The Art of Sport

at 5:23 PM

I hate to do a quick post without contributing any analysis, but in honor of tonight's Raptors-Lakers game, I have to post this. Enjoy.

Okay, maybe a bit of analysis. The curious thing about this video is that the Raptors rarely if ever double-teamed Kobe. Sure, the Raptors were in control of the game until about 5:50 was left in the 3rd Quarter, but at that point, Kobe had 41 of the Lakers' 65 points. 41 points from one guy and the rest of the team was shooting so poorly that they had 24 points total. You would think that the Raptors would double team, or do something. Nope. Only after the Lakers sealed the game and after Kobe had 74 of the Lakers' 115 points did the Raptors actually do anything (foul Kobe every time he got the ball). That is inexcusably bad coaching. It is no surprise to me now to hear that Sam Mitchell is on the hot seat in Toronto. He showed just what poor judgment he has in this game.

at 6:37 PM

I'm not a fan of college football. I'm a fan of Michigan Wolverine football, and I follow the travails of the Northwestern Wildcats and USC Trojans football teams loosely because I have a connection to both institutions, but I can't really be bothered to think about college football in general because of the fraud that is the college football "national championship."

Let's be clear: Division I-A college football does not, nor has it ever had, a real national champion. It has had conference champions, for sure, but it has and always had nothing more than glorified election winners. As long as college football is stuck using polls and computer rankings to determine who is the "champion" or who gets to play for the "championship," it has nothing more than an election. Before you comment, I'm aware that the college basketball selection committee uses polls to help determine the NCAA Tournament field every year. But they're just that: help. Those polls and rankings (like the RPI) are just guidance to fill out the bracket with bubble teams: teams that aren't going to contend for the championship but are good enough to fill out a 64-team field. Bubble teams rarely if ever have an effect on the tournament in the end (before you say, "What about George Mason?" remember that GMU won its conference tournament and thus was an automatic selection; it wasn't a bubble team). The teams that do the best during the regular season, the teams that have a chance to win the championship, always make the tournament.

I'm not going to get into all of the histrionics about why the current system is still in place when I-AA football has a long and successful history of playoff football. Suffice to say, it's down to three shortsighted things: money, inertia, and tradition. Let's talk about the money first. Despite what the NCAA likes to say, money is what big time college sports really is about. The BCS system is a cash cow, there is no doubt about that. Bowls distribute around $100 million to the teams and conferences that participate in them. The diehard proponents of the current system are so concerned with preserving the current cash cow and so risk adverse that they refuse to consider any change to the system that alters this status quo in any significant way.

The second problem is inertia. It's easier to keep doing what you're already doing, maybe make a few tweaks along the way, than it is to be brave and blow something up. The risk is massive, and the reward is somewhat speculative. I can understand that, but it is still not a good enough reason, especially considering what we're dealing with: universities. We should expect these institutions of higher learning to be the exemplars of forward thinking and courage. That is what they demand of the people who fund them - their students - after all. Cowering behind archaic structures is not the behavior we need from the places that produce our leaders, and we should not tolerate the hypocrisy.

Finally, we get to tradition. Proponents of the BCS system claim it should stay the way it is because we've always had polls and bowls, and we should protect the tradition of the bowl. My question: why? Why continue this charade of popularity contests and glorified exhibitions? That is all the polls and bowl games are, right? The BCS system has done an extraordinary job exposing this truth. It has not made bowls matter more, it has made them even more irrelevant. Fifteen years ago, the big bowls - the Rose Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl, the Orange Bowl, and the Sugar Bowl - all could matter because an undefeated team could appear in any one of them and lay a claim to the "title." Those four all also had their own special significance, too: they were grudge matches between conferences. The Rose Bowl, for example, was a test between the Big 10's and the Pac 10's respective conference champions to see which conference was better. That alone gave the bowls a decent amount of significance.

The desire to keep the "tradition" of the bowls alive has resulted in the destruction of the bowls relevance. Only one bowl "matters" today: the Tostitos BCS Championship Game (everything needs a sponsor). The Rose Bowl, et al. have been reduced to glorified exhibition status along with the Sun Bowl or Chick-fil-A Bowl (which have always been glorified exhibitions). The same desire has also destroyed one of the better parts of the tradition of the major bowls, as well: the virtual elimination of the inter-conference rivalries. For example, since 2002, the Rose Bowl has only once held the traditional matchup between the Big 10 and Pac 10 champions. One set of traditions have been sacrificed in the name of another, poorer set.

I'm not here just to criticize. I'm here to point to a better way, a way forward for all of college football. A way forward that will not only enhance the game, but also make the games important for a host of schools that have little to play for even at the beginning of the season, other than perhaps a trip to El Paso for Christmas, of course.

I give you the College Football Relegation Model.

How It Works

- The traditional conferences are dissolved, and teams are divided into 8 new geographic conferences with 15 teams each. Each conference is divided into a Tier 1 division, with 8 teams, and a Tier 2 division, with 7. Here's how I see the divisions breaking down:

South Atlantic

Tier 1: Alabama, Auburn, Georgia. Georgia Tech, Florida. Florida State, Miami, South Florida

Tier 2: Clemson, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, South Carolina, Troy, UAB, UCF

North Atlantic

Tier 1: Boston College, Marshall, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Tier 2: Army, Buffalo, Connecticut, Maryland, Navy, Syracuse, Temple

South

Tier 1: New Mexico State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Southern Methodist, TCU, Texas A&M, Texas – Austin, Texas Tech

Tier 2: Baylor, Houston, North Texas, New Mexico, Rice, Tulsa, UTEP

South East

Tier 1: Kentucky, Louisville, Memphis, Mississippi, Mississippi State, North Carolina State, Tennessee, Wake Forest

Tier 2: Duke, East Carolina, Middle Tennessee, North Carolina, Southern Mississippi, Vanderbilt, Western Kentucky

Great Lakes

Tier 1: Akron, Cincinnati, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio, Ohio State, Purdue

Tier 2: Ball State, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, Indiana, Kent State, Toledo, Western Michigan

Central

Tier 1: Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Miami (Ohio), Louisiana Tech, LSU, Wisconsin

Tier 2: Arkansas State, Eastern Michigan, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Munroe, Northern Illinois, Northwestern, Tulane

Pacific

Tier 1: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Oregon State, UCLA, USC, Washington

Tier 2: Fresno State, Hawaii, San Diego State, San Jose State, Stanford, UNLV, Washington State

Mountain

Tier 1: Air Force, Brigham Young, Colorado, Colorado State, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Utah

Tier 2: Boise State, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Utah State, Wyoming

- This is just my idea of how to break the teams out by geography. There are any number of ways to break the conferences down, i.e., preserving each of the current major six conferences and just add teams to them from the minor conferences and the independents. The only thing that really matters is preserving 8 conferences made of 15 teams. Which team is in Tier 1 and which is in Tier 2 when the system starts should be based on some formula of historic record. It'll be unfair for the first season or two for one team or another, but it'll work itself out in short order.

- Each team plays every team in their division once each season. So, teams in Tier 1 divisions have 7 automatic games, and Tier 2 teams have 6 automatic games. Tier 1 teams play 3 non-divisional games against teams of their choosing, and Tier 2 teams play 4. The non-divisional games can be against any team. This allows old rivalries, such as USC-Notre Dame, to continue.

- The champion of each Tier 1 division goes on to an eight-team playoff. Intra-division record determines Tier 1 champions. In the event of a tie, head to head record is the first tie-breaker. In the event of a three-way-plus tie and head-to-head cannot determine, out of conference record determines. If that does not break the tie, then out-of-conference strength of schedule will determine. This is so teams do not schedule too many easy opponents to pad their schedule.

- An RPI-like formula determines the tournament seeds. Seven traditional bowl sites can act as hosts for each tournament game, with championship game, semifinal, and, first round duty rotating amongst the sites.

- The Tier 1 teams that are 2nd-4th in their respective divisions play in bowl games. The only reason for this is to placate the people who are obsessed with bowls and bowl payouts. No, these bowls don’t matter, but, like I’ve already said, only one matters now anyway. The fifth rank team in each Tier 1 division is excluded from any post season games, bowl, or otherwise.

- The bottom team in each Tier 1 division is automatically relegated to its conference's Tier 2 division. For example, if Stanford has the worst record of any Western Conference Tier 1 team, it is automatically relegated to Tier 2 for the next season.

- The champion of each Tier 2 division is automatically promoted to its conference's Tier 1 division. For example, if Clemson is the South Atlantic Conference's Tier 2 champion, it is automatically promoted to that conference's Tier 1 division for the next season. Each Tier 2 champion also get bowl game invites. The formula for deciding tiebreakers for Tier 1 champions also applies to Tier 2 tiebreaking.

- The Tier 1 teams that are 6th and 7th in their respective divisions play relegation games against the 2nd and 3rd ranked team in their associated Tier 2 division. Winners of those games are in Tier 1 the following season, while losers are in Tier 2. These would be bowl games, as well.

If this looks familiar to you, you're right: it’s based on how European soccer leagues work. European soccer leagues have 90+ teams, like in Division I-A college football, and this league organization works for a number of reasons.

First, it recognizes the complexity of running a competition with a lot of teams. With that many teams, you need a complex system to properly figure out champions. This is a complex system, but it is quite simple when seen in its totality.

Second, it addresses a fundamental inequity in American sports: there is little organizational penalty for failure in any league. Here, a big and obvious penalty for failure exists: you get demoted. Pure and simple.

Third, the seasons of most college football teams are currently more or less done at the beginning of the season because most teams have no chance at a championship, either for their conference or the "national" one. At most, they have the possibility of playing in a postseason exhibition, er, sorry, bowl game. Well, in this system, teams have that, but a lot more. The top teams in Tier 1 are competing for a playoff berth. The middling teams are playing for that exhibition game, like they currently are doing. The not-so good teams are struggling to stay in Tier 1. Finally, the top Tier 2 teams are trying to get into Tier 1. Now, only a few teams have something to play for at any stage during the season, other than pride. Most teams have something tangible to play for under my system.

Fourth, it makes it increases the likelihood of more games being competitive. The I-A level is supposed to be the elite schools, but even at this level, the spread of talent is just so big that too many games are uninteresting. Schools like Duke and Indiana just cannot hang with conference-mates Florida State and Ohio State, respectively. My system groups teams with similar caliber of competition. Tighter grouping of talent means more close games, which equals more excitement for everyone. Great teams play each other in Tier 1, and mediocre teams play each other in Tier 2. More competitive games equal more interesting and exciting games.

Fifth, being segregated from the elite teams should provide some of these aforementioned perennial cellar dwellers the opportunity to experience some success. Because the games they play will likely be more competitive, the odds of them winning enough to get promoted, and thus attain a real goal for the first time in many of these programs’ histories, exist. Having an attainable goal such as promotion within sight makes it more feasible for programs to develop a culture of winning, because one of the keys to doing developing a culture of success is to have attainable goals. This is just so difficult in the current system.

Sixth, the importance of the college football regular season is not diminished one bit because just to get to the playoffs you probably have to go undefeated: one loss is as much of a killer in this system as it is in the current BCS system, if not more so. The drama and story line possibilities grow exponentially. And yes, sure there are programs like Connecticut or Duke probably who won't have much to play for year after year and will be stuck at the bottom of Tier 2 for years. But do they have anything to play for as it is? No, they do not.

Seventh, This system also keeps those “beloved” bowl games around. Out of the fifteen teams in each conference, 9 teams will play in some sort post season game: the Tier 1 champion goes to the playoffs, the Tier 1 teams ranked 2-4 and Tier 2 champion play in bowl games, and the four teams playing in relegation battles. That's 39 total postseason games, 23 of which mean something, instead of the 1 that currently means something. That's an improvement by any measure.

Eighth, it eliminates that inequity of the current conference system. The Big Six conferences (Big 12, Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, ACC, and Big East) have unfairly dominated college football to the exclusion of teams in other conferences. Witness Boise State, BYU, and Hawaii in the past few years. These teams have no chance of reaching the “championship” in college football, regardless of the merits of the actual team’s performance. Every team has the same opportunity to play for the championship.

Ninth, my system will not totally do away with the Cinderella upsets, like Toledo beating my Wolverines this season. Teams can and will still schedule supposed cupcake games for their non-conference games, so opportunities for upsets still abound.

Finally, it brings a championship tournament to I-A college football with little opportunity for arbitrary decisions to enter the mix: everything is settled on the field. That is what matters the most.

Now, is this ever going to happen? Hell no, for the reasons I outlined above. Oh, and ponder this: the institutions the produced the “leaders” who put us in this financial crisis are the same institutions that maintain the BCS. That thought ought to reinforce the fact that the BCS folk don't have the best interests of the game at heart: they have their own narrow, short-term, myopic self interest at heart, and that's why no changes will be made to the BCS system unless they are forced to change.

at 2:24 PM

. . . And here's your Eastern Conference. The East is deep this year. The right coast has a load of teams that are going to contend for a title this year, and a lot of teams that will threaten for the playoffs. Let's get to it.

Eyeing the Gold

1. Boston Celtics

They're the champs until they're proven unworthy of the title, and as much as it hurts this Lakers fan to admit it, the Celtics are as deserving a champion as any in recent memory. A now-veteran Rajon Rondo has replaced Ray Allen in the Big Three, I think, along with Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce. That's not to say that Allen is done; he's just starting to fade seriously. Add in solid rotation players in Eddie House, Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins, Leon Powe, and Glen Davis, along with the return of the entire coaching staff(including player-coach Sam Cassell) means that the Celtics are going to play stifling defense again, making life miserable for its competition. The loss of James Posey may be an issue, especially since they didn't really replace him, but I don't think the Celts will suffer too much.

2. Cleveland Cavaliers

LeBron James alone makes the Cavs a contender. Now King James finally has a decent PG to play with in Mo Williams, meaning the Cavs will be even more dangerous, since they have two guys on the floor who can distribute and find the open guys. Zydrunas Ilgauskas is a serviceable center when healthy, and Wally Szczberiak, Sasha Pavlovc, and Daniel Gibson are good role players. The Cavs do have one 'problem': they can't really afford to have both Ben Wallace and Anderson Varejao: both are just too offensively limited and are basically clones of each other. Since AV's contract can expire this year, the Cavs should look into trading him for another PF that can add some low post scoring and bolster their depth, since they're a bit thin otherwise. Still, King is so good that he can take a mediocre supporting cast all the way to the Eastern Conference Finals when he's healthy.

3. Detroit Pistons

I knew there was a reason I was delaying putting up the Eastern Conference Preview, and the Pistons are why. The Pistons had gotten stale over the past few years, and the acquisition of Allen Iverson for Chauncey Billups and Antonio McDyess really does mix this team up. The Pistons now have two different ways to start games off with: they can either go with a lineup of Iverson at the PG spot, with Rip Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Rasheed Wallace, and Amir Johnson, or they can move Rip to the 3, Iverson to the 2, put Rodney Stuckey at the 1, and bring Tayshaun off the bench. I think the latter will prove to be a more effective lineup because Iverson isn't a PG, he's a SG, and Rip is good and tall enough to be a SF. Either way, though, the Pistons are now a much more explosive team, and should be fun to watch. The real problems with the trade is that Billups was a defender (although he was slowing down a bit), while Iverson isn't, and the Pistons' depth gets sapped without McDyess: they now only have Jason Maxiell, Walter Hermann, and either Stuckey or Tayshaun to come off the bench. Okay, Kwame Brown is a decent defender and should soak up some minutes, but you can't count on him for anything better than that. If anyone gets injured, Detroit will be too thin to compete for a title. As they are now, I'd say they are better than they were before, and, barring injury, they're as much a threat as ever.

Pretenders to the Crown

4. Orlando Magic

The Magic have one of the best - if not THE best - centers in the game, Dwight Howard. They have good and deadly sharpshooters at the 3 and 4: Hedo Turkoglu and Rashard Lewis. They are just average defenders, though. Mickeael Pietrus. however, is a solid defensive presence and can drain the three well. He's not a spectacular shooting guard, but he's a solid starter at the position. The same applies to Jameer Nelson. He's definitely starter quality, but is by no means in the top tier of point guards in the league. The Magic truly do have great starting five. They have NO bench though: JJ Reddick can hit the 3, but he's otherwise useless. Tony Battie, Adonal Foyle, Anthony Johnson, Courtney Lee . . . well, the less said about them the better. The Magic will contend on the strength of their starting 5, but won't get far without some more bench support.

