tim Duncan of 10 years ago. He started out a little slow, but he picked it up the last four games; especially the last two, where he averaged 27 points and 14.5 rebounds. As we're nearing the end of Duncan's career, it was great to see the Tim Duncan of old, instead of just old Tim Duncan.
Similar to Duncan, LeBron also started out slow and picked it up in the last four games (where he averaged 31.8 points, 6.8 assists, and 9.8 rebounds). The end of game six and game seven were especially impressive, when LeBron made it perfectly clear that he's the best player in the world and it's not even close. But while he's clearly the best player, he can still not be the most consistently dominant. His start to the series resembled his 2011 Finals performance and he ended the series resembling his 2012 Finals performance. It was quite bizarre. People can say that the chatter about LeBron's mentality can stop now, but if the Spurs had made FTs in game 6 and the Heat lose the title, wouldn't everyone be talking about LeBron not showing up? Luckily for the Heat, the best player in the world did show up, but he almost showed up too late.
Finally, the thing I was most looking forward to was the high level of basketball that would be played. And this series did not come up short. It started out exciting, with a great game one. And while the next four games were blowouts, the alternating displays of dominance showed how evenly matched these teams were; which perfectly set the stage for the final two games. The first five games were all entertaining for their own reasons, but the last two games were basketball at its best. Game six was one of the craziest, most exciting games I've ever seen. Game seven was predicted to be sloppy, and while it started out that way, it turned out to be good. These teams were just too good to play bad basketball for 48 minutes in an all-or-nothing game. It was a great end to a great series.
The only negatives to the series were that someone had to lose and that the series had to end. It sucked to see Duncan come up short, but it sucked more that this series is over. Every year, there's talk about the format of the Finals being 2-3-2. This year, that wasn't the problem. The problem was that it wasn't 2-2-2-2-1-1-1. There have been other NBA Finals that were more satisfying from a rooting interests standpoint, but from a quality of basketball standpoint, this one was the most satisfying. Too bad it had to end.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Thursday, June 6, 2013
NBA Finals Preview
The NBA Finals kick off tonight and I'm not as excited as I should be. The reason for this is because I've been rooting against this matchup happening. Not directly, but indirectly. As I've mentioned before, the Warriors were the most fun team to follow this year. So naturally, I rooted for them against the Spurs. Once the they were eliminated, I invested my rooting interests in the Grizzlies. I've been a fan of them ever since their amazing 2011 playoff run, and I love Z-Bo and Gasol. I really wanted to see a Miami-Memphis Finals. It would've been a great clash of styles; the Grizzlies using the old school lineup, featuring two bigs, against Miami's new school small-ball lineup. Which style won out would've been extremely fascinating to watch. But the Spurs squashed that possibility too.
Then a new interesting team materialized in the form of the Pacers. The emergence of Hibbert, Stephenson and especially George was fun to watch. I was actually interested in the possibility of a Spurs-Pacers Finals. I think it could've been fun to have two small-market, non-star driven teams in the Finals. Last year when I previewed the Finals possibilities, I said that Thunder-Pacers would've been the greatest college basketball ever played (similar style and atmosphere, but way better execution). But I actually think that would've been more the case this year, had the Spurs and Pacers squared off (yet something tells me the pro-college, anti-NBA basketball fans wouldn't have tuned in, even though it would've delivered everything they claim to love).
So my tempered excitement is more the result of Golden State, Memphis and Indiana being eliminated than it is the actual matchup of Miami and San Antonio. But instead of focusing on what teams aren't playing, I need to focus on the teams that are playing; because the actual matchup of Miami and San Antonio is worth getting excited about.
Six years ago, LeBron met the Spurs in the Finals. A Finals that would turn out to be the lowest rated one of all-time. Looking back, it makes perfect sense. Because it wasn't a culmination; it was an impetus. The impetus of the Spurs transitioning from Tim Duncan to Tony Parker and of LeBron becoming LeBron. Parker would win the Finals MVP and eventually take control of the team and LeBron (after the first in a series of failures) would fully realize his potential as the best player in the world and finally be surrounded by a great supporting cast. The 2007 series wasn't a culmination. This series is the culmination.