5. Toronto Raptors

Jose Calderon has a strong argument for being the best pure point guard in the East. Chris Bosh is a tremendous power forward, and among the top five in the East. Jermaine O'Neal isn't Jermaine O'Neal anymore, after all those injuries and surgeries; he's probably still a starter but is by no means a star anymore. The Raptors have two decent guys at the swingmen spots. Anthony Parker is a decent 2 guard; nothing extraordinary, but a solid shooter and a decent defender. Jamario Moon ought to be better than he was as a rookie, but the small forward is already 28 years old, so he's probably really close to his ceiling as it is. The only bench player of any note is Jason Kapono, who's absurdly good from long range, but has miserable defense and is just okay from inside the arc. Everyone else . . . well, when draft bust Andrea Bargnani is your second best bench player, you have problems. The team has no one to back up Calderon (I nonetheless think the O'Neal-T.J. Ford trade was a good idea because Ford didn't seem particularly enthused about being a second stringer and the Raptors needed a center badly), and no one to spell Bosh. I just don't think the Raptors are deep and good enough to it done this season, but they are pretty close. I think they need one good piece and two solid pieces: a swingman good enough to send Parker or Moon to the bench and someone to back up Bosh/O'Neal and a good backup PG. Add those, and the Raptors would vault to the third or fourth spots in the East.

6. Philadelphia 76ers

Bill Simmons has the best line about the 76ers. They're paying superstar money to a second banana (PF Elton Brand), and second banana money to three second tier players (PG Andrew Miller, SG Andre Iguodala, and C Samuel Dalembert). Yes, Iguodala did well last season, but it was a contract year; expect him to regress this year. Last year was an anomaly for Andre Miller: it was the first year since his second as a pro that his PER was over the 16.5 range. given his age, he ought to regress, too. Then again, he's in a contract year, so he's going to do his damnedest to stay up there. Dalembert is and will be an average starter: nothing special, but he's not going to hurt you. As for Elton Brand, well, he's an improvement over what they had last year, but he's a small PF and has never been a go-to guy. I'd take Bosh over Brand at this point in their careers: remember that the Clippers weren't even a .500 team in Brand's last full season, and the Clippers weren't an untalented team that year. $46 million - 80% of the salary cap - to those players is absurd. Fortunately for the Sixers, their second best player, SF Thad Young is only making about $2 million this season. Willie Green, Theo Ratliff, Lou Williams, and Reggie Williams form a decent bench, but the bench isn't good enough to overcome my reservations about the starting 5. I really don't see how these guys are a threat to the Celtics, Cavs, or Pistons, let alone the Magic or Raptors.

Early Exit Fodder

7. Miami Heat

The Heat are a bit of a mystery this year. They get a healthy and hungry Dwayne Wade back, which is going to be HUGE. Wade is one of the few players in this league who can carry a team all by his lonesome, along with LeBron, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Paul Pierce, Chris Paul, and Steve Nash. Shawn Marion in a contract year and a good chunk of time at small forward means that he's going to be motivated and as effective as ever. Add in rookies PF Michael Beasley, a super-scorer who has the leaders he needs around him now so he can fulfill his potential, and PG Mario Chalmers, who's going to be looking for revenge after sinking to the second round, and veteran center Udonis Haslem, who's the definition of solid at center, and you get an intriguing starting five. Marcus Banks, last year's starting PG, will do well coming off the bench, as will Dorell Wright, Mark Blount, and Chris Quinn. Shaun Livingston is an interesting X Factor, too: if he gives the Heat anything, it'll be bonus. If he can get and stay healthy, Livingston will make for a great backup combo guard. The bench isn't anything great, but it should be good enough to help the Heat be a dangerous playoff team this year.

8. Atlanta Hawks

Whether or not the Hawks make the playoffs will depend on Marvin Williams. The East is a lot better this year, and the former first rounder has to both replace Greece-bound Josh Childress and make the most of that sweet J and size that he has. We know what Josh Smith, Joe Johnson, and Mike Bibby are going to give us, and Al Horford should make a step forward this year, although he's undersized at center. Williams showed us more than flashes of his potential in the playoffs last year, and if he keeps that upward trajectory, the Hawks will be a force this year: they won't just barely make the playoffs, they'll contend for the Southeast Division title with Orlando. Atlanta needs a deeper bench, though, to compete for a title: Acie Law was so bad last year that the Hawks had to give up half of their roster for Bibby, but he's still young and should be better this year (he certainly couldn't be worse). Maurice Evans and Flip Murray are decent backups, but nothing more. That's the extent of their bench. Combine that with their in-progress starting lineup, and you get a team that ought to make the playoffs, but not get past the first round again.

8. Chicago Bulls

The Bulls are a thoroughly mediocre team, which is better than a team that had the first pick in draft should be, and they ought to be on the rise. Derrick Rose is going to be a star, and should be pretty good this year, too.With Kirk Hinrich backing him up, they should be solid at the PG spot for years to come. Luol Deng and Andres Nocioni make a good combo at SF, and Deng is still on the rise. Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah will eventually be great at locking down opposing power forwards, but they're not there yet, and Drew Gooden is a serviceable center and provides some desperately needed low-post scoring. The SG slot is less settled: Larry Hughes and Ben Gordon are going to get the bulk of the minutes, but neither of them are starters. Thabo Sefolosha may be the starter eventually, but he's not there yet. The Bulls really are a poor man's version of the Blazers: young, upcoming but they don't have the same promise for this year. Plus, the coaching situation will be one to watch: Vinnie Del Negro hasn't really coached at any level; how well will he pan out? They're only as high as they are because of the uncertainty below them.

10. Washington Wizards

The Wizards are done. PG/SG Gilbert Arenas getting $111 million over 6 years and PF Antawn Jamison getting $50 million over 4 means that the team is stuck as it is for the foreseeable future, and as it is isn't very good. This season, they'll be lucky to make the playoffs with as many injuries as they have already (Arenas and starting C Brendan Haywood both out until around December). Okay, Arenas is a hell of a shooter, but the guy is just too injury-prone, and he's not a point guard anymore: he's too much of a shoot-first guy, but he's not that great when the ball is out of his hands. Jamison is a very good PF, but he's getting up there in age, and he's no longer in a contract year. The team's best player is SF Caron Butler, given his production and durability. Plus, he has the best nickname in sports: "Tough Juice." After them, well, Haywood is a marginal starter, but the same cannot be said about his backups, Etan Thomas and Andray Blatche, who now will compete for the starting job for the first couple of months. DeShawn Stevenson is a decent SG, but I'd like him better coming off the bench. Same can be said for starting PG Antonio Daniels. All in all, I'm not impressed with the Wizards, and if everyone was healthy, I wouldn't expect anything better than a 6 or 7 seed. With two key players on the injury list, I don't even expect that this year.

11. Milwaukee Bucks

The Bucks can theoretically contend. Michael Redd is a lights-out shooter, and Charlie Villanueva is a good starting PF. Richard Jefferson, as overrated as he is, will bring enough scoring and defense to win some games, if he's not sulking. Andrew Bogut should to make the leap to solid starter, as well. Add in a healthy point guard competition between Luke Ridnour and Ramon Sessions, and the Bucks' starting five is respectable. But that's it. They have zero depth, and will struggle at times this year. They'll compete for the eighth spot, but that's all they'll do: compete.

Trying to Collect the Most Ping Pong Balls

12. Indiana Pacers

I'm not sold on T.J. Ford as a starting point guard. Good thing the Pacers have Jarrett Jack as a combo guard backup; JJ really is an ideal bench guy: he's not quite starter talent, but he's still quick, he can shoot, he can defend, and he's versatile enough to give you a few different looks, depending on where he's played (no, an ideal bench guy isn't starter quality because guys of starter quality start agitating, ruining chemistry, when they're bench guys). Danny Granger won't ever be an elite player, but he's on the upper end of the second tiers of players, and will be an All-Star in good years. Troy Murphy can contribute on offense at PF, but he's a massive liability on defense. C Rasho Nesterovic is the opposite: a decent defender but mediocre at best on the offense. Mike Dunleavy could be the X Factor here: he improved a lot last year, but how much of that was a fluke? He also really does play the same position as Danny Granger, but isn't as good. Brandon Rush was a nice draft pick, and will be the next Bruce Bowen/Raja Bell. After that . . . good luck. The Pacers need to improve at the big spots and need more depth. If they get that, they'll be playoff contenders. As it is, by the end of the season, I think the Pacers best lineup will be a small lineup with TJ Ford, Jarrett Jack, Brandon Rush, Mike Dunleavy, and Danny Granger. That 5 will run other teams ragged and would be really fun to watch.

13. New Jersey Nets

What's the over/under on how many games it takes before Vince Carter starts mailing it in, like he did in Toronto? Sure he's probably upset that his buddies are gone, but I have no doubt that the Richard Jefferson and Jason Kidd trades were made in the best interests of the team: they weren't going to compete with them, so why pay them? The Nets were able to pick up a nice piece in the Kidd trade: Devin Harris. He won't be an elite PG any time soon, but he's going to be a Tier 2 PG for years to come, which can't be said about Kidd. The big pickup in the Jefferson trade, Yi Jianlian, is years from being what he could be, but even then, he's not a PF except in a small ball lineup. The Nets won't go small ball, though, considering they drafted Brooke Lopez, who will be a good space hog in the middle down the line. This year, probably not. Bobby Simmons is a decent SF, but that's about it. The Nets also have a lot of flotsam and jetsam filling the rest of the roster, which means that they won't compete for anything, but a lottery spot. I also expect the Nets to pick up some good young pieces when some contender eventually comes calling to take VC off their hands.

14. New York Knicks

Well, the Knicks are finally on the road to redemption. It's going to be a long road. They have two contractual albatrosses: Stephen Marbury and Eddy Curry. Of course, Marbury will be off the books next season, and Curry the season after. The team just isn't very good. Chris Duhon and Nate Robinson are both pretty mediocre PG's, but they do bring different looks: Duhon can defend and distribute well enough, and Robinson can shoot and bring a lot of energy. Swingmen Jamal Crawford and Quentin Richardson are shooters, but that's about it. David Lee is a good PF, but he'll never be better than a solid starter. Zach Randolph is great shooter, but he always looks for his own shot first, second and third, and as good as he is on the offensive end, he's far worse on the defensive front. Mike D'Antoni is a HUGE improvement on the coaching front, though, and he'll make the most of this weak Knicks roster. New York will be better this year, but that's it. Wait until next year. Or the year after.

15. Charlotte Bobcats

This team is a mess. They have nothing. Gerald Wallace should be the third best player on a contender, not a feature player. Emeka Okafor is a nice piece, but that's it. Raymond Felton could be nice, but he's not. Sean May could be a dominant PF if he ever got healthy and stayed in shape. The fact tat they have no one else of worth says that they've just drafted so badly over the years. A washed up Larry Brown at coach, who's notoriously impatient with young talent doesn't help matters, either. Say hello to another top draft pick this year, and another bad draft pick.

at 3:07 PM

October is the greatest sports month in the U.S. We have the World Series, the NFL season in full swing, the NHL gaining steam, NASCAR in the Chase for the Cup, college football doing its normally chaotic thing, and the NBA kicking off. How good is this?

So, without further ado, here is my preview of the new NBA season; should be a wild time. The format will be one of those stupid "Power Rankings" because I figure mine are about as worthwhile as everyone else's.

WESTERN CONFERENCE

O'Brien Trophy Hopefuls

1. Los Angeles Lakers

The reigning Western Conference Champions and prohibitive favorites for the title this year. This is your starting Laker team: Derek Fisher, Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol, and Andrew Bynum. That's a hell of a starting lineup, featuring arguably the best player in the game, two other people who can handle the ball and move it up the court in Odom and Fisher, and a great inside-outside big tandem in Gasol and Bynum. This impressive set of starters, though, doesn't come at a cost of overall team depth: Jordan Farmar provides a great off-the-bench spark; Trevor Ariza is an excellent swingman stopper; Sasha Vujacic is just a bomber from behind the line (and is perhaps the most hated player in the league, having wrested the title from Bruce Bowen); and Vladimir Radmanovic and Luke Walton are solid bench contributors. Combined with a great coach in Phil Jackson, you have the recipe for a winner. They might need to make a trade for a defender (and Odom makes great trade bait), but, damn, this looks like a good season to be a Lakers fan.

2. Utah Jazz

The Jazz have a tremendous PG-PF combo, with Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer. Boozer is in a contract year, and considering how well he's known for looking out for himself above all (see e.g., Boozer's screwing of Cleveland's former owner when he skipped town to go to Utah), which may result in him looking out for himself at the expense of the team. Williams is an MVP candidate, and is certainly ought to be an All-Star this year. Mehmet Okur, Kyle Korver, andPaul Milsap, are all solid contributors, and I think Ronnie Brewer will be a breakout star this year. Andrei Kirilenko is a hell of an X factor, too: he's proven that he can be an All-Star, but he fell off tremendously in the second half of last year. Add in a good backup big in Jarron Collins and a rookie with loads of potential in Kosta Koufos, and you have a good, deep contender. Add in the great coach Jerry Sloan and there's no doubt that Utah will be a force this year. No one should take them lightly.

3. New Orleans Hornets

The Hornets have one of the best point guard-power forward combo in the league in Chris Paul and David West, who are both on their talent upswings and will be even better than they were last year. In fact, Paul ought to be the early favorite for MVP this season. Add in the defensive presence of Tyson Chandler, the floor-spreading ability of Peja Stojakovic and Morris Peterson, and the defense and 3 point shot of James Posey, you have a formidable team. The Hornets don't get the op spot for a couple of reasons, though. First, New Orleans is thin after those six. Second, three of those guys are long range specialists who aren't especially quick (Posey, Mo Pete, Peja), which might make them somewhat predictable. Still, the team is imposing, and will be title contenders this year.

Hope to Play Into May

4. Houston Rockets

I like the Rockets to make a lot of noise in the NBA this year, but I don't believe in the Rockets. The team's two best players, SG Tracy McGrady and C Yao Ming are too injury prone. The team's big offseason acquisition, SF Ron Artest is a gigantic risk factor. While his effort, defense, and shooting ability are all unquestionable, his mind and shot selection aren't. For a team that was all about the collective effort and making the sum better than its parts (especially after Yao went down), a player that has a "me" mentality and is charitably described as mercurial is dangerous, especially the first time that Artest decides that he wants to take the shot no matter what. And the second. And the third. It just seems that he's too great a risk for a very-good-but-not-great player. This is going to be an interesting team to watch: if the team is working as it can, they'll be a title contender for sure; when it's not, it'll be a train wreck. The Rockets have a solid PF/C rotation, with Luis Scola and Carl Landry make good complements to Yao. The Rockets also can keep a defensive stopper on the floor at all times with Artest and Battier; put them at the 2 and 3 at the same time, and other teams are going to have trouble getting shots off. Rafer Alston and Aaron Brooks make serviceable PG's, and the Rockets haves excellent sharpshooters in Brent Barry and Luther Head.

As good as the team is, and I expect them to compete with the best this year, something bugs me about the Rockets. While the team is deep, it's bench isn't exactly at the quality of the Jazz or the Lakers. Also, the Rockets' "Big Three" aren't as good as any other team's "Big Three:" When healthy, I'd certainly take Kobe/Pau/Drew, CP3/D-West/Chandler, Kevin Garnett/Paul Pierce/Rajon Rondo, Tim Duncan/Tony Parker/Manu Ginobli or Steve Nash/Amare Stoudamire/Shaquille O'Neal over T-Mac/Yao/Artest. The combustibility factor just makes me that much more leery of getting on the Rocket Ship.

5. San Antonio Spurs

The Spurs have been too injury-prone recently, and Manu Ginobli's ankle injury that'll keep him out until December/January doesn't bode well. Tim Duncan is still an elite player and Tony Parker is a top tier point, but after those three, the team is thin. Bruce Bowen is still a solid defender, but he started to show his age last year, and I expect his decline to accelerate. Michael Finley showed only flashes of his previous excellence, Francisco Oberto looks like he might be coming on (60+% from the field is pretty damn impressive), and Kurt Thomas can still contribute. But beyond them, Matt Bonner, Jacque Vaughn, Salim Stoudamire, Ime Udoka, and Roger Mason don't concern anyone. Nonetheless, with Greg Popovich at the wheel and Tim Duncan riding shotgun, this team will make the playoffs.

Chaos Down Below

6. Portland Trailblazers

Brandon Roy, Sergio Rodriguez, LaMarcus Aldridge, Greg Ogen, Channing Frye, Rudy Fernandez, Jerryd Bayless, and Travis Outlaw form the best young core in the league: a great mix of youth, talent, and winning experience (the team threatened for a playoff spot last year before fading at the end, but still finished at a very respectable .500 without Oden, Fernandez, and Bayless) promise to make things interesting. I don't expect them to compete for a title this year, but they'll take a playoff spot and will be favorites within a few years if they're able to stay healthy. This is one team of the future is one that I can't wait to see this year.

7. Phoenix Suns

The Suns are getting old. Starters Steve Nash, Shaquille O'Neal, and Raja Bell are all on the decline, and Grant Hill can only play limited time at limited effectiveness. Nash nonetheless is still one of the top distributor in the game, but the others have fallen off big and are little more than solid contributors and role players now. Amare Stoudamire is one of the best PF's in the game, however, and Matt Barnes, Boris Diaw, and Leandro Barbosa are all decent contributors. Robin Lopez might be decent, but might not.