And even though Tony Parker may be the key cog for the Spurs now, that doesn't mean Tim Duncan is merely a supporting member. Which means it's still exciting that we're getting to see the best player of the last generation (Duncan) square off against the best player of the current generation (LeBron). Something that hasn't happened in over 20 years, when Jordan squared off with Magic. Jordan vs. Magic was also the last time that two top 10 players of all-time met in the Finals, prior to Duncan-LeBron.
We're not just getting two top 10, generational players squaring off, we're also getting arguably the two best teams in the league doing battle. Teams with outstanding ball movement, defense and shooting. The Heat have been the best team in the league all year, but the Spurs will provide a very interesting challenge for them; as they're a team that can go big or small, without compromising the strength of their team.
Regardless of the outcome, we're going to see something historic (Duncan and Pop winning titles 14 years apart or LeBron taking another step toward becoming a top 5 player of all-time). But most of all, we should see some really great basketball.
Then a new interesting team materialized in the form of the Pacers. The emergence of Hibbert, Stephenson and especially George was fun to watch. I was actually interested in the possibility of a Spurs-Pacers Finals. I think it could've been fun to have two small-market, non-star driven teams in the Finals. Last year when I previewed the Finals possibilities, I said that Thunder-Pacers would've been the greatest college basketball ever played (similar style and atmosphere, but way better execution). But I actually think that would've been more the case this year, had the Spurs and Pacers squared off (yet something tells me the pro-college, anti-NBA basketball fans wouldn't have tuned in, even though it would've delivered everything they claim to love).
So my tempered excitement is more the result of Golden State, Memphis and Indiana being eliminated than it is the actual matchup of Miami and San Antonio. But instead of focusing on what teams aren't playing, I need to focus on the teams that are playing; because the actual matchup of Miami and San Antonio is worth getting excited about.
Six years ago, LeBron met the Spurs in the Finals. A Finals that would turn out to be the lowest rated one of all-time. Looking back, it makes perfect sense. Because it wasn't a culmination; it was an impetus. The impetus of the Spurs transitioning from Tim Duncan to Tony Parker and of LeBron becoming LeBron. Parker would win the Finals MVP and eventually take control of the team and LeBron (after the first in a series of failures) would fully realize his potential as the best player in the world and finally be surrounded by a great supporting cast. The 2007 series wasn't a culmination. This series is the culmination.
And even though Tony Parker may be the key cog for the Spurs now, that doesn't mean Tim Duncan is merely a supporting member. Which means it's still exciting that we're getting to see the best player of the last generation (Duncan) square off against the best player of the current generation (LeBron). Something that hasn't happened in over 20 years, when Jordan squared off with Magic. Jordan vs. Magic was also the last time that two top 10 players of all-time met in the Finals, prior to Duncan-LeBron.
We're not just getting two top 10, generational players squaring off, we're also getting arguably the two best teams in the league doing battle. Teams with outstanding ball movement, defense and shooting. The Heat have been the best team in the league all year, but the Spurs will provide a very interesting challenge for them; as they're a team that can go big or small, without compromising the strength of their team.
Regardless of the outcome, we're going to see something historic (Duncan and Pop winning titles 14 years apart or LeBron taking another step toward becoming a top 5 player of all-time). But most of all, we should see some really great basketball.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Offensive Baseball
Back in April, Jayson Stark wrote about how the DH will eventually spread to the NL. If it does, it won't be for some of the reasons he said.
"Now, though, let's look ahead. To late September, when the two teams traveling to National League cities in the last week of the season happen to be the Red Sox (to Denver) and Tigers (to Miami). Now let's say those are must-win games. And let's say people notice that Felix Doubront and Rick Porcello are heading for the plate instead of Big Papi and Victor Martinez. Anybody think this will suddenly seem like a much bigger deal? Yeah, thought so."