While most people (including me) are mourning the end of the run-and-gun Suns, it may be better for the team, record-wise. Shifting to a slower game should help keep the team's old legs from getting torn up and keep them competitive. A stricter adherence to solid defensive fundamentals will help, too, of course. Still, the fact that the team had to shift styles to remain good demonstrates that the Suns' window has closed: the Suns are a second tier Western Conference team, and in the West, that may not be enough to secure a playoff spot.

8. Dallas Mavericks

I'm really down on the Mavs. I still think the Kidd-Harris trade was a disaster, especially since Kidd isn't even among the top 5 point guards in the Western Conference: CP3, Deron Williams, Nash, Parker, and Barron Davis are all better than him, and Sergio Rodriguez and Beno Udrih may even give him a run for his money this year, too. Dirk Nowitzki is still an All-Star, but he's the team's only one and he looks like he's starting to level off. Jason Terry and Jerry Stackhouse are still serviceable, but only just so, and Josh Howard is a mess off the court. Other than those guys, who do they have, Brandon Bass? Antoine Wright? Erick Dampier? Old and thin doesn't a good team make, and the Mavs are going to struggle to make the playoffs this year.

9. Los Angeles Clippers

Yes, not having Elton Brand is a huge loss, but you have to compare this team really to the team last year. The team basically exchanged Corey Maggette for Barron Davis and Marcus Camby. The questions are whether Al Thornton will continue his upward trajectory, whether Eric Gordon will be the kind of scorer that he promises to be, whether Camby will continue be as angry about his exile from Denver as he currently is and use that as fuel, and whether Davis will start mailing it in when the Clippers suffer a 5 game losing streak, as Davis is wont to do when he feels like he has nothing to play for. If the answers are yes, yes, yes, and no, and you add in Tim Thomas, Chris Kaman, Ricky Davis, and Cuttino Mobley, the Clippers will be a playoff contender this season.

10. Denver Nuggets

The Nugs are in cost-cutting mode: witness the Camby trade for 1 cent on the dollar. Any team with Carmelo Anthony and Allen Iverson will be dangerous, but the Nugs aren't a title contender; the Lakers swept a better Denver team last year in the first round. Losing Camby really hurts: sure his offense was limited, but his defense was tremendous and was necessary given the lack of defensive effort by the other main players on the team. Furthermore, with Kenyon Martin being complete money pit given his production, and Nene coming off of cancer surgery, you can't expect too much from this team's bigs on either end of the court. Anthony Carter, Chucky Atkins, Linas Kleiza, and J.R. Smith are all decent players, though, and George Karl is still a good coach, so they'll be competitive, but this team isn't going to scare anyone if they manage to get into the playoffs.

11. Sacramento Kings

I doubt the Kings will make the playoffs, because this is a transition year. The Kings are a worse team today than they were a year ago, because Artest and Mike Bibby are gone. On the plus side, though, Ron Artest is gone. The Kings are officially Kevin Martin's team now. Martin's a lights-out shooter, but he's not good enough to carry this team by himself. Brad MIller is a decent center but he's getting up there in age, and Beno Udrih can ball a bit. After that, though, the Kings have little to nothing.

Ricky Rubio Sweepstakes Entrants

12. Memphis Grizzlies

Rudy Gay is a stud and will have to carry a lot of scoring load now that Mike MIller is in Minnesota until O.J. Mayo gets acclimated to the league. The Grizzlies also have plenty of talent at the backcourt slots with Mayo, Mike Conley, Kyle Lowry, and Javaris Crittenton. One of the latter three will certainly be dealt for a big later in the season if the Memphis front office has any sense (well, given the Pau Gasol trade last season, that's not exactly a given). They'll need to make such a trade. I'm not sold on the combo of Darrell Arthur/Marc Gasol at the big spots, and Hakim Warrick, Darko Milicic, and Antoine Walker are hardly answers. The team could role out a decent small ball team, I guess, with Mayo, Gay, Arthur/Gasol, and two of Conley, Lowry, and Crittenton, which could be entertaining. I'm still not sold, though that they'll be anything other than a half decent lottery team this year, especially with the poor home crowd.

13. Minnesota Timberwolves

Still rebuilding, but the T-Wolves have a number of nice pieces. Randy Foye showed some good progress when he was healthy, Corey Brewer has the makings of a defensive stopper, Ryan Gomes is a contributor, and Al Jefferson is a monster. Kevin Love should take over the starting PF spot by the end of the season, too. Mike Miller ought to make great trade bait with his absurdly good shooting and attractive contract (only one more year after this season at a somewhat reasonable $9M per), also, which bodes well for the future of this team.

14. Oklahoma City Thunder

The team will benefit from a raucous home crowd and Kevin Durant, whom I expect to be a point machine this year. But they're not a good team. After Jeff Green, who I think will do really well this year too, and perhaps Russell Westbrook, the team has nothing.

15. Golden State Warriors

I read somewhere that this is now "Stephen Jackson's team." That ought to strike fear in the heart of every Warrior fan. There's no way a player who isn't All-Star caliber or potentially All-Star caliber should be the lead of a team. The team also won't have a decent point guard for a very long time now that Barron Davis is with the Clippers and Monte Ellis is suspended for 30 games. Corey Maggette will put up points, but that's about it; he'll get injured sometime during the season and miss a good stretch of time, and he'll be sporadic on defense, which is fine for the Warriors' run-and-gun style. I have no idea why the team dropped so much money on Ronny Turiaf - he' s going to get stuck at the end of the bench because he's not a run-and-gun kind of guy, like Andris Biedrins is.

at 10:56 PM

Hey, everyone else is doing it, so why not me? These are the criteria I'm using to evaluate teams, in no particular order.

- Personnel moves. Who have they added, and how are their additions going to help (or hurt) the team? Who have the subtracted, and how are their subtractions going to hurt (or help) the team?

- Personnel aging. Players get better the longer they're in the league, then plateau, then start to fall off. How will having another year under their belts affect the teams' players?

- Coaching. Will the team be better having another year of playing under the same coach and with the same system? Will the team be disrupted having switched to a new system? Is the team better off with the new coach? Is the team in danger of starting to tune out the existing coach? There are a lot of questions here that depend on the situation in question.

- Schedule. An easier schedule makes it more likely that a team will do better, of course, but this isn't all that important because just because we think a schedule is easy now doesn't mean it'll prove to be easy once the games start.

AFC East Division

New England Patriots 90%

The only thing that can slow these guys down is injuries. The easiest schedule in the league due to some fortunate scheduling also provides a massive assist, too.

New York Jets 6%

The Jets are rated as highly as they are based solely on the chance that Brett Favre still has some magic left. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have a Favre who doesn't know the system than Kellen Clemens or Chad Pennington start, but he' s not going to make that much of a difference in the Jets' fortunes this year. 8-8 would be a great season for the Jets this year, I think.

Buffalo Bills 3%

The Bills aren't really a bad team, but they just are in a tough division. I don't expect much noise from these guys, except when they realize that Toronto is a far better city than Buffalo during the game in Canada and start formulating plans to move there in the off season.

Miami Dolphins 1%

Rebuilding mode with a Chad Pennington who would've been a clipboard carrier for Kellen Clemens had Favre not fallen into the Jets' collective lap. The most important thing this year is to get a great draft position.

AFC North

Pittsburgh Steelers 35%

Something about the Steelers just isn't sitting well with me; I'm not sure what it is. They have talent mostly everywhere, although the defensive line is a bit thin. Roethlisberger finally has the tall receiver he's always wanted in 6'6 Micah Rucker, but he's also been hit a lot and they haven't upgraded the o-line much. They have a potentially weak division, if Cleveland doesn't do well, they have a potentially weak division, but even so, they have a tough schedule. By all rights I should give them a higher grade, but I just can't do it.

Cleveland Browns 25%

They have a good team, but there's just been too much hype and expectations. Derek Anderson faded badly at the end of last year, and they are two consecutive mediocre performances away from a full scale quarterback controversy. Combine that with a tough schedule, and I'd be mildly surprised if the Browns made the playoffs.

Baltimore Ravens 20%

The Joe Flacco era begins now. A rookie QB usually spells doom, but the Ravens have traditionally been a team that could muddle on with a mediocre QB so long as he was intelligent (which Boller was not all the time) because the defense carried them. Injuries wrecked the D last year, and the team seems pretty healthy. I think the Ravens will be competitive, but not exactly playoff contenders.

Cincinnati Bengals 20%

Chad Ocho Cinco is still a Top 10 wideout, and Carson Palmer is still a Tier 2 QB (the only Tier 1 QB's are Manning and Brady, so there's no shame in being a Tier 2 QB). The team is dysfunctional to all hell and back, but they have lots of talent. Either they're going to catch lightning in a bottle and ride it all the way to the playoffs . . . or they'll get struck by lightning and it'll leave them for dead like it did the past several years.

AFC South

Indianapolis Colts 38%

No Jeff Saturday plus a banged up Peyton Manning who is close to the age at which quarterbacks start declining plus an injury-plagued defense plus a tough schedule plus an up-and-comer in the division in Jacksonville equals one hell of a season for the Colts. They'll definitely start slow, but a 10-6 season at the very least is going to happen so long as Manning plays every game.

Jacksonville Jaguars 37%

David Garrard-led Jacksonville is ready to step up to the next level. They got rid of the cancer/cocaine-fiend Matt Jones, and both sides of the ball are loaded. A playoff appearance is likely.

Houston Texans 20%

The Texans have a shot at making some noise this year. I'm looking for Mario Williams to take his game to the next level, and the offense, if they can find 2 running backs out of their 30 on the roster who can play, they'll be in good shape. A playoff appearance is finally a possibility for the newest NFL team after so many years.

Tennessee Titans 5%

I don't like the Titans this year for three reasons: they can't find a running game, Vince Young, and the schedule. This is the third time in three years that the Titans have drafted a running back in the first two rounds of the draft. Hopefully Chris Johnson pans out, but I suspect he's just another NFL Combine creation: backs need to be able to either be fast and elusive or to be able to take a hit (preferably both, like Tomlinson). RB's are the most hit offensive skill players in the game, so Johnson is going to take a beating, despite being able to run the 40 in 4.32 seconds. He's supposedly a good receiver, so if the Titans are smart, they'll use him as the offensive equivalent of the 'predator' position on defense: someone who roams around the field, starting in various alignments in the same package: one play split wide, one play in the backfield, another in the slot, etc. (similar to how Reggie Bush is being used in New Orleans). Vince Young scares me because I think this is the make-or-break year for him. He regressed last year - his quarterback rating went up just 4.4 QB points, his rushing YPC went down 2.5 yards, his TD-INT ratio went from 12:13 to 9:17, and his total number of touchdowns went from 19 to 12. Young has to step it up this year, or I think Tennessee will look hard at drafting a quarterback next year or bringing in someone to challenge Young for the starting job. Finally, they have a rough schedule and a stacked division. Good luck, Tennessee.

AFC West

San Diego Chargers 55%

The Chargers are the cream of the division, and the only reason I give them only a 55% chance of winning the division is because of injuries: Merriman is maybe 50%; Tomlinson has a lot of mileage on him, is banged up from last yea, and no longer has Michael Turner to spell him; and Antonio Gates' toe is still crippling him. I think the Chargers could probably contend for the division even without two of those three guys, but it'll be tough, especially because they have a decently challenging schedule, facing both the AFC East and the NFC East teams this year.

Denver Broncos 25%

The Broncos have a shot as long as Mike Shannahan is at the helm. This is Jay Cutler's year to shine; the Chargers are vulnerable, due to injuries, and it's conceivable that they could steal the division title this year if the injury breaks go their way.

Kansas City Chiefs 19%

The same goes for the Chiefs. I'm no Brody Croyle fan, losing Will Shields hurts, and Larry Johnson has an awful lot of mileage on him, but they still have a few players. Still, with a potentially weak division if the Chargers' injuries aren't as good as the Chargers are hoping, the Chiefs have a shot at making some noise.

Oakland Raiders 1%

It's the Raiders. They're still in shambles, Al Davis is still senile and getting worse every day while not relinquishing control, and it was so bad that their top wideout wanted to quit on them over the summer and give back his signing bonus. No chance.

NFC East

Dallas Cowboys 40%

The NFC's behemoth, and odds-on favorite to represent the conference in the Super Bowl.

Philadelphia Eagles 35%

They look like they reloaded this year and did a good job shedding deadweight like Jevon Kearse. The continually strained relationship between Philadelphia and Donavan McNabb (note to fans: never boo your 1st round draft pick, it'll ruin your relationship with him forever; also, never think you know better than the brass - who would take Ricky Williams over Donavan McNabb now?)

New York Giants 15%

No Strahan plus big contracts for several key players plus a Super Bowl hangover plus injuries tells me that the New York Giants will probably be like the Ravens after they won it all several years ago.

Washington Redskins 10%

A new, inexperienced coach and the third new system in four years for Jason Campbell indicate a spell of turbulence for the Redskins, as confirmed on Thursday. The team galvanized around playing for Sean Taylor's memory, and they're not going to have that.

NFC North

Green Bay Packers 50%

The team is still loaded, and I'm not convinced that Favre would've played significantly better than Rodgers; he maybe would have been able to win 2-3 more games, but his gunslinger mentality would've cost them 1-2 games, too. Yes, Favre was great last year, but don't let his greatness last season outshine the debacle that was his 2006 campaign and the slow decline he suffered the several years before. Furthermore, he is on the wrong side of 37 (he turns 38 in about a month), an age during which quarterback skills diminish precipitously. And anyway, Favre would've succumbed to the Madden curse and Rodgers would've had to step in anyway around Week 4; at least this way, the Pack don't have to sub Rodgers in midway through a game and hope that he can save their season.

Chicago Bears 25%

Kyle Orton is a clear upgrade over Rex Grossman, one of the worst starting QB's in the Super Bowl, ever. The passing game may be in shambles, but the running game should be decent enough. The defense suffered a lot of injuries last year, so it should return to form. I see the Bears being a dangerous team and competing for a wild card spot.

Minnesota Vikings 24%

The Vikings have an awesome offensive line, and supposedly have a great defense, but the Vikings have one of the biggest red flags for me: it's the team that everyone is picking to go far, and that is typically a recipe for disaster on the order of the Madden Curse. Also, Tavaris Jackson still hasn't proven anything to me, and I have a hard time believing in a team that is so dependent upon an injury-prone running back like Adrian Peterson. I think the overall talent is just below the Packers, but the red flags are just too much for me to ignore. I'd happily be proven wrong.

Detroit Lions 1%

It's still a Matt Millen team. It's still going nowhere.

NFC South

New Orleans Saints 33%

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 33%

Carolina Panthers 33%

I really don't know what to make of this division. All three of these teams have a shot. Carolina will be out of it if Steve Smith can't bounce back from his injury and Jake Delhomme isn't fully recovered from Tommy John surgery. The Bucs have a shot because they have a good amount of talent everywhere. No one is great, but everyone is good, I think. The Saints have a shot because they have a great offense on paper, but Reggie Bush is so injury prone it's not even funny. I'm not a fan of their defense, either.

Atlanta Hawks 1%

They have nothing. The Matt Ryan era will start painfully, and they'll be competing with the Dolphins for top pick in the draft.

NFC West

Seattle Seahawks 84%

Every time you think they're out of it, they keep finding away to keep alive. They got rid of Shaun Alexander at the right time, if not a year too late, but que sera. No one else in the West is any good, so the Seahawks should take the division in a laugher.

Arizona Cardinals 10%

The Cardinals have so much talent, but it's just not getting put together. The Cardinals need Matt Lienert to step it up when Kurt Warner inevitably gets hurt/yanked for fumbling too much. If he can, the Cards will be one of the most dangerous teams in the league, with the offense they have. The defense is still a sieve, but the Cardinals could potentially jockey for a wild card spot or even a division title if the Seahawks get banged up.

San Francisco 49ers 5%

This team is a mess. They have some players, but not enough. If they catch fire, they'll make noise, but I wouldn't count on it.

St. Louis Rams 1%

Another team that's a mess. 3rd in the division would be a successful year.

at 10:24 AM

Ten years ago, I went to a Los Angeles Galaxy game on the Fourth of July - when they still played at the cavernous Rose Bowl - and it was cheap enough to go back then that I was able to buy tickets for me, my buddy, and my cousin on my just-graduated-from-high-school-minimum-wage-job without flinching. I remember it was ten years ago, because it was just after the U.S. National Team, execrably coached by Steve Sampson, was humiliatingly bounced from the 1998 World Cup in France, and the game was Cobi Jones' first since his humbling return from France.

Even though the seats I had purchased were cheap, they were nonetheless quite good, and we had a great angle and view of all the action. Afterward, we were treated to a fireworks display so spectacular and long that I actually wanted it to end.

With that fond memory in my head, I thought about going to the Galaxy game this past Fourth of July. Sticker shock hit quickly hit: the cheapest decent seats available were $45 per (yes, I know the Home Depot Center has good seats that are as low as $18, but they were sold out). Quite frankly, I wasn't really interested in dropping ~ $175 (for tickets, ticket service charge, parking, and food) for my girlfriend and me to see a soccer game that night. We went to see Wall-E instead.

No, this isn't going to be a screed against the rising ticket prices and how fans are getting priced out of the game. Better writers than me have covered that ground quite well already (for one such example, read ESPN's Jemelle Hill's August 1st article). What I'd like to explain is the why.

So why are ticket prices so expensive? Because the teams can charge that much: it's simple supply and demand. Teams are, at their core, for-profit enterprises. Yes, they are often vanity projects and trophies for rich men (which is more impressive, owning a 200 foot yacht or owning your city's baseball team?). Yes, occasionally, they are community-ran corporations, like the Green Bay Packers. Still, I guarantee you that every single professional team in this country is organized as a for-profit company, and they're going to take advantage of simple supply and demand to get the most money possible.

Yes, it is expensive to go to a ball game. USA Today reported that, in 2006, the league-wide average NFL ticket price was $62.38. The New England Patriots were responsible for the highest average ticket price, with seats in Gillette Stadium going for an average of $90.89, while the Buffalo Bills charged "just" $41.29 per ticket on average.

That's for single season game tickets. What if you want season tickets? Well, you're also going to have to buy tickets for two preseason games at the same rate, so a season package at the average ticket price is $908.90 on average. You have to get at least two tickets, of course because no one goes to the game by himself. Add in parking and food, you're looking at around $1,600, at least, for eight Sundays of entertainment (there's nothing entertaining about preseason games, so those don't count). That's a lot of money.

Oh, you don't want to or can't pay that much to see your team play? I certainly don't blame you, but too bad. Gillette Stadium's capacity is 68,756 (the Supply), while The Patriots have a waiting list of 50,000 people for season tickets, each of whom paid $100 per seat requested to get on the list (the Demand), so they won't have any trouble replacing you.

Okay, so the Patriots are an outlier; they're a really successful team, so it makes sense there'd be a huge demand. What about if there aren't enough people in a community to pay what a team is demanding for the right to attend their games? Well, teams have alternate sources of Demand, as we've seen repeatedly over the years, most recently with the Seattle SuperSonics moving to Oklahoma City.

at 7:49 PM

So, my review of the Suunto Core got me thinking. What would be the ideal sports watch?

I went about thinking of what a good sports watch needs, and how would I make it as usable as possible. Here's what I came up with (I posted this also to a watch website forum, by the way).

Case

Size: 46 x 40 mm oval. This watch is going to be feature-packed, so you need a lot of space, but you want it to be able to fit a variety or wrists. Having it be an oval will accomplish that. Several YES and Nike watches are oval/oblong, and they work well.
Lugs/straps: recessed and designed for quick strap change (like Cartier straps are). 22 mm straps would work well.
Material: carbon fiber, ideally. Realistically, stainless or brushed steel.
Water resistance: 100m minimum, 200m preferable.
Mineral crystal with an antireflective coating. Plastic scratches too easy and sapphire just isn't worth the cost on something like this.
Good looking enough for every day wear. Maybe hire Suunto's designers.

Pushers/Buttons

The vast majority of all watches have pushers/buttons that are on the side of the case, perpendicular to the face of the watch. This doesn't make much sense when you're talking about something that has to be usable when you're on the go, especially when you're running. So instead, the buttons should be at a 30-45 degree angle from parallel with the watch face. This would make the watch really easy to use while running, climbing, etc.
Six buttons arranged equidistantly around the face; the button at 12 o'clock would be for the light.
The buttons should be able to be used under water. Why? Well, why not?

Movement

Solar powered with end-of-life indicator. Rechargeable batteries really are the way to go, and really should be mandatory for all battery-powered watches. Solar is a better way, in my opinion, than something like Seiko Kinetic's tech, since there're fewer moving parts, and is better than wall recharging, since it doesn't take any power from the grid.
Atomic timekeeping for accuracy on the higher end models.

Features

Stopwatch with split timer; 100 lap memory. Having the pushers arrayed as I suggest would make the stopwatch function easily ussed while running, something that can't necessarily be said about many of the current crop of ABC watches.
World time. It's useful.
Thermometer with with on-wrist compensation setting, i.e. my early 90's Casio TS-100.
Multiple alarms.
Countdown timer.
Ability to turn the backlight on by flicking your wrist, like those Timex Flix. It's a minor pain to check the light while running at night, so this would solve the problem.
Depth gauge for swimming/snorkeling.
Computer synchronization for workout/hike/trek/whatever tracking.
Lunar and tide chart. It's useful.
Available heart rate sensor, with attendant features.
Available GPS with attendant features.
Available altimeter, barometer (with storm warning), and compass (ABC).

Display

High resolution e-ink (which is high contrast) with multiple available fonts. If e-ink isn't compatible with having the solar cell behind the face, then any other type of high resolution/high contrast display is fine. As close as a pure white background as possible. The e-ink display would help keep the thickness down, since this is going to be a pretty big watch.
Indiglo-style backlight.
Default watch display would give the time with seconds, date, day of the week, and temp. Can be turned into analog, if desired.
Stopwatch display would show the total elapsed time, interval/lap time, total number of laps, and instant heart rate. After the run, you'd of course be able to review the time of each lap. Integration with GPS and altimeter will show the distance of each lap and elevation change, and heart rate monitor integration will show the average and max heart rate for each lap.
Trekking display would show GPS coordinates, time, distance covered, barometer, and temperature.

Price
Multiple models, so you can have the features you want and nothing extraneous. I think these prices are fair.

Basic model (no ABC, GPS, or heart rate monitor): ~ $180.
Field model (with ABC, no GPS or heart rate sensor): ~$300.
Workout model (GPS and heart rate sensor): ~$350.
Fully loaded model: ~$600.

at 7:04 PM

Sonic Whimper

The Sonics have a storied history in Seattle. The franchise was the town's first major professional team in Seattle, having been founded in 1967, and won the city's only championship, beating the Bulls for the NBA title in 1979. The list of great talents who played for the Sonics is extensive, and includes Lenny Wilkens, Spencer Haywood, Jack Sikma, Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton, Ray Allen, and (last season) Kevin Durant.

In 2006, local owner and billionaire Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, sold the team to a group of people from Oklahoma City, led by Clay Bennett. Schultz's reasoning for selling the team was that he couldn't get either the city of Seattle, the state of Washington, or any other local government body to buy him a new arena, and that he couldn't make enough money in KeyArena. Never mind that the city paid for the renovations to the downtown KeyArena not 15 years ago and it was hailed as state of the art at the time.

One of the stipulations of the sale was that the new owners would have to make every effort to keep the team in the Seattle area. It has been revealed that from the get go, Bennett's group never intended to keep the team in Seattle, as it had promised when it bought the team. Instead, they conspired to move the team to Oklahoma City as soon as possible. To that effect, it broke the lease it had with Seattle. The city, of course, sued for specific performance of the lease - to force the team to stay in Seattle for the last two years of the team's lease of KeyArena.

Last week, on the eve of the judge's ruling of the matter, the city and Bennett's group settled the lawsuit, resulting in a $45 million payment to the city, with the possibility of $30 million more if the city is unable to get a team to move to Seattle and if the city is able to get $75 million in public funding for renovations to KeyArena. The Sonics name, colors, and history will remain in Seattle in the hope that another team will either relocate to Seattle or that the NBA will allocate an expansion franchise to Seattle.

Thus, Seattle loses the Sonics, a team that billed itself as an integral part of the Seattle social landscape for the past four decades. Of course, the Sonics were not unique in doing this: professional sports teams have always marketed themselves as being integral to the community; as integral to big city life. They've always pitched the line that your personal identity and the teams you root for are fundamentally tied together. They market this lie so that we'll give them millions upon millions of dollars, be it in the form of tickets to games, merchandise, or publicly-funded arenas and stadia.

We have bought into this lie to such an extent that it has become a truism, just like we've bought into DeBeers' "You have to buy your fiance a diamond ring worth two months' salary or you don't love her" marketing nonsense. Thus, you have ESPN's Bill Simmons announcing that he's reached "sports nirvana" because the Celtics won the championship. You have the Super Bowl becoming so important to people that Super Bowl Sunday is apparently the worst day of the year for domestic violence, (people get really upset when their teams lose, apparently). And you have Sonics fans crying like they lost a family member because we've been trained to treat our teams like family members.

Being an Angeleno, I understand the Sonic fans' pain as much as anyone. In 1994, I had the Raiders and Rams ripped away. I can tell you from experience that it hurts. Terribly. And it hurts even more when that team enjoys success elsewhere, and you see players that you rooted for and hoped to continue rooting for achieve success in their new cities with strangely familiar jerseys. The cliche of "a terrible wound being reopened" was apropos when the Rams, along with Los Angeles-hero Isaac Bruce, won the Super Bowl.

(NOTE: Yes, I am aware that Los Angeles stole the Dodgers, Lakers, and Clippers from other communities, and I know that the Rams and Raiders both emigrated to Los Angeles from other cities, too: but that doesn't make the pain that occurs when they move any less.)

Henry Abbot of ESPN's True Hoop blog said it far better than I can: the relationship between fans and pro teams is totally one-sided. Teams demand our undying support, passion, and, most importantly, money. In return they grudgingly give us only that which they are legally obligated or that which they can't buy their way out of. Teams aren't obligated to put out an entertaining product, they are not obligated to field a competitive team, nor are they obligated to return the fan's affection and money in any way, shape, or form.

Abbot wrote his piece in part as a response to an article by Barry Tramel of the Oklahoman imploring Oklahomans to not feel guilty about Seattlites about the franchise relocating to OKC (of course they shouldn't feel guilty; unless they're part of the ownership group, they didn't do anything wrong against Seattlites). Tramel wrote the following:

"There is no divine right to keeping a franchise. A team is not intellectual property, no matter how attached a populace grows. Sports are big business. They've always been big business, in this century and the previous century and even the century before that. . . . Fill the Ford Center and support the NBA and critics will scram in search of another franchise threatening to move. And there will be one to fit that description, because that's what franchises do."

Tramel is correct. OKC Fans, if you want to keep the OKC Bennetts (or Backstabbers, Weasels, or whatever the hell they're going to be called), you have to support them NO MATTER WHAT. You have to sell out the Ford Center NO MATTER WHAT. Why? Because if you don't, the team will move on you. If the team consistently misses the playoffs? That's not an excuse. Bennett (or whoever owns the team) will complain that he can't field a competitive team because the team doesn't sell out. It'll be your fault.

It'll be your fault and you too will be reminded that teams have no allegiance to their communities or fans. As Seattlites learned, their allegiance is to the dollar, just like every other corporate entity. Tramel's argument that Oklahomans shouldn't feel guilty about OKC getting a team at the expense of Seattle is lost in the bigger point that he glosses over: teams aren't members of the community, and they aren't good civic actors. The true takeaway from Tramel's article is that perhaps Oklahomans, and everyone else for that matter, shouldn't bother supporting and getting attached to their local teams because the teams may just move on you.

This is what happened to fans of the Minneapolis Lakers, San Diego Clippers, Vancouver Grizzlies, Kansas City Kings, Charlotte Hornets, New Orleans Jazz, Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, Boston Braves, Buffalo Braves, Montreal Expos, Philadelphia Athletics, Baltimore Colts, Cleveland Browns, Oakland Raiders, Los Angeles Raiders, St. Louis Cardinals, Los Angeles Rams, Houston Oilers, Hartford Whalers, Winnipeg Jets, Quebec Nordiques, Atlanta Flames, Minnesota Northstars, Colorado Rockies, San Francisco Seals, and many other teams that I can't recall off the top of my head. And it can always happen to you.

(NOTE: There's a slim possibility that the Sonics will be reborn as soon as next season. Howard Schultz is seeking to rescind the sales contract between him and Bennett's group, alleging that Bennett fraudulently induced the sale by claiming to want to keep the team in Seattle while all the time plotting to move it to OKC. I'll be more than ecstatic to see Schultz win, but I have very little hope of that happening, and the point of this article remains.)

at 10:23 AM

I am one of those idiots who like mechanical watches. Yes, they are pricier than a good quartz watch. Yes, they aren't as accurate as quartz watches. Yes, they need expensive servicing every so often. Yes, mechanical watches are pretty much just jewelry. But they're just sooo cool.

That being said, I really appreciate good quartz watches, and totally dig innovative quartz movements, such as the Tag Heuer Calibre S (probably the most functional chronograph period), the Seiko Kinetic (which marries a self-winding mechanical, or automatic, watch movement to quartz, so the body's motion constantly recharges the battery), and the Citizen Eco-Drive (powered by sunlight so it, too, never needs a battery change).

This interest in watches led me a few months ago to look for a really good travel/adventure watch, since I was going abroad and was going to go hiking, snorkeling, exploring, etc. I thought I had found the perfect one and more in the Suunto Core. The Core was seemingly perfect: it is fantastic legibile in both day and night time; has a compass (perfect for getting oneself oriented in a new place), altimeter, thermometer, barometer (great to tell what the weather is going to hold), a second time zone (to keep track of the time back home so I knew when to call my mom), and sunrise and sunset time for hundreds of cities (so I would know when I need to be off the mountain by); is easy to use; and looked good. And of course, Suunto is renown for making rock solid products that perform exactly as advertised for years. Tbe watch really isn't a particularly great harcore athletics watch (i.e., for running, biking, swimming, etc.), since it doesn't have a lap timer and the button configuration doesn't make using stopwatch functions without looking at the watch all that easy. That being said, it certainly can be used for that purpose, although I already had an old Timex Ironman that did the job beautifully, so that didn't matter to me so much. I was pretty much sold.

Or, at least I was until I saw the Core's water resistance. The Core - as well as the Core's sister, the Lumi (designed for women, but more or less functionally identical to the Core) - suffers from a debilitating flaw: the water resistance is a pathetic 30 m/100 ft. Now, for those of you who don't understand what a given water resistance means, let me give you a brief explanation. Water resistance is calculated as the ability of a watch at rest to withstand the pressure of a static column of water of a given height. The "at rest" and "static" parts are important. The water pressure of a watch breaking through the surface of water is about the same as 30 m, though, and you can easily exceed 30 m of pressure by swimming vigorously or by rolling around in the surf. (See this article for a more in-depth explanation.)

So, that 30 m water resistance that the Core boasts is in fact quite feeble, and is rather pathetic for an outdoor adventure watch. I wouldn't wear a watch with only a 30 m water resistance anywhere that it might get wet. Wading through a river, hiking/climbing up a waterfall, a swim in a pool or the ocean: this watch's poor water resistance would give me enough pause that I would think twice about bringing it along if i could possibly encounter any of these. Hell, I would be scared to have it with me if a medium downpour was possible. Snorkeling and kayaking, of course, would be ruled out completely. Furthermore, that water resistance is only for normal to cool water. If you bring hot water into the play, like from hot springs, a hot tub, or a shower, you're in even more trouble, since heat expands and compromises the seals that give the watch its water resistance, enabling water to get into the case. With a better water resistance, say at least 100 m, none of these would be worries, save perhaps the hot water issue, and even then it wouldn't be nearly as big of a concern.

This limitation really does restrict the Core's utility to a severe degree. Had I one, I wouldn't bring one any time inclement weather was a possibility, nor would I bring one while exploring unless I was certain that I wouldn't run into any water. Really, it would be used for just when I do hikes I was certain that I wouldn't run into significant water - I probably wouldn't even use it when traveling because I like to travel as light as possible and carrying multiple watches is anathema to traveling light. For something that bills itself as an outdoor adventure tool and costs as much as it does - retail price is $275, though you can find it cheaper online - that is inexcusable to me.

It's not as if Suunto doesn't make products with good water resistance: its dive computers are industry standard for scuba divers, and it does have a couple models in their outdoor "wristops" (as Suunto calls them) with solid water resistance: the Observer and X6 have 100 m water resistance, which is great. Unfortunately, they're ugly. And yes, I know other manufacturers make watches that have all of the features of the Core and have good water resistance, but I have yet to see one that looks good enough to put on my wrist. I know function is the beginning and the end, but if something doesn't look good, I'm not going to wear it, and none of the ones I've seen look good enough, save for the Core. Hell, not even all of the Core models look all that great to me, pretty much only the light green model. Still, I'm patient, and I'm sure Suunto will realize its error and upgrade the Core's water resistance to 100 m sooner or later.

Score: 5/10 (If Suunto upgrades the water resistance to 100 m, I'd give it a 9)

UPDATE (6/30/08): Based on this post and this post in a watch forum, I have to amend my review. I'm keeping what I wrote, because that would be dishonest and I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong and misinformed. So, yes, the Suunto Core looks like a winner, and the same should apply to the Lumi, as well.