This is sort of falsely presented. It's comparing the strength of a team with a DH vs. the strength of that team with no DH. But it's not the Red Sox with Big Papi vs. the Red Sox with Doubront. It's the Red Sox with no DH vs. the Rockies with no DH. You can't complain that the Red Sox aren't using their nine best hitters, when the Rockies aren't using their nine best hitters either. Besides, this is only looking at the scenario from one way. What if the Rockies were traveling to Boston? Are they supposed to get mad that their DH isn't as good as Ortiz? No, because it comes with the territory. The home team always has an advantage. AL teams are at a disadvantage in NL stadiums and NL teams are at a disadvantage in AL stadiums. But guess what? That's the case all year; not just in September. The Red Sox aren't at more of a disadvantage playing in Colorado in September than they would be in July. You're either going to win those games or you won't.
Oh yeah, let's not pretend that Big Papi and Victor Martinez are prevented from playing. If they're such a liability defensively that they can't be put into the lineup, how could fans be mad they're not playing? If their managers thought they would help them win, they would play. If they don't, that means the manager thinks they'll have a better shot winning without them. It's as simple as that.
His next point:
"Or what happens if, say, the Mariners get rained out in the final game of their interleague series in St. Louis -- on Sept. 15? Do they have to fly back to St. Louis from Seattle, after a night game, on their only remaining off day (Sept. 26) to make that one up?"
What happens if Seattle's September 19th game against Detroit gets rained out? Do they have to fly back to Detroit (a longer trip, by the way) from Seattle, after a night game, on their only remaining off day (Sept. 26) to make that one up? As I see it, the potential problem Seattle faces with St. Louis is the same one it faces with Detroit. Besides, if there is more potential scheduling conflicts than in years past, that comes from year-round interleague play, that's not a problem solved by having a DH; that would only solved by going back to having an even number of AL and NL teams.
What about the soaring cost of pitching?
This point was made by Brewers GM Doug Melvin: "'Now, when we're starting to pay pitchers $20 million a year, don't we have to start thinking more about whether we want pitchers hitting?' He adds, 'When you think about the competitiveness of a Zack Greinke or a [Clayton] Kershaw when he's hitting, there's a danger of those guys overdoing it in any at-bat and getting hurt.'"
Pitchers getting injured from hitting? How often does that even happen? The injury concern you should have with pitchers should come from pitching; not hitting. If the injury risk that comes from pitching isn't enough to prevent you from paying a pitcher $20 million, then the risk of injury from hitting shouldn't really bother you either.
Finally:
"But any time the National League is ready for this, it won't have to worry about convincing these AL managers who find themselves already playing by NL rules -- in April."
Every AL manager should either be embarrassed by this or offended by it. Do they really have that much trouble assembling a NL lineup? Something they only have to do 20 times a year (while their NL counterparts do it 142 times a year)? If so, they should be embarrassed. On the other hand, if they don't think it's too hard, then they should be offended that Jayson Stark would suggest as much.
Now maybe Jayson wasn't referring to the day-to-day managing as much as he was referring to the challenges of roster construction, something he touched on:
"What's the toughest part of playing interleague games one series at a time from April to September? Putting a roster together that can function by the other league's rules. That's more challenging than ever, now that teams no longer have most of their interleague games scheduled in one block in June.
'When I was with the Diamondbacks,' said Angels general manager Jerry Dipoto, 'we signed Wily Mo Pena as a minor league free agent [in 2011], brought him to spring training as a non-roster player and then sent him to Triple-A, with the express idea that when we reached this nine-game window in June where we were playing in American League parks, he was going to play on our big league team and be our DH. He wound up coming up, hitting a couple of home runs, won us a game in Kansas City and then nine days later he was designated for assignment.'"
Stark mentions that a proposed solution could be expanding the roster to 26 players, for interleague games. That sounds like a way better solution than expanding the DH, because that quote does more to point out the absurdity of the DH position than it does advocate for its expansion. A player is not good enough to play in the major leagues, but is good enough to play DH? What kind of position is that?