UPDATED Score: 7/10. Yes, I said that I would upgrade the score to a 9, but I said that I would change the score if Suunto changed the watch's water resistance. Suunto didn't - it just exposed as being over conservative, probably to protect its diver watches from competition with the tremendous Core. Also, stupid marketing decisions are a valid reason to mark down a product in my eyes. Also on second thought, the fact that it's not all that great as a hardcore workout watch downgrades it a bit, too. Also, I discovered that the thermometer is pretty useless. If it's on your wrist (like a watch should be), the thermometer reads at 10-15 degrees (Farenheit) higher that it should. You have to take it off your wrist for 15-20 minutes to get an accurate temperature reading. I have a cheap early 90's Casio that has temperature compensation. You're telling me a modern watch can't do the same? This is absurd. If I'm hiking, exploring a new city, or really doing anything at all, I don't want to wait 15-20 minutes with my watch off my wrist to get an accurate temperature reading. I might as well not ever wear it on my wrist if it keeps me from really using one of the watch's key features. Those issues bring the Core down to 7. Fix the temperature compensation and correct your marketing of the water resistance issue, Suunto, and you get your 9.

If you want an outdoor/adventure watch but don't like the Core's aesthetics or price, you have a lot of options. Check out the Suunto Observer,the Suunto Vector, the Highgear Alterra, the Origo Granite Peak Series, the Timex Expedition Adventure Tech (doesn't appear to have a compass, unfortunately), and the Casio Pathfinder Series.

at 2:25 PM

Much has been made of Kansas State Freshman Michael Beasley and his NBA prospects. Much has also been made about how he has 'off court issues.' The typical analogy is to compare him to Derrick Coleman - a big man who was gifted offensively, but mediocre defensively and was troubled off the court. I think these comparisons miss the point.

First, let's deal with the off-court issues. He bounced around between 6 high schools, and had soome very minor issues at each. Beasley's had no problems at all over the past year and the kid's only 19. Who hasn't done something stupid in their teens? I think everyone needs to get over this about him.

These are the other stupid knocks on the guy. First, he doesn't seem to take things seriously; but then again, neither does Shaq. You want a guy that the community can relate to, and Beasley is a guy who looks like he enjoys life: the community can relate and get behind that. Another knock on him is that he's only 6'6 or 6'7 Um, so is Shawn Marion. Being 'only' 6'7 didn't keep Marion from making a lot of money as a power forward before his trade to Miami. In fact, 6'7 is a great height for a power forward in a small ball/fast-paced game.

Now, here's a knock on the guy that is totally valid: he doesn't play defense. From Carmelo Anthony to Stephon Marbury, the league is rife with top notch offensive guys who don't play any defense, and none of them help their teams win games. According to ESPN's Chad Ford, though, Beasley has the tools to become a defensive player, so there's hope for him, if he goes to a team with veteran leadership and coaches that make him work on his defense, like Miami.

But there is one other knock on the guy that I haven't seen anyone talk about: he doesn't make his teammates better. This is a huge one; in fact, this is the reason, and only reason, I don't really care for him as a player. Beasley was heralded as the best player in college basketball last year, and statistically, he was the most dominant by far: averages of 26.2 points, 12.4 rebounds, 1.6 blocks, and a .532 field goal percentage are astounding. This statistical dominance did not translate into team dominance, though. College basketball is the one team sport where a dominant player can take his team far: witness the 2002-2003 Syracuse team; Carmelo Anthony and a bunch of role players won the title (okay, sure Hakim Warrick made the NBA, but has anyone heard of Gerry McNamara - arguably the second best player on that team - since the championship?).

Beasley's K-State team, on the other hand, was 21-12, barely made the NCAA's, and only made it to the second round after upsetting a USC team having an off night. That does not bode well for Beasley in the pros. If Carmelo Anthony - a player cut in the same mold as Beasley but with a slightly better three point shot and not quite as strong - cannot carry his team NBA success, what chance does Beasley have of doing the same? And right now, another Carmelo Anthony is the best you can expect from Beasley as a pro. If he learns how to defend, then arguably he can be the next Shawn Marion: an undersized power forward built for a small ball team. But that's best case scenario. As great as they are statistically, neither Anthony nor Marion are foundation players, as we've learned over the past season. You can build with players like them, but you can't build around them.

If you're the Bulls, and you're choosing between Derrick Rose, a guy who isn't the most skilled player in the draft but is great at making his teammates batter and is a proven winner, or a guy who is a physical beast and scores a lot but doesn't contribute anything else, which do you go with? I think the automatic choice is Rose. It's a choice, really, between a guy who can be the next John Stockton or the next Shawn Marion. I think the choice is even easier then.

Also, I think Miami would actually be a great place for Beasley. Beasley needs a guy like Dwayne Wade- a young veteran who makes his teammates better and who gives everything he has on every play even to the detriment of his own health - to teach him how to play the game and how to be a professional. The Miami coaching staff is composed of Pat Riley disciples, so defense will be stressed. I'd go so far as to say that I think Beasley needs to go to Miami if he's going to maximize his potential as a professional. Beasley will not have any comparable guidance with any other team that could draft him or trade up for him.

at 11:12 AM

Among the many thing that I respect about ESPN is the fact that the folks over there are constantly trying to improve the fan experience and educate the sporting public. I don't care for some of those initiatives such as the absurd focus on 'fantasy' sports, but even with that, I can respect the fact that ESPN is trying to do what the fans want.

With the "ESPN Axis" though, there is no grudging respect: I flat out love it. It is a success on every level: it is informative, useful, adds to viewers' knowledge and understanding of the game, does not detract from the broadcast, and looks really cool.

So what is it? ESPN takes a still from a video clip from a certain perspective and then creates a computer generated image from a different perspective of the same scene to allow the commentator to diagram out exactly what happened on the play. For example, during the Portugal-Czech Republic Euro 2008 game, ESPN started with a shot of the Czechs taking a corner kick. The perspective then flipped to an aerial view to show how the players were set up in the penalty box. From this perspective, the commentator was able to diagram exactly how the Portuguese players' slight forward movement opened enough space for Libor Sionko to get a clean header for the Czechs' only goal of the game.

Why am I so taken with this? If you just watch the highlight, which ESPN showed right after diagraming the play on the Axis, it is difficult to get a feel for exactly how the goal occurred at home, without watching it over and over again: the play only took about a second and a half from when the corner was taken and the ball went into the net. If you're watching from home, it looks like the goal came out of nowhere, but having the play diagramed on the Axis lets the casual fan to get deeper in the game; it allows the folks at home to get a feel for tactics, how subtle player movements change the game, and really just takes the fans into the game that is otherwise not possible. It also does it in a way that is familiar to younger viewers because it looks like the replays in Madden or FIFA 2008 with the added layer of a telestrator. If you think that's a bad thing, you must also think that the 1st Down Line overlay on NFL broadcasts is a bad thing, since that is also an ESPN innovation that was taken from video games. Furthermore, because of the nature of it (the computer and production guys have to set it up and the commentator has to review it before it can go on the air), it cannot be done in the middle of the game, so the game's flow isn't interrupted.

The other great thing about it is that it fills a good deal of air time: one run of the ESPN Axis takes about 45 second to a minute of air time for a two second play. Why is this a good thing? Because after games and at half time, there is often a lot of just mindless babbling, either by the people calling the game or by the studio hosts. Things like the Axis keep the focus on the game and educating the public while reducing the useless blather a bit: a win-win in my book.

All in all, the ESPN Axis is a great innovation. It may not be on par with the 1st Down Line overlay, but it adds a great deal of enjoyment and useful information to the proceedings and helps the general public understand the game better while not detracting in the least from the broadcast. Bravo, ESPN.

at 1:11 PM

Lakers versus Celtics. Those three words truly take me back. I have two early sports memories. One is Kirk Gibson's home run against the Athletics in the 1988 World Series to launch the Dodgers' run for their last championship. The other is the 1987 NBA playoffs: Bird vs. Magic. Parrish and McHale versus Kareen and Worthy. Kurt Rambis being the greatest pest of all time (I mean, I found him irritating, and I'm a Laker fan!).

The Lakers-Celtics rivalry is a big one in my family because my older brother is a huge Celtics fan. He's never lived in Boston or Massachusetts - and I think he's only been to Boston once or twice in his life for about 24 hours each time - but he somehow developed a Larry Bird fixation early on in life and it's never let go. I, of course, having grown up in the L.A.-area, grew up with the Showtime-era Lakers. I used to pretend that I was Magic Johnson or James Worthy when I was shooting around in my back yard. The Shaq-Kobe Lakers won their three rings while I was in college and my first year of law school.

The playoffs this year have been great. Absolutely great. We've had just an amazing number of excellent early round series - Celtics-Hawks, Pistons-76ers, Spurs-Suns (yes, it was only 5 games, but most of them were very competitive), Hornets-Mavericks, Cavaliers-Wizards, Spurs-Hornets, Celtics-Cavaliers, Celtics-Pistons, and Lakers-Spurs. Let me put it this way: every year for the past 4 or 5 years, even when the Lakers were in the Finals, I've been more interested in the draft than the actual playoffs by this time. That's how good the playoffs have been.

I'm totally not biased, so I can't give an honest prediction (biased one: Lakers in 5), but I'm really excited to see how the games play out. We have the league's best defense (the Celtics) versus the best offense right now (the Lakers); we have Garnett and Pierce shooting for immortality. We have Kobe clawing for transcendence. We have Ray Allen trying to prove that he still has a game. We have a new Kurt Rambis in Vujacic. We have an assortment of potential 'X' factors in Odom, Vujacic, Fisher, and Farmar for the Lakers and Ray Allen, Rondo, Cassell, Posey, and Powe for the Celtics. We have the Zen Master versus the lucky to be here Doc Rivers. This should be fun.*

* No, I don't give a damn about the traditions and histories of the teams, despite the media's infatuation. I don't get the sports media's fixation for referencing irrelevant history. "The Celtics are 8-2 against the Lakers in NBA Finals. How do you think that is going to affect the series?" Um . . . how about not at all? How does the result of the 1981 or 1984 NBA Finals affect this series? I think the media really needs to learn that just because you have all of this air time on cable and space to publish on the internet doesn't mean you need to fill it all. Give it to someone else or just pay for the rights to air extended highlights and save us all this idiotic pseudo-analysis.

Anyway, I always get a chuckle when people say the Celtics have such great tradition of success. No, theyhad a great tradition. Before I was born. The Celtics have been largely irrelevant for the past 15 years. You can't say you have a tradition of success when the majority of the players in the league can't even remember your last championship and were toddlers when you were you were last relevant, and when there is no connection between the periods of relevance: the owners are different, the arenas are different, the management is different, the players are (of course) different; hell I bet even there isn't even current Celtic employee who was with the Celtics back when they last won a championship, other than Danny Ainge. The Lakers, on the other hand, have had only been irrelevant for a couple years since 1981, and have had incredible continuity of ownership and management over the past 25+ years.

at 11:05 AM

The NFL Draft used to be one of my favorite annual rites of sports. Then I came to my senses. Well, sort of; let's say I'm trying to recover from my addiction, but I relapse every so often (say, whenever it's discussed on PTI or SportsCenter has a segment on it).

This is what happens during the Draft: the NFL Commissioner (or some NFL flunky) announces which team has the next selection and that the team is on the clock. The team then has ten minutes to pick a player or announce a trade of the pick. During those 10 minutes, the ESPN NFL Phalanx go back and forth between dissecting the college career and pro prospects of the kid that was just picked, discussing whether the team got "value" for said pick, and analyzing who the team currently on the clock is going to pick. Interspersed here and there are a few interviews with the draftees or the drafters and shots of the "green room" where a select group of draftees sit with their families so that they can be brought out on stage when their names are called. Rinse, wash, and repeat . . . for four-plus hours. And this is just for the first round: the NFL has seven total rounds, although the time that a team has to select a player goes down to seven minutes in the second round, and five minutes in the third.

It already sounds pretty terrible, but allow me to unpack this to illustrate just how absurd it is that so much air and ink is dedicated to this exercise.

First, the teams have 10 minutes each to select their player, even the team that drafts first. Now, the team who drafts first has known that it is drafting first for about four months. If you need the full 10 minutes to pick your player or make a trade, when you've had four months to do so, you have poor management, pure and simple. And several teams picking first have taken the full ten minutes, even when they've already agreed to a contract with the player they're drafting! I mean, seriously, what the hell? Why on earth would they do that, dramatic tension? Who the hell cares?! Miami, who has the first pick this year has already announced that they have signed Long of Michigan (go Blue!) to a contract. It would make sense that they will take all of two seconds to "announce" the pick at the draft, but I am certain the Dolphins will take their sweet time in making the announcement.

For the other teams, it's still inexcusable to use the whole 10 minutes. Every team has a draft board that they carefully create over the months between when their seasons are over and the draft. When a player gets drafted, the teams take his name off their board. So, you would think that a team would just pick the next player on the board. Well, that is typically what they do. However, the decision makers apparently bicker for the entire 10 minutes deciding whether they should go ahead and take the player they're going to take, or entertaining trades with other teams, which typically don't go through, unless it was a trade that was prearranged before the draft. Sometimes teams are so incompetent with making their pick that you get situations like in the 2003 draft, when the Vikings couldn't make their selection or a trade in the allotted time, and two teams made their picks before the Vikings could submit their selection.

Second, the "green room" is an abomination. You get a dozen or so 21 year olds wearing a suit for the second or third time in their lives, nervously sitting with their families for several hours, waiting for their names to get called so they can walk on the stage, shake hands with the commissioner, put on the team's hat, hold up the team's jersey, and smile for a few photos. Really quite pointless. Invariably, one player slips below where the "experts" think he should have gone - witness Brady Quinn in 2007 and Aaron Rodgers in 2005 - and the viewers are subjected to repeated shots of the lone guy sweating it out for a couple hours and Chris Berman saying things like, "Wow, what must it be like being him?" "I'd hate to be in his shoes," and "That has to be embarrassing . . ." Yes, it is embarrassing because YOU are embarrassing him! Stop showing him and it won't be embarrassing!

Third, the interviews are worthless, no matter who is being interviewed. If it's a GM or coach, they say the same thing: "This is the guy we really wanted all along," "He has tremendous potential," "We expect him to contribute immediately," and "We can't wait to see him line up with" so-and-so. Why ESPN waste so much money sending reporters out to the various teams (or to establish the satellite connection) to conduct these interviews is beyond me. If it's a draftee being interviewed, the lines are, "I'm excited to go to" the team that drafted him, "I can't wait to start practicing," "I know it's going to be an adjustment period, but I plan to contribute this season," "I'm really looking forward to taking this team to the next level," "I appreciate the opportunity," and "I can't wait to play with" so-and-so player. Even Eli Manning, who made it known that he didn't want to play for the Chargers before the 2003 draft, said some of these lines when the Chargers did in fact draft him, and then said them all again when his trade to the Giants went through.

Fourth, recognizing that it doesn't have nearly enough content to fill 10 minutes between each pick, ESPN has increased the size of its draft team to downright obese proportions. As you can see here and here, ESPN had five people at the anchor desk at the draft last year - Chris Berman, Chris Mortensen, Mel Kiper, Jr., Keyshawn Johnson, Steve Young, and a second table back at ESPN Studios with Trey Wingo, Sean Salisbury, Mark May, and Michael Smith. Plus, they had a roundtable with a bunch of active players, led by the incomparable Suzie Kolber (who is criminally underused), as well as a phalanx of reporters at about a dozen teams' headquarters so ESPN could conduct interviews with team personnel. Did having so many people on the show make it better, more informative?

No, it made it unwatchable. Each person only could talk for about 20-30 seconds, because every single one of them had to have a speaking role whenever their group was on. And then perhaps because they felt they had to justify their presence, each person would talk louder than the last person and say even more outlandish things. Of course, no one can top one of the of kings of shouting hyperbole, Sean Salisbury, with his "CALVIN JOHNSON IS A STAR IN THE MAKING!!!! HE'S A SURE THING!!! HE'S THE BEST PICK IN THE DRAFT!!!!!" (it's a real shame that Salisbury has eroded so badly; he used to be very insightful, but I think he took ESPN hiring more former players and coaches as a personal affront, and decided to just get loud, obnoxious, sarcastic, and downright insulting in an attempt to differentiate from the everyone else; look at this and you'll see what I mean; I'm not sorry to see him leave ESPN at all). The discussions amount to nothing more than statistics recitals, bickering over potential and reaches, and making outlandish and nonsensical predictions (see Steve Young in the first Youtube clip talking about the Saints: "In this division, if you score 28 points, you're going to go undefeated in this division. In a lot of cases."). And to make it worse (or maybe better), half the time is spent with the guys at each table babbling and jawing back and forth about nothing in particular. It's just worthless.

Fifth, the draft has lost a lot of its luster because there are just so many "draft experts" out there and so much daily news about the draft. At first, there was just Mel Kiper, Jr. and his immaculate coif. Then, the draft experts started to proliferate to the point where every half-assed sports website has an "NFL Draft Central" staffed with a number of people - ESPN has even added another guy in Todd McShay and has started to give him near equal billing with Kiper Jr. What's the point? ESPN has also started doing lengthy segments during every SportsCenter about the draft.

The worst part about the whole pre-draft analysis, though, are the mock drafts. Literally every week from the end of the NFL season until the draft, guys like Kiper, Jr. produce mock drafts based on how they think the first round will play out. These mocks change depending on workouts, rumors, and all sort of conjecture. I really don't get why people read these, anyway: they're always wrong, even the ones that are produced on the day of the draft. And, really, does it matter who Kiper, Jr. or Peter King think the Jaguars should choose with the 26th pick in the draft one month before the draft? It's not like they really know who's going to be available with the pick. Oh, and then the week after the draft, Kiper, Jr. and a few other select "experts" put out a top 100 draftees for next year that are invariably wrong by the time the college football season starts.

Sixth, people actually attend the draft as fans, and boo and cheer their teams' picks. These guys have to be psychotic. Watching the draft at home is bad enough, but at least there's always something flashing on the screen: some talking head babbling, some highlight being played, etc. At the draft itself? It looks like all that happens is someone walks on to the stage at the Madison Square Garden Ballroom every 10 minutes and makes an announcement, and then walks off, leaving you in silence for another ten minutes. This is the pattern for hours, apparently. Then there are the "diehards" who sit for the entire two days, hearing the names of players they never heard of before and never will again get called out. Why? Are you that sad and pathetic and that much of a football addict that you need to know the instant your favorite team picks a player (who may or may not ever play for the team)? You can't even wait the split second it takes for the images to get beamed to your TV? What's even worse are the fans who boo a pick. Who the hell are you to boo a pick?! You don't know anything about these guys!! I still remember when Eagles fans booed Donovan McNabb when the Eagles took him; apparently they wanted the Eagles to draft Ricky Williams. Yeah, that would have worked out great. Idiots.

Finally, the instant analysis is absolutely atrocious. In 2006, the Houston Texans picked Mario Williams over Reggie Bush for the first pick in the draft. I admit that I didn't really get the reasoning because Bush had just set the college football world afire and I hadn't really ever heard of Williams. The experts? They ripped the Texans apart, babbling that the pick was the stupidest move of all time; that the Texans were cowards, that the Texans were incompetent and didn't know what they were doing; that Williams would have to be the reincarnation of Reggie White to justify the pick because Bush was going to be better than Barry Sanders (do a Google search, you'll find plenty of articles). Of course neither player had played a down yet in the NFL. Two years on, how do the those experts' predictions hold up? Well, Mario Williams has clearly had the better two-year career so far; Williams is a Pro Bowl defensive end, while Bush has been injured both seasons, has mediocre at best, and has had some controversy over possibly accepting money while at USC from boosters.

This instant analysis, the "What does this mean? Quick, you, come up with some absurd statement off the top of your head and make it a good sound bite!" garbage masquerading as legitimate analysis is worthless. While we're on the subject, and I hate saying this because I still love to read them, but the draft grades that come out the day after the draft are similarly worthless for the exact same reason. Instead, what is valuable and worthwhile are things like the ESPN Scouts Inc.'s review of the 2005 draft. The truth is, you can't truly evaluate an NFL draft for three years, because that's how long it takes for players to really mature and show what they have and what they're going to bring. Also note that they list the grades they gave for each team's draft back in 2005 and how that draft grades out now. Only three teams received identical grades between the 2005-instant analysis and the 2008 review, and only twelve were within a +/-, and several were dramatically off. If Scouts Inc. - a company that is made entirely former pro personnel and which makes a living off doing talent evaluation - could have that low accuracy, then how worthwhile is the evaluation of a journalist or a former player? Not very. Williams may end up doing nothing later on, and Bush may be a hall of famer, but none of that justifies the vitriol and volume of rage directed at the Texans for their pick. Just for engaging in such an exercise, the "experts" are idiots.

Really, I can't believe I used to find this fascinating. And, no, I won't be watching this weekend; I'll restrict myself to just reading up on who the draftees are whenever I log onto ESPN.com. Even that is more than what a rational person should do, but what can I say; I'm still trying to recover.

at 11:39 AM

And here're my odds of which team will represent the Eastern Conference in the NBA Finals:

Celtics (66-16) 35%
Pistons (59-23) 25%
Magic (52-30) 13%
Cavaliers (45-37) 20%
Wizards (43-39) 2%
Raptors (41-41) 3%
76ers (40-42) 1%
Hawks (37-45) 1%

You'll of course notice that the percentage distribution for the East is nowhere near as even as it is for the West. That's because the bottom four teams in the East just aren't very good. Let's start with the teams that are good, however. The Celtics are the best team in the NBA, bar none. They've handled the opposition in both conferences, and as good as they were in the regular season, they have a team that is built for the playoffs. Dominant defense? Top in the league. Killer post player? Garnett. Good ball handler? Rondo. Dangerous outside shooters? Pierce, Ray Allen, House, Posey (all with 3-point field goal percentages over .380). Guys who can make their free throws? Pierce, Garnett, Allen, Cassell, House, Posey (all with free throw percentages over .800). Role players who do their job well? Perikins, Cassell, House, Posey, Powe, Davis, Tony Allen. Oh yeah, big three superstars? Garnett, Pierce, and Ray Allen. Team chemistry? About as good as it gets. If the Celtics have any weakness at all is that they don't have the same amount of experience as teams like the Pistons and the Spurs, but I think experience is overrated.

Next we have the Pistons. The Pistons are arguably the second best team in the entire NBA, not just the East. They fall down a bit because they're not as deep as the Celtics, they're stars aren't as good as the Celtics, and they don't have the cohesion that the Celtics have - there have been reports all season long of friction with their coach - but they are more experienced and they've played really well this year. So I think they have a good chance of getting through, despite the Game 1 loss to the Sixers, as anyone other than the Celts.

I have to give the nod for third most likely to get through to the Cavaliers. Yes, they've played terribly this year. Yes, the team is not particularly talented 2-10. Yes, they have to face the Celtics in Round 2 if they make it past the Wizards. LeBron proved last year, though, that he can singlehandedly carry a team through the playoffs. The Cavaliers have a decent chance to get through just because of him.

The Magic come in next; sure they're good, and Dwight Howard's performance against the Raptors in Game 1 of their series served notice, but I just don't think they have the best odds of making it through with the talent they have. Their second and third best players, Rashard Lewis and Hedo Turkoglu, play the same position, their point, Jameer Nelson, is average at best, and their bench is thin.

Despite the thrashing that the Magic gave the Raptors in Game 1 and the narrow loss that the Wizards suffered against the Cavaliers, I think the Raptors have a slightly better (but still insignificant) chance to get out of the East because I think they really are a better team than the Wizards, and the Wizards are trying to reintegrate Gilbert Arenas into the fold. Also, the Wizards would play the Celtics in Round 2 while the Raptors would face the Pistons, so I have to give the bare edge to the Raptors.

And then we get to the last two. Sure, the 76ers pulled an upset over the Pistons in Game 1, but that's just one game, and even if the Sixers pull off the big upset and oust the Pistons, I have no reason to think they'll go any further. The same goes for the Hawks. If the Hawks take the Celtics to 5 games, I will be mighty surprised.

at 11:26 AM

I can't give an honest prediction of who I think will win the NBA Finals, let alone make it to the NBA Finals; there's a reason why they play the games: because things don't work out on the court/field/pitch/etc. as paper would you have you think. But what I can give is an honest estimation of who I think will represent each conference in the Finals.

Odds of Being Western Conference Champions

Lakers (57-25) 19%
Hornets (56-26) 13%
Spurs (56-26) 17%
Jazz (54-28) 13%
Rockets (55-27) 8%
Suns (55-27) 15%
Mavericks (51-31) 12%
Nuggets (50-32) 3%

The Lakers have been playing strong lately, having beaten both the Spurs and the Hornets in games that determined home court advantage and having won 8 of their last 9. That, combined with home court throughout the Western Conference-side of the playoffs and the fact that thy have the easiest first round matchup, gives L.A. the slight advantage over everyone else. The Spurs have to be considered the next in line because they're the Spurs. They've been here, done this. They're fractionally off the pace - they won't have home court in the second round both them and the Hornets get through - and they lost in a big way to L.A. a couple games ago, ands they have a tough first round match up. Ginobli has been hurt, however, but he should be okay for the start of the playoffs. I have to give the next slot to the Suns. Sure, they may not have home court throughout the playoffs, but Stoudamire has really stepped his game up to the next level, Shaq is doing exactly what I thought he would do, and they have such incredible leadership with Nash, Hill, and Shaq that they have to be considered a true threat. If Barbosa and/or Diaw contribute like they should, the Suns will be as formidable as anyone. Then we get the Hornets and the Jazz; both teams have tremendous potential and have proven they can win in the regular season, but the Hornets haven't been here before and the Jazz are as bad away from home as they are dominant at home. Next, we have the Mavericks, who just aren't as good as everyone else. Josh Howard has regressed with Kidd in the lineup, and if they make it through their tough first round match up with the Hornets, they face the winner of the Spurs-Suns series. Still, they have Nowitzki. The Rockets, on the other hand, don't have their big guy, and really are a bunch of overachievers surrounding one of the biggest underachiever in recent NBA history in McGrady. I can't see them getting far. They do have home court advantage in the first round series, though, against the Jazz, so that'll make that series competitive. Finally, we have the Nuggets. Denver has a great team on paper, but they just don't play defense, and they barely got into the playoffs. I really would be surprised if Denver even made it out of the first round. But, they're still a good team that would be one of the top 3 or 4 in the East this year, so you can't totally rule them out.

at 9:47 AM

One quick point about the imminent NBA Playoffs: the win differential between the top team in the West, the Lakers (57-25) and the eighth seed, the Nuggets (50-32) is the same as the win different between the top two teams in the East, the Celtics (66-16) and the Pistons (59-23).

at 12:55 PM

So, the other day I saw some photos that a friend of mine on Facebook took of Escondido Falls in Malibu. I didn't know there were waterfalls in Malibu! That's only 20-30 minutes away from me (depending on traffic)! Sweet! I would've gone the next day, but it threatened to rain, and I figured that if it did rain, it would be better to go the day after, because the falls would have more water.

Escondido Falls are really easy to get to. The entrance is on Winding Way, which is right off Pacific Coast Highway, about a mile south of Kanan Dume and a mile north of Pepperdine University. It's a small street with free parking right there. You walk about a 3/4 of a mile along a road past some million dollar homes, enjoy a gorgeous view of the Pacific, and then head into a field when you see a small dirt track going down into it on your left. The fist half of the 'hike' is little more than a walk through a park and crossing a rivulet every so often. Then you get to the waterfall. You can be happy just hanging out here, or you can go further to the top.

To get there, though, isn't quite the same stroll through the meadow, and if you're afraid of heights, you shouldn't go further. On my Day Hike Difficulty Scale (patent pending), 1 being a walk in the park, 10 being free climbing a sheer cliff face, getting to the top is a 6 or a 7, and that's only because it's not that long. There are several sections where you're going to have to free climb up a sheer face. But the reward is this:

To get up there, you'll have to climb up a gully that is on the right of the base waterfall (when you're facing the fall), and just keep going until you see that view. Along the way, you'll pass a wading pool that the waterfall creates where someone made a rope swing, so you can do your best Tarzan impersonation and dive in, if you want.

Another word of caution: getting down is about twice as difficult as going up. There were times where I slid 6-8 feet, and there's this part where you have to angle yourself between two narrow rocks, it took me about 4 minutes to figure out how to get down through there without falling. I recommend what I call the '5+ point method' of descending: use your hands, feet, and butt (and sometimes your head, hips, back, elbows, or knees) to brace yourself, and you should do just fine.

But would I do it again? Of course, I plan on going again this week! It's an awful lot of fun. I would say that the only demerit would be it's actually not all that long of a hike, it's maybe 6 miles, round trip from your car.

If you're going to the top, I suggest you wear a quick drying long sleeve shirt and pants; shorts and short sleeves are kind of stupid on something like this because there will be times where you're going to want to use your elbows or knees to brace yourself, but you're liable to cut yourself on a rock if you do, and sometimes the easiest thing to do is to slide a bit, but you're not going to want to do that if your legs are exposed. Make sure it's nothing that restricts your range of motion, because you're going to need it all. If you're going to carry a water bottle, you're going to need to either clip it a belt loop or carry it in a small backpack, because you're going to need both hands free for the climb. If you ignore this advice and are forced to abandon your water bottle at the lower falls, make sure you pick it back up on your way down: the Art of Sport does not condone littering. A backpack is also useful when you really have no choice but to slide a bit, too.

As for footwear, if you go when there's a good amount of water going (probably until June), your shoes will get wet; there were times when I was in water up to knees, actually, because it was the easiest way to get to where I wanted to be. Make sure whatever shoes you're wearing have plenty of grip and aren't too slippery when wet. Ideally, the shoes won't have too tall or wide of a toe box: there were a few ideally-placed footholds/handholds that I couldn't use because my Merrell Chameleon II's just didn't fit in there. Also, the Chameleons have a rounded heel; I'm not sure that is ideal because there were times where my heel slipped, although it could have been just the fact that the soles were wet. Still, a more squared-off heel, like most hiking and athletic shoes have, would be better, I think, because I could have perched myself on the edge of the heel without slipping. I think something like a Teva sandal, or any sort of sandal designed for hiking/climbing might be ideal for this sort of endeavor, and I plan trying my Vibram Fivefingers KSO's next time I try the climb (I'll post a review of the KSO's when I get around to putting them through all stuff I want to try them out with). I'll update this review when I try those out.

Final Verdict: 9/10 (losing a point bcause I wish it was a longer hike).

at 6:15 PM

High definition is a very bad thing for sports fans. Why? Because it's so good. I can no longer watch a game of any kind in standard definition, and a standard definition game on an HDTV? The thought makes me shudder. High definition has made me watch less games than I would have otherwise. Want examples?

- CBS decided to be cheap and not broadcast all of its games in HD this past NFL season; I think maybe half were standard definition. I did not watch a single one of those games for more than 5 minutes.

- The majority of my friends and family do not have HD receivers, even though they have HDTV's, so I rarely watch games when I'm not at home, including Laker games and the NCAA tournament.

- Time Warner doesn't broadcast Fox Sports in HD, so I haven't watched a single game that's broadcast on it

- I am a HUGE U.S. Soccer fan, but I will not watch the U.S. soccer team's games against England and Argentina on 5/28 and 6/8, respectively, because they will be on ESPN Classic, which is not in HD.

- I really want to watch the highlights of the EPL, La Liga, and Serie A on Fox Soccer Channel, but I get so annoyed after 10 minutes that I always change the channel and have to resort to the rather mediocre ESPN Soccernet for information.

So what is it about HD that has made me this way? HD has actually changed the way I watch games in several ways.

The most obvious difference is what the extra field of view that 16x9 allows, especially with football games. With standard definition, when the sides line up at scrimmage, all you really see are the the lineman, the wideouts, the quarterback, and sometimes the corners if they're in press coverage. In 16x9, however, you can see the linebackers, the running backs, the corners, and sometimes the safeties. Why does this matter? Because you can see and appreciate the game better. You can see what formations the teams are in and what kind of coverage the defense is in. You can see and read what sort of blitzes are coming. For a basketball game, you can see the entire halfcourt set without needing the camera panning. It's even better in soccer. In standard def, the view of the field is so restricted that only a handful of players are visible at any given moment. It's extremely common for players to make runs off camera, and all we see is the guy with the ball passing, the camera scrolling, and the second player receiving the ball. You don't see the run actually happen and develop; it's the equivalent to hearing only half of a conversation. While HD doesn't completely eliminate the problem, it goes a significant way towards ameliorating it. You also get to see more of the team react and adjust to where the ball is; details that you miss on regular definition.