I'm sorry, but none of these seem like sufficient reasons to have a universal DH. It seems like people are just trying to come up with excuses to expand DH, because they want there to be a universal DH. Which brings me to the final reason people like the DH: it creates more offense. But how much offense does it really create? Here's the average runs per game by AL and NL teams, over the past five years:
2012
AL 4.45
NL 4.22
2011
AL 4.46
NL 4.12
2010
AL 4.45
NL 4.33
2009
AL 4.82
NL 4.43
2008
AL 4.78
NL 4.53
Five-year average
AL 4.59
NL 4.33
The difference is less than one run per game? You're giving up the strategy of pinch-hitting and double switches for less than one run per game? Personally, that seems dumb. I'd rather watch a team have to use more strategy to get four runs per game than less strategy and get five runs per game. But that's me. If fans of AL teams like having a DH, good for them. I'm perfectly ok with them doing whatever they want. But as a fan of the NL, I don't want to see the DH expand.
While some people like the more offensive baseball that the DH provides, others just find it offensive.
"Now, though, let's look ahead. To late September, when the two teams traveling to National League cities in the last week of the season happen to be the Red Sox (to Denver) and Tigers (to Miami). Now let's say those are must-win games. And let's say people notice that Felix Doubront and Rick Porcello are heading for the plate instead of Big Papi and Victor Martinez. Anybody think this will suddenly seem like a much bigger deal? Yeah, thought so."
This is sort of falsely presented. It's comparing the strength of a team with a DH vs. the strength of that team with no DH. But it's not the Red Sox with Big Papi vs. the Red Sox with Doubront. It's the Red Sox with no DH vs. the Rockies with no DH. You can't complain that the Red Sox aren't using their nine best hitters, when the Rockies aren't using their nine best hitters either. Besides, this is only looking at the scenario from one way. What if the Rockies were traveling to Boston? Are they supposed to get mad that their DH isn't as good as Ortiz? No, because it comes with the territory. The home team always has an advantage. AL teams are at a disadvantage in NL stadiums and NL teams are at a disadvantage in AL stadiums. But guess what? That's the case all year; not just in September. The Red Sox aren't at more of a disadvantage playing in Colorado in September than they would be in July. You're either going to win those games or you won't.
Oh yeah, let's not pretend that Big Papi and Victor Martinez are prevented from playing. If they're such a liability defensively that they can't be put into the lineup, how could fans be mad they're not playing? If their managers thought they would help them win, they would play. If they don't, that means the manager thinks they'll have a better shot winning without them. It's as simple as that.
His next point:
"Or what happens if, say, the Mariners get rained out in the final game of their interleague series in St. Louis -- on Sept. 15? Do they have to fly back to St. Louis from Seattle, after a night game, on their only remaining off day (Sept. 26) to make that one up?"
What happens if Seattle's September 19th game against Detroit gets rained out? Do they have to fly back to Detroit (a longer trip, by the way) from Seattle, after a night game, on their only remaining off day (Sept. 26) to make that one up? As I see it, the potential problem Seattle faces with St. Louis is the same one it faces with Detroit. Besides, if there is more potential scheduling conflicts than in years past, that comes from year-round interleague play, that's not a problem solved by having a DH; that would only solved by going back to having an even number of AL and NL teams.
What about the soaring cost of pitching?
This point was made by Brewers GM Doug Melvin: "'Now, when we're starting to pay pitchers $20 million a year, don't we have to start thinking more about whether we want pitchers hitting?' He adds, 'When you think about the competitiveness of a Zack Greinke or a [Clayton] Kershaw when he's hitting, there's a danger of those guys overdoing it in any at-bat and getting hurt.'"
Pitchers getting injured from hitting? How often does that even happen? The injury concern you should have with pitchers should come from pitching; not hitting. If the injury risk that comes from pitching isn't enough to prevent you from paying a pitcher $20 million, then the risk of injury from hitting shouldn't really bother you either.