The second difference is what the extra detail gives you. No, I don't really care about the whole, "Wow, this is so detailed, I can almost make out that ugly tattoo that Kobe has on his arm" phenomenon; I'm talking about the details that affect the game. Things like how Kobe's footwork and subtle head fakes control his defender. Like how Paolo Maldini precisely angles his body so to keep a striker from getting a clear shot at goal. Like how Michael Stahan puts his hands on the offensive lineman opposite him allows him to rip right by the lineman on one play, but if he cannot get his hands up exactly where he wants them to be, he's stuffed. Like how David Beckham can get a defender to go the wrong way on a pass because of the way he swings his foot before striking the ball. Like how LeBron will set himself just on the baseline so the guy he's guarding can't get by, while a lesser defender will leave just enough daylight that a superior player will blow right by. Yes, most, if not all of these details could be seen on standard definition TV's, for sure, but not nearly as readily. Quite simply, HDTV has made me a smarter fan, and I feel rather stupid watching a game in standard definition because I can't see the game the same way as I'm now used to.

at 10:09 PM

This has to be the best basketball season in recent memory. As of the date of publishing, six teams are within 2 games of the Western Conference lead, the top eight teams have winning percentages over .600, and another that is at .594. The East, on the other hand, barely has six teams over five hundred, but the race for the last playoff spot looks to be interesting: the Nets, the Pacers, and the Bulls are all within 2 games of the Hawks for the honor of being the victims of the Celtics' brooms in the first round

Along with such a great basketball season, we have an awesome MVP race. There are five legitimate candidates for MVP this year: Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Tracy McGrady, and Chris Paul. Allow me to make the case for and against each player.

Kobe Bryant

For: Byrant is one of the two best players in the game, along with LeBron. He has LeBron in two categories: he's a bit better defender and he's a significantly better shooter. Even with a broken pinkie, he's carried the Lakers to the best record in the West, and is keeping them at the top, even with both Gasol and Bynum out. He takes all the big shots, guards the other team's best player night in, night out, kills himself for his team, and has learned to rely on his teammates and make them better. There is no disputing that Kobe can stake a legitimate claim to the MVP trophy.

Against: As legitimate a claim as it is, it's not the strongest claim here, unfortunately. The Lakers aren't the Lakers of last year: they're actually good. Even considering the injuries, Gasol, Odom, Fisher, Farmar, Bynum, Turiaf, Ariza, and Walton make for a better supporting cast than that of any other MVP contender, and make probably the deepest team in the league. So Kobe doesn't have to carry as much of a load as everyone else

Also, this is the Lakers' record against the top ten teams in the league so far this year: New Orleans 1-2, Houston 1-2, San Antonio 1-2, Utah 3-1, Phoenix 3-1, Dallas 2-1, Boston 0-2, Orlando 1-1, Detroit 1-1, Cleveland 0-2 (total: 13-15).

That's a really poor mark. Sure, a lot of those losses came before Gasol came before, but I think that proves my point even more: Kobe hasn't been able to consistently get his team to beat the top teams in the league, of even those of his rival MVP candidates. An MVP candidate has to be able to lead his team past the best competition in the league, and so far this year, Kobe has a poor record in that regard.

Kevin Garnett

For: Garnett is of course a singular a talent and I have no need to recite his statistical accomplishments this season. He scores, provides a low post presence, and has contributed mightily to the development of Glen Davis, Rajon Rondo, and Kendrick Perkins. His greatest contribution, however has been emotionally and mentally: he's changed the culture of Boston. He's made it so that the Celtics believe they can win and act like they will win. And win they have, achieving the best record in the league.The swagger he's brought alone makes him an MVP candidate.

Also, the Garnett has the best mark against the other elite teams in the league of the players being considered:

Los Angeles 2-0, Dallas 2-0, Houston 2-0, San Antonio 2-0, Phoenix 0-1, Utah 1-1, New Orleans 0-1, Cleveland 2-2, Detroit 2-1, Orlando 1-2 (total: 14-8).

Against: Garnett has two big factors against him: he doesn't show up in crunch time, really, being content to let other guys on his team, like Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, and now Sam Cassell take the shots when it counts. That is not what an MVP does. An MVP is the guy who dominates when the game is on the line. Garnett does not.

Second, the Celtics did extremely well when Garnett was out for a spell. Sure, one could argue that the winning attitude that Garnett instilled in the Celts played out its effects while he was out, but it nonetheless speaks poorly of Garnett being more critical to the Celtics success than the other candidates when his team runs off a big winning streak without him.

LeBron James

For: LeBron is Kobe's only competition for best player in the game. You can honestly say with little exaggeration that he has single handedly led his team to the 4th best record in the East: of the games he's played this year, he hasn't been Cleveland's leading scorer in only in only 5 of the games he's played this year. LeBron has also been a shutdown defender in the crunch and either takes the shots in crunch time or creates those shots for his teammates. He's also had to deal with a terrible supporting cast that couldn't win a game while he was out earlier in the season (the exact opposite of Garnett), and a massive roster upheaval at the trading deadline. His MVP credentials are solid.

Against: In spite of all of that, I have a hard time giving the nod to LeBron because the Cavs really aren't that good, even with LeBron. Sure they're 40-31 and 4th in the East, but that record is illusory: most of those wins have come across the dregs of the league (the majority of the Eastern conference) Even then, that record would only be good for tenth in the West (and the Cavs probably would have that record if they were in the West). Yeah, that bad. LeBron also has the worst mark among the five players considered here against the cream of the league: Los Angeles 2-0, Dallas 1-1, Houston 0-2, San Antonio 1-1, Phoenix 0-2, Utah 1-1, New Orleans 0-1, Boston 2-2, Detroit 1-1, Orlando 1-2 (total: 9-13). To me, that's enough to keep LeBron from being the MVP this year.

Tracy McGrady

For: T-Mac makes this list based on the massive run the Rockets made recently, winning 22 in a row until Boston stopped them, and 10 without their big guy, Yao Ming. The Rockets went from out of the playoffs to being a game within the top of the Western Conference Standings. T-Mac s of course the best talent on the Rockets, and the Rockets have continued their surge without the second best player. T-Mac has also played really well during the streak, and has become a more complete player.

Against: It's hard to say that T-Mac was the catalyst for this run, though. The run isn't the 22-win streak, and it really isn't the 11-2 mark Houston has had since Yao went down: it's the 32-5 they've had since January 4th. That is when Rick Adelman started playing his rookies Luis Scola and Carl Landry more, and when Rafer Alston finally put it together. This run really isn't the result of McGrady putting the team on his shoulders, so much as it is a result of the Rockets putting their talent together and making the most of their talent. This isn't to denigrate any of McGrady's accomplishments, but to avoid the disservice to the contributions and efforts of the rest of the Rockets players and staff

The Rockets have also had a mediocre record against the best teams in the league at this point in the season: Los Angeles 2-1, Dallas 2-1, San Antonio 2-1, Phoenix 1-2, Utah 1-1, New Orleans 2-2, Boston 0-2, Detroit 1-1, Cleveland 2-0 Orlando 1-1 (total: 13-14)

Chris Paul

For: Paul has done everything a point guard should do: he's taken a team that has little depth and not too many scorers, and made it a contender. Tyson Chandler is not a double-double guy if it wasn't for Paul, and neither David West or Peja Stojakovic would be playing as well as they are if Paul wasn't initiating the offense. He has the second worst supporting cast of anyone on this list (LeBron's is worse), yet the Hornets are competing for the best record in the West. Bill Simmons has gone so far as to say he's having the best season a point guard has ever has; I'm not so sure about that, but the season is remarkable, and is probably better than either of Steve Nash's MVP years, and Nash had a better supporting cast in those years than Paul has.

He's an excellent on-the-ball defender, scores at will, creates shots for his teammates, makes sure everyone has enough touches, has incredible court vision, keeps his team in almost every game, has an infectious enthusiasm that permeates the team and makes them fun to watch, and has helped stabilize that could have easily teetered into oblivion due to the situation in New Orleans.

Also, The Hornets have a solid record against the other top teams so far, also: Los Angeles 2-1, Dallas 2-1, San Antonio 2-2, Phoenix 4-0, Utah 1-2, Houston 2-2, Boston 1-0, Detroit 0-2, Cleveland 1-0 Orlando 0-1 (total: 15-11). That's good enough for second in this group, after only Garnett.

Against: I can't think of any, other than that he's not Kobe or LeBron. That's a bad reason to vote against someone.

So, this is how I rank the MVP candidates:

Chris Paul
Kobe Bryant
Kevin Garnett
LeBron James
Tracy McGrady

By the way, this isn't an NBA blog, it just seems that way. Truth be told, the NBA is just really exciting right now, college football and the NFL haven't started, I don't follow college basketball very closely since my school - Michigan - is terrible, baseball hasn't started yet, and it takes too much effort to follow the NHL since even the soon to be defunct Champ Car racing has a higher profile.

at 7:48 PM

Team names are important. They give teams, if not the city in which they play, an identity, something that fans can latch onto. It’s telling that, while European soccer teams don’t have official team names like we do here, they all have nicknames that fans and the media use interchangeably with the official team name. If you mention “Red Devils,” people know you’re talking about Manchester United; rossoneri: AC Milan; Magpies: Newcastle United; Gunners: Arsenal. I could go on and on.

So this was running through my head a few weeks ago when I was listening to the Chad Ford and Mark Stein a few days ago on the ESPN NBA Dish podcast. They were discussing the hypothetical Vince Carter to the Pacers deal when the thought occurred to me: what the hell is a “Pacer?” It’s really is a terrible name. That led to the idea for this post: the Top 20 Worst/Inexplicable Pro Team Names. This was supposed to be a Top 10, but there are so many bad nicknames in pro sports that I had to go 20 deep. To my surprise, “Pacer” isn’t anywhere near the worst team name.

Honorable Mention: Washington Wizards

This makes the list, not because it’s a bad name, but because it replaced a good name for the sake of political correctness. “Bullets” is a great team name. “Wizards” is just passable.

Honorable Mention: Anaheim Mighty Ducks

A few years ago, this would have headed the list. Thankfully, the Samuelis had more reason than Disney and chopped “Mighty” off the name, leaving just the Anaheim Ducks. They also resisted doing something idiotic like call the team The Los Angeles Ducks of Anaheim, or some crap like that, and resisting something dumb is apparently about as good as you can hope for.

On to the list:

20) Indiana Pacers

Apparently, the founders of the team called them the Pacers as a tribute to the Indy 500. Specifically, the name was chosen as a tribute to the pace cars for the race. Seriously. That has to be the stupidest explanation I have ever heard for a team name. The name makes no sense at all in the context of a basketball team. This is Reason Number 208 why the ABA failed: they let idiots buy franchises and give them stupid names.

18-19) Los Angeles Dodgers/Los Angeles Lakers

As someone raised in L.A., I grew up rooting for these teams. As much as it pains me, though, both of these names have to make the list. They sound so natural now, and there’s so much history associated with and so much brand equity invested in both of these franchises in L.A. that it’s way to late to change the names, but these two are really Exhibits A and B of why teams should leave their names behind when they move if you give it some thought.

The Dodgers name was apparently a tribute to their fans, who had to dodge trolleys to get to the ballpark. It made beautiful sense in the context, and, hell, had the franchise stayed, or had the Dodgers left behind the name when they moved to L.A. and the Mets assumed the name when they started it would still make sense today as a heritage name. In L.A., though, it’s meaningless and pretty stupid.

The same goes for “Lakers.” It’s a great name for a Minnesota team because of the state nickname. Out here? Where the hell is there a real lake in L.A. County? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

16-17) New York Giants/New York Jets

I think everyone knows someone who’s from New Jersey, but says they’re from New York (or Philly, if they’re from South New Jersey), we all give them grief about it when we find out that they're actually from Jersey (deservedly so). This is the pro sports equivalent. That alone gets these teams on the list. Come on guys, be proud of where you are.

15) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

. . . And this is the pro sports equivalent but with legalese thrown in. Absolutely terrible. Come on, Moreno, you should be proud that the best baseball team is in Orange County. Okay, yes, I’m not the biggest fan of Orange County (I’m convinced “Laguna Hills” and “The OC” ruined it), but it’s still a decent place to be.

9-14) Utah Jazz/Miami Heat/Orlando Magic/Tampa Bay Lightning/Minnesota Wild/Colorado Avalanche

These teams make the list for not being plurals. What do you call a single player on the team? You don’t call Deron Williams “a Jazz,” or Vincent Lecavalier “a Lightning.” Colorado tries to get around this by nicknaming the team “the Avs,” and so a single player is “an Av,” – Tampa Bay does the same with “Bolts” and “a Bolt,” and Utah goes with “Jazzers” and “Jazzer,” respectively – but you know something doesn’t work when you have to have a nickname for a team nickname. Just dumb.

8) Houston Texans

At first blush, this sounds okay. But this makes the list for the total lack of creativity in choosing the name and the fact that this name clearly was chosen to pander to the locals. Dear God I hope this doesn’t catch on. “Let’s here it for your Miami Floridians!” “Your Detroit Michiganders!” “Your Cincinnati Ohioans!” “Your Tulsa Oklahomans!” “Your New York Islanders!” Oh wait . . .

7) Columbus Blue Jackets

What the hell is a blue jacket? Word of advice to future team owners: naming a team after an article of clothing will get you laughed at.

6) Green Bay Packers

How up in arms would people be if a pro team called itself “The San Diego Qualcomms” or the “Houston Enrons?” That’s basically what we have here. The Packers were so called because of corporate sponsorship from a meat packing company. That’s a double ignominy there.

5) Cleveland Browns

The saddest thing about this name is that the original name was actually pretty cool: The Brown Bombers, as in Joe Louis. That would have been a great nickname. But due to apparent newspaper pressure to shorten the name, the owner decided to go with just one name. In a monumentally dumb decision, one that I will argue caused the terrible record that the team has had, they dropped “Bombers” instead of “Browns.” First, screw the reporters: if they want to shorten the name in articles, let them, but there’s no reason to lose the tribute to one of the greatest athletes of all time and a local hero. Second, if you’re going to chose between “Browns” and “Bombers,” why in the world wouldn’t you go with “Bombers?!” That is the definition of a bad decision. Browns sounds stupid and doesn’t lend itself to a good uniform or logo. The team helmet has to be the team logo, which is pretty lame, but it’s even lamer because the helmet is just solid orange (not brown)! I can’t believe Cleveland fans were so desperate to keep their name when the franchise left for Baltimore. Doesn’t make sense. But then again, living in Cleveland doesn’t, either, so at least they’re being consistently stupid (I kid, I kid!).

4) New Jersey Nets

Reason Number 209 of why the ABA failed: they named a team after a piece of equipment. Wow, that’s terrible. Could you imagine if a team was called “The End Zones,” “The Pucks,” or “The Cleats?” This is comparable. I hope they change their name when they move to Brooklyn.

3) Utah Jazz

Sorry, this is Exhibit A of why a team should leave behind when they move cities, and yes, the name is so bad it makes the list twice. New Orleans Jazz makes sense (as much as a non-plural nickname works at all), but Utah Jazz? Do they even allow jazz to be played in Salt Lake City?

2) Ohio State Buckeyes

A buckeye is a kind of nut. Yes, a nut. Very fitting for anyone who goes to or roots for OSU, really. And, yes, I know I said this was for pro teams, but OSU basically is one, so it makes the list.

1) Washington Redskins

Racist names automatically go to the head of the list. The fact that this name is still in existence, and is the name of the team that represents the nation’s capital is a disgrace.

at 7:05 PM

So we have a new potential version of the Kidd-Harris trade, with Trenton Hassel and Keith Van Horn (who's in it as salary-makeweight, and will collect $4 million for doing nothing) subbing in for Devean George and Jerry Stackhouse.

Luxury-tax ramifications aside, I think this is a better trade for Dallas than the previous deal. Even if Stackhouse was coming back to the Mavs in 30 days (and you know every other contender was going to try to sign him with whatever midlevel exception they had the second he became a free agent), that's 30 days with a depleted bench, during which the odds of Dallas losing playoff positioning would be higher than otherwise. That being said, I still don't like the deal. Besides what I already said on Kidd and Harris as players, the Mavs only have 1 true center now: Eric Dampier. Do you really trust Dampier against Shaq or Gasol? This is just as much of a win-now trade as the Marion-Shaq trade was, but at least with the Shaq trade, Phoenix just gave up a player who didn't want to be there, instead of one of the best young point guards in the game and their entire depth at the 5.

Really, the onus of this trade really falls on Devean George: he needs to step up and play quality ball because the Mavs need another big other than Dirk who plays well (because we know that Dampier won't do it), and because he's going to look like a fool for not going to the Nets if he doesn't play well. By the way, how'd you like to be Keith Van Horn right now? $4 million (apparently non-prorated) for doing nothing? How good is that?

at 12:40 AM

I recently picked up an Icebreaker Tech Top on sale. I had never heard of the company before; according to their website, they're all about giving a natural alternative to synthetic fabric for outdoors clothes, and their weapon of choice is merino wool. Since they're a New Zealand company, this makes sense, since New Zealand, I believe, produces the bulk of the merino wool in the world. They claim that merino wool performs better than any synthetic material as far as keeping you warm, wicking moisture away, and not smelling. The tag that came with the piece claims that, to prove their products are so odor resistant, one person wore an Icebreaker shirt for almost two hundred days straight. I would hate to be living with that person.

Style: The Tech Top is really nice. It's a long sleeve, half-zip base layer, and has thumb loops on the sleeve. Thumb loops are an instant plus for me, for some reason. It feels great against the skin, like merino wool should. The construction is very nice, and hangs really well; I have no qualms with wearing this around town or even to work (my office is very casual). It looks like a nice, fashionable sweater, really.

Performance: Okay, so it looks good, and doesn't look like work out clothes, but how does it perform? Quite well, surprisingly enough. On a decently long hike, it pulled the moisture away from my body pretty quickly, and kept me as warm as I'd want to be. On the downside, it didn't breath quite as well as, say, the North Face Flight Series Impulse shirt, or dry anywhere near as quickly, but it's also considerable thicker than the Impulse. The piece is rated as "260" weight, which is roughly equivalent to Polartec 100-weightf fleece fabric in or Patagonia Capilene 4 in thickness (if not a bit better at warmth). That is about as thick as you'll ever want for a base layer. I'd absolutely wear this on its own when working out in the high 40's to mid 50's - that's how warm it is, and I'm sure next time I see snow, I'm going to want to have this as my base layer.

One note: 260 is Icebreaker's heaviest base layer fabric. they have 3 lighter fabrics, 150, 190 superfine, and 200. The lower the number, the lighter the material. I felt a couple 150-weight shirts, and they're thin and light; based on their Tech Top's performance, I would have no reservations about going running in a 150 weight shirt, if I had one.

Longevity: This is the only real area of concern for me. The fabric is already starting to pill and fuzz a bit. That's not good for a new piece. I'm definitely going to have to take a fabric shaver to it. On the plus side, I can machine wash it; no need to dry clean it, like I do with my wool sweaters.

Price: Here's the other demerit. The piece lists at $90. As nice as it is, I can't justify spending that money on something meant to sweat in. I bought it on sale for $63, but even then it was a close call. Icebreaker's lighter stuff starts at $45, and goes up from there.

Final Thoughts: I really like this product. It seems to perform as well as advertised, and looks really good. It suffers from two demerits: it's already starting to pill/fuzz, and it's pricey. But overall, I would recommend this product to anyone, whether they want something to sweat in, or just look good in.

Score: 7.5/10 (Recommended)

at 11:35 AM

So we've looked at the Big 4 in the West, now it's time to turn to the other championship contenders in the West, or as I like to term them, the Mezzanine Tier - teams that based on their play thus far can make a strong case for being in the elite, but just have too many question marks for me to put them there already.

Again, players in RED are the bona fide stars, BLUE guys are solid contributors, and PURPLE guys are those on the verge of becoming stars or stars on the decline.

Hornets

First, we have the West-leading Hornets.

PG:

(1) Chris Paul

(2) Bobby Jackson

SG:

(1) Morris Peterson

(2) Jannero Pargo

SF:

(1) Peja Stojakovic

(2) Rasual Butler

(3) Ryan Bowen

PF:

(1) David West

(2) Julian Wright

C:

(1) Tyson Chandler

(2) Melvin Ely

(3) Hilton Armstrong

The Hornets are playing out of their mind right now. No one would have thought that they would be leading the West at this point in the year. Their big three is doing great things. CP3 is already one of the top 5 point guards in the league, and is absurdly fun to watch. David West is a beast, pure and simple. I have him as the 10th best power forward in the league (see my 1st post for my 'definitive' list), but I think I may be shortchanging him. Chandler is making John Paxson look like a complete moron by outdoing Ben Wallace in every conceivabel facet of the game while still putting up double digits. He's one of the best centers in the game, no doubt. Peja, while not quite living up to the contract he received two summers ago, is playing really well, and Peterson and Pargo are a serviceable duo at the shooting guard spot, although it's kind of sad to see Mo Pete, a guy who used to drop 16 a night, become a roleplayer. Also, they're fifth in the league in team defense, allowing only 94.7 points/game, and eigth in the league in points scored at 100.4 per, and fifth in the league in point differential at +5.7. With stats like that, their place in the standings doesn't seem like a mirage.

So, with a starting lineup this good, their record so far, and how great they're actually playing, why are they not a top tier West team? Four reasons. First, they didn't make the playoffs last year, so they haven't proven that top of the Conference is their natural place, despite the respectability of their team offense and defense stats. Second, Peja hasn't proven that he can go for a full season in a long time: the last full season he played 03-04; in the last three seasons he's appeard in only 66, 71, and 13 games respectively. They need Peja healthy if they're going to do any damage. Third, they need Peja healthy because they have no depth. Pargo is the only good bench player they have; Wright is eh, Butler is eh, and Jackson is eh. If their starters aren't on their game, they lose, pure and simple. If any of their starters go down, they will fall off like no other. Fourth, they haven't been to the playoffs, and the only player on the team with any crunch time experience is Peja, who didn't exactly elevate when he had to with the Kings.

Still, if the Hornets keep it going, they're going to be interesting to watch in the playoffs. That is, if anyone in New Orleans actually will go to the goddamn games.

Jazz

The Team-With-The-Most-Unsuitable-Name-Ever is the only other second tier West team, and just like the Hornets, their play this year has made a solid case for being in the top tier.

PG:

(1) Deron Williams

(2) Jason Hart

SG:

(1) Ronnie Brewer

(2) Kyle Korver

(3) C.J. Miles

SF:

(1) Andrei Kirilenko

(2) Matt Harpring

PF:

(1) Carlos Boozer

(2) Paul Milsap

C:

(1) Mehmet Okur

(2) Jarron Collins

(3) Kyrylo Fesenko

The Jazz have two players that are near the top of the league at their respective positions in Williams and Boozer. Both of them are just dominant players and I think the Jazz would put their PG-PF combo against any other team's. Sandwiched between the two are three players that are two players that are on the verge in Brewer and Kirilenko, and Okur is as solid a contributor as you could want in a 5th option. Add in a super sub like Paul Milsap, a contributor like Kyle Korver, and a center-of-the-future in Fesenko (who's done nothing so far but looks very promising), the Jazz are the best young team in the game with very good depth. Oh yeah one more thing: just about everyone is still getting better! They haven't even gotten close to their ceiling.

So, again, why aren't they a top tier team? The main reason is lack of experience. They're young, and they've only had 1 trip to the playoffs together. They did go deep last year, but they got really lucky that the Warriors took out the Mavericks, because there's no way they would've beat the Mavs last year, and the Spurs exposed them in the conference finals. Another issue is their defense. While Mehmet is a good contributor, I think he's going to be a liability against the Bynum-Gasol-Turiaf combo or Stoudamire-Shaq duo. Also, Kirilenko is a noted weak defender, and Brewer isn't anything special defensively, either. So, they have to rely too much on Boozer and Williams to provide all the defense when rolling with their starters. Sure Milsap and Harpring are decent defenders and Collins is a big body, but that means one of their offensive stars is going to have to sit. The numbers have borne out this issue: they're mid-pack in points allowed . Sure, the Lakers have an even worse points allowed average, but I'm not sure how relevant that number is for the current, post-Kwame Lakers. Kirilenko is another issue. He was a star a few years ago, but fell off after he started feuding with Jerry Sloan. They've apparently made nice, but Kirilenko is a moody guy, and I'm not particularly willing to bet that something else won't set this moody guy off. The last issue I have with the Jazz is that Boozer is notoriously fragile. He's played every game this season, sure, but last year was his best year as a Jazz, when he played 74 games (still missing 8). The two seasons before? Only 84 total. Not so good.

Still, the Jazz are THE team to watch over the next several seasons. This team as presently constructed can, if healthy and if Boozer doesn't bolt again like he did in Cleveland, contend for a championship for years to come. They have good depth, have had great drafts, and are playing so well that they'll be able to attract free agents. But this year? I don't think they'll get out of the West.

at 12:20 PM

Now we turn to the next two questions about the Lakers in the Pauftermath:

What if Bynum doesn't come back healthy?

The Lakers have held the fort down well without Bynum. Between when Bynum went out on 1/13 and when Gasol started on 2/5, the Lakers went 5-5, and since Gasol joined up, the Lakers have been 5-1, for a total of 10-6. The Western Conference-leading Suns have been 10-5, including a 2-2 mark since Marion was traded away (Shaq's still injured, so he hasn't played yet for his new team). So the Lakers have only just missed keeping the pace. On the other hand, the Lakers are still playing in the post-trade afterglow, so that 5-1 mark post-trade is not a true reflection of how good as they are, especially since the only quality win they've had in that span was against Orlando. But on the third hand, it shouldn't be discounted entirely, either, since all of those games were on the road.

So can the Lakers really contend without Bynum? I think so, but the road is a whole lot tougher.

How will Odom handle being downgraded to being the fourth option?

Like I said in my last post, when Odom is on his game, he's as good as anyone on the floor. The problem is that he's rarely on his game, and needs the game to run through him to be truly effective. You would think that the triangle offense would be ideal for him, since it doesn't require a true point guard to run the show; a point forward, like Odom, can be devestating from a number of spots on the floor; and Scottie Pippen, a guy with a similar skill set (although a superior version of it), thrived in it. That doesn't seem to be holding true as much as it should. It apparently worked last night against Minnesota, as evidenced by his triple-double, but (a) it was Minnesota, and (b) Kobe and Gasol were on the bench the majority of time that Odom was racking up his stats.

So how will Odom do when Bynum returns, and he's moved to the 3 the majority of the time, and made the 4th or 5th option on offense? He won't have the ball in his hands much, he won't get many shots, and they're not going to run any plays for him. I can think of only two ways it'll work well for Odom. Option 1 is if they deliberately use him as an initiator on a majority of possessions, consistently making the entry pass to Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, or Fisher/Farmar. That way he'll always have the ball in his hands and he'll be involved in the offense on at least some level. Option 2 (and one that should hopefully happen no matter what) is that Odom focuses on becoming a defensive monster, which he has the ability to do with his speed and length; he can guard 4 postions no problem and he's always been a good rebounder. Offense will become a bit of an afterthought for him, but he'll still be able to contribute 8-10 a night, and stepping up when needed. This would be the best development for the Lakers, since they could use another solid on-the-bal defender.

I think the most likely thing, though, is that he's gone during the next season. He's got a big expiring contract that might be able to net the Lakers a swingman who can D up. Who that may be, I don't know yet; I'll have to play around with the ESPN NBA Trade Machine to figure out a good fit.

That said, I don't think Odom will be a problem for the Lakers this season. Odom's always been a hard worker and never seems to whine, and he has to be aware of his play and how his role will be diminished once Bynum returns, so I think he'll be okay this season. His numbers will diminish, but I think everyone else on the team will more than cover for him. It's just that his expiring deal will be too tempting to not trade next year.

(Edited 2/13/08 after the Shaq-Marion trade)

As everyone is aware of, the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol from the Grizzlies on Feb 1st. So is the Lake Show back? Should I start trying to get finals tickets? Maybe.

Several things need to be discussed first

1) How good is Gasol, really?

Obviously, he's a huge improvement over Kwame. But he's not a top 5 power forward. This is my power forward top 10 list (the only criteria being if I could grab any one power forward for my team, who would he be?):

Tim Duncan (Spurs)
Kevin Garnett (Celtics)
Dirk Nowitzki (Mavs)
Chris Bosh (Raptors)
Elton Brand (Clippers) (injured)
Amare Stoudamire (Suns)
Carlos Boozer (Jazz)
Pau Gasol (Lakers)
Shawn Marion (Heat)
David West (Hornets)

Some may argue that Matrix ought to be higher based on his stats, but he really is a small forward playing out of position. Still, it's a credit to him that he's playing so well out of position. And, yes, Brand is out for the season, but you have to acknowledge what he's done over the past several seasons and know he's going to bring it next year.

But, yes, Gasol is going to help a whole lot. Those 19 points, 1.5 blocks, 50% shooting percentage, and 8-9 rebounds per game are going to be awesome. His superior range will keep defenses honest and will provide the Lakers with what Radmanovic was supposed to give them when he signed that abominable contract. He has high post and low post moves, and can pass really well. His defense is suspect, but he's never had a decent big to play with; I wouldn't be surprised at all if his defense improves just by playing with guys like Bynum and Turiaf. Plus, he seems to be gelling already withthe Lakers and fitting in with the Triangle Offense. True, his stats have been up and down since the trade, with lines of 24 (points)-12 (rebounds)-4 (assists)-.667 (field goal percentage), 12-7-3-.357, 30-9-1-.800, 12-7-2-.400, and 26-6-6-.818 in the 5 games he's played with L.A. More importantly, the Lakers have been 5-1 with him, with the only loss being the second of back-to-back games, where the Lakers didn't even land in Atlanta until 4 a.m. Still, those aren't bad numbers for a guy learning a new system.

Two points of caution, though: his sore back has been blamed for those down nights. We all know from Tracy McGrady that sore backs can effectively end a player's season. Other potential problem is that this play is without Bynum; we don't know yet how he'll play when shifted back to power forward from center. It should help, but we don't know yet.

2) What about the rest of the West?

The West is deep. Very deep. There are not only 10 legitimate playoff teams, but any one of those teams could win a playoff series. In the interests of laziness, let's just look at the rosters of the top contenders, the Lakers, Spurs, Suns, and Mavericks. A later post will look at the second tier teams (the Jazz, Hornets, and Nuggets), and I plan to do another on the top Eastern Conference teams (Pistons, Celtics, and Raptors).
let's take a look at the depth charts of the top teams in the Western Conference, assuming everyone is healthy.

Players in RED are players that, in my opinion, are players capable of regularly carrying a team; players in BLUE are ones that I think are solid contributors; you can count on them to get you something; it may be points, it may be rebounds, it may be solid defense, but you'll get something. PURPLE are guys on the verge of becoming stars, or stars on the verge of dropping into roleplayer status.

Lakers
PG:

(1) Derek Fisher

(2) Jordan Farmar

SG:

(1) Kobe Bryant

(2) Sasha Vujacic

(3) Luke Walton

SF:

(1) Lamar Odom

(2) Trevor Ariza

PF:

(1) Pau Gasol

(2) Vladmir Radmanovic

C:

(1) Andrew Bynum

(2) Ronny Turiaf

(3) Chris Mihm

Kobe is Kobe; it's between him and LeBron for best player in the league. Bynum's still learning the game, but he's proven this year that he can carry a team when he has to and should be a beast next season. Gasol's had to carry the Grizzlies since he was a rookie, but he's a star, no doubt. As for the rest of the team, Odom can play when his head's in the game, but it's not there often enough. The Fish/Farmar duo at point has turned out as well as anyone could have expected. Gasol, Turiaf, and Bynum at the 4 and the 5 spots, taking care of the big man spots, with Mihm (when/if he comes back) and Radman coming in for spells here and there (because god knows they can't handle anything more than that). At the swingmen spots, Vujacic and Ariza are solid backups, capable of 10-15 points a game, each. Ariza might even be a better starting option at the 3 than Odom (more on that later). Walton can contribute a bit, too, when healthy. The Lakers are the only team that can role 9 or 10 deep.

Spurs
PG:

(1) Tony Parker

(2) Damon Stoudamire

(3) Jacque Vaughn

SG:

(1) Manu Ginobli

(2) Brent Barry

SF:

(1) Bruce Bowen

(2) Michael Finley

(3) Ime Udoka

PF:

(1) Tim Duncan

(2) Matt Bonner

(3) Robert Horry

C:

(1) Francisco Oberto

(2) Francisco Elson

When helathy, the Spurs' big 3 are probably better than the Lakers' big 3, at least until Bynum gets some more experience. The Spurs are locked in at the swingmen spots; they have three solid guys and a star in Ginobli. Parker is one of the top 5 pointmen in the league, and Stoudamire is a HUGE upgrade over Jacque Vaughn as a second-stringer. The 4 and 5 are where the Spurs run into some trouble. While Duncan is still the best 4 in the game, they have a weak front line. They need him to play 40 minutes a game because Matt freaking Bonner is his backup (that is until the playoffs, when Horry and his 7, yes 7, championship rings will actually start playing), and their center position is a void. Duncan can only guard one person at a time, and it's going to be a pick-your-poison of Gasol or Bynum when they play each other.

However, the Spurs have one thing the Lakers don't: the league's best chemistry (as Bill Simmons recognized in his article a few months ago). The Lakers are going to need some time to gel, first to get Gasol integrated into the team and the team's culture, and then again when Bynum comes back. The Spurs will be able to take advantage of that for a while.

Suns
PG:

(1) Steve Nash

(2) Leandro Barbosa

SG:

(1) Raja Bell

(2) Eric Piatkowski

SF:

(1) Grant Hill

(2) Boris Diaw

(3) Alando Tucker

PF:

(1) Amare Stoudamire

(2) Sean Marks

C:

(1) Shaquille O'Neal

(2) Brian Skinner

The Art of Sport

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Monday, November 3, 2008

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Monday, August 4, 2008

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Monday, April 21, 2008

Friday, April 18, 2008

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Monday, April 7, 2008

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Friday, February 29, 2008

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Tuesday, February 5, 2008