Finally:
"But any time the National League is ready for this, it won't have to worry about convincing these AL managers who find themselves already playing by NL rules -- in April."
Every AL manager should either be embarrassed by this or offended by it. Do they really have that much trouble assembling a NL lineup? Something they only have to do 20 times a year (while their NL counterparts do it 142 times a year)? If so, they should be embarrassed. On the other hand, if they don't think it's too hard, then they should be offended that Jayson Stark would suggest as much.
Now maybe Jayson wasn't referring to the day-to-day managing as much as he was referring to the challenges of roster construction, something he touched on:
"What's the toughest part of playing interleague games one series at a time from April to September? Putting a roster together that can function by the other league's rules. That's more challenging than ever, now that teams no longer have most of their interleague games scheduled in one block in June.
'When I was with the Diamondbacks,' said Angels general manager Jerry Dipoto, 'we signed Wily Mo Pena as a minor league free agent [in 2011], brought him to spring training as a non-roster player and then sent him to Triple-A, with the express idea that when we reached this nine-game window in June where we were playing in American League parks, he was going to play on our big league team and be our DH. He wound up coming up, hitting a couple of home runs, won us a game in Kansas City and then nine days later he was designated for assignment.'"
Stark mentions that a proposed solution could be expanding the roster to 26 players, for interleague games. That sounds like a way better solution than expanding the DH, because that quote does more to point out the absurdity of the DH position than it does advocate for its expansion. A player is not good enough to play in the major leagues, but is good enough to play DH? What kind of position is that?
I'm sorry, but none of these seem like sufficient reasons to have a universal DH. It seems like people are just trying to come up with excuses to expand DH, because they want there to be a universal DH. Which brings me to the final reason people like the DH: it creates more offense. But how much offense does it really create? Here's the average runs per game by AL and NL teams, over the past five years:
2012
AL 4.45
NL 4.22
2011
AL 4.46
NL 4.12
2010
AL 4.45
NL 4.33
2009
AL 4.82
NL 4.43
2008
AL 4.78
NL 4.53
Five-year average
AL 4.59
NL 4.33
The difference is less than one run per game? You're giving up the strategy of pinch-hitting and double switches for less than one run per game? Personally, that seems dumb. I'd rather watch a team have to use more strategy to get four runs per game than less strategy and get five runs per game. But that's me. If fans of AL teams like having a DH, good for them. I'm perfectly ok with them doing whatever they want. But as a fan of the NL, I don't want to see the DH expand.
While some people like the more offensive baseball that the DH provides, others just find it offensive.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Does LeBron think we're blind?
A couple days ago, there was an article on ESPN where LeBron stated that he sees the value in flopping. As dumb as that is, it wasn't even the stupidest thing he said. He went on to say, "I don't need to flop. I play an aggressive game. I don't flop. I've never been one of those guys." It's true. He doesn't flop. That's why there's absolutely no
You know how when you get hit from behind and your body jolts backwards and then, as your falling to the ground, your upper body and arms go backwards again?
Or how when someone steps on your foot and your head whips back?
Or how when someone's arm or hand maybe touches your arm or hand and your head whips back?
Or how the wind from someone's arms passing in front of your face makes your head whip back? Wait, that looks familiar. Where have I seen that before?
Oh, that's right. Another member of the "non-flopping" Heat. Do they practice this stuff?
Woah! A Chalmers flop into a LeBron flop! Incredible! But no, they don't practice flopping because the Heat (and especially LeBron) don't flop.
Oh yeah, and LeBron was not fined, the day after he said he's not a flopper, because he didn't flop the day before he said he's not a flopper.
Sorry LeBron, but you can't say you don't flop. We are all witnesses.
video
evidence
of
him
flopping.
Oh yeah, and LeBron was not fined, the day after he said he's not a flopper, because he didn't flop the day before he said he's not a flopper.
Sorry LeBron, but you can't say you don't flop. We are all witnesses.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
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 or Vitor Belfort; 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.
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 or Vitor Belfort; 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.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)