The Best of the Judd Apatow Bunch
"Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is an entertaining film, with brains. Please don't read too much into my title here; I loved "Knocked Up" and "The 40-Year Old Virgin," and liked "Superbad" as well. By a very small margin, I believe "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" surpasses the other three.
There are a few things that stand out to me: (1) the way the differences in philosophy between the main character and Aldus Snow are played out during their surfing interaction. Sure, "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is ultimately a comedy, but it's nice to see how intelligent it is during that interaction.
Our main character is the heartbroken man that we've seen many times before -- shattered, and struggling to recover from a break-up. Though he's a cliché, we can still empathize with him. Snow, on the other hand, represents a different mindset and way of looking at the world: he simply can't stay committed to a single woman.
Guys, don't we all feel that way sometimes? I know I have. That scene is excellent because we can understand both perspectives. The loyal lover and the adventurous male driven by sex, not love. It's a very interesting dynamic.
I loved the Aldus character, and Paul Rudd's surfing instructor as well. "The weather outside is...weather..." Good stuff. Other funny lines too.
Also, I thought it was refreshing to get the other side of the hated female character. Sarah Marshall is supposed to be the character that the audience despises, because she breaks our lead's heart. But instead of making her one-dimensional and devious, we get to see another side of her near the final act of the film.
Sarah is a human, too. She explains why she's been cheating on her man, and we don't have to forgive her or condone her behavior, but we have to understand her perspective. The main character was a bum at times. Sarah's a hot commodity in general, and internally, she was just looking for a guy who would keep her on her toes. Understandable, I think.
And of course, who could forget that fact that Mila Kunis is so smokin' hot in this movie? Always a plus.
"Forgetting Sarah Marshall" made me laugh, but it also made me respect its maker. This is a film that develops its essential characters, and we should thank Mr. Apatow for that.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Review of "Crash"
An Unfairly Criticized Powerhouse
Paul Haggis' "Crash" has become a film that people love to hate. All over the message boards on this site, people are expressing their outrage regarding "Crash's" Best Picture victory. Look, I understand that the movie is a little over-the-top at times, and goes a little too far to make its point, but I still believe it was worthy of the Oscar.
I'll tell you why. In particular three scenes jump out at me as three of the best I've ever seen. The two standouts -- the scene in which Matt Dillon saves Thandie Newton, and the scene in which we are led to believe that Michael Pena's adorable daughter has been shot -- are masterful. So well-timed, well-shot, executed, and emotional. Just breathtaking.
The third, the sleeper of the trio, is our introduction to Pena's daughter and their relationship. When he comes home after a frustrating encounter with Sandra Bullock's shaken character, we see his origin, what's going on behind that first scene. Pena is no "gangbanger," as Bullock puts it. He's an excellent, caring, sensitive father with a daughter who is nothing short of an angel.
It's fitting that the Persian storekeeper refers to her as "his angel," toward the end of the film. Pena's interaction with her involving the "Invisible Cloak," is captivating. We are amazed at what a good father he is, and how sweet his only child is. Very touching.
I agree with those who were unimpressed by Brendan Fraser's performance, and some who weren't particularly impressed by Bullock. I'll give you that; but Dillon, Newton, Pena, and Terrence Howard were outstanding. Ryan Philippe held up his end, as well.
Hey, we know that Haggis is trying to hit us hard with "Crash." But what's the big deal? Some people really are THAT racist. There's no doubt about it.
I say, let him hit us. Melodramatic at times, but still ultimately successful. A moving film.
Paul Haggis' "Crash" has become a film that people love to hate. All over the message boards on this site, people are expressing their outrage regarding "Crash's" Best Picture victory. Look, I understand that the movie is a little over-the-top at times, and goes a little too far to make its point, but I still believe it was worthy of the Oscar.
I'll tell you why. In particular three scenes jump out at me as three of the best I've ever seen. The two standouts -- the scene in which Matt Dillon saves Thandie Newton, and the scene in which we are led to believe that Michael Pena's adorable daughter has been shot -- are masterful. So well-timed, well-shot, executed, and emotional. Just breathtaking.
The third, the sleeper of the trio, is our introduction to Pena's daughter and their relationship. When he comes home after a frustrating encounter with Sandra Bullock's shaken character, we see his origin, what's going on behind that first scene. Pena is no "gangbanger," as Bullock puts it. He's an excellent, caring, sensitive father with a daughter who is nothing short of an angel.
It's fitting that the Persian storekeeper refers to her as "his angel," toward the end of the film. Pena's interaction with her involving the "Invisible Cloak," is captivating. We are amazed at what a good father he is, and how sweet his only child is. Very touching.
I agree with those who were unimpressed by Brendan Fraser's performance, and some who weren't particularly impressed by Bullock. I'll give you that; but Dillon, Newton, Pena, and Terrence Howard were outstanding. Ryan Philippe held up his end, as well.
Hey, we know that Haggis is trying to hit us hard with "Crash." But what's the big deal? Some people really are THAT racist. There's no doubt about it.
I say, let him hit us. Melodramatic at times, but still ultimately successful. A moving film.
Review of "Major League II"
The GREATEST Baseball Movie of All Time
I know some people are reading that title and thinking, "Wow, this guy's an idiot." But please, hear me out.
"Major League II" is the best of the trilogy, and is an absolutely hilarious baseball film for those who know the game well, and know how truly outlandish this movie is. Outlandish, however, in a good way.
First let me tell you that "Major League II" is a cult classic amongst young baseball players on Long Island. It's like an unspoken understanding, until someone speaks. For example, a pitcher might come in out of the bullpen to face a couple of batters, perform poorly, and then immediately get yanked out of the game.
Cue someone on the bench saying, "Nice game." Others on the bench will instantly begin laughing, and then talk about another scene they think of from "Major League II." The "nice game" line is a reference to manager Jake Taylor taking Roger Dorn out of the game following his only at bat of the season...a hit by pitch. Taylor sends Dorn in there to lean into one during a crucial situation in the ALCS, and Dorn reluctantly obliges. After a hilarious "oh God!" and tumble to the ground, Dorn temporarily refuses to be relieved by a pinch runner.
He eventually gives in and is greeted by Taylor, who pats him on the butt and says, "Nice game." Of course there are other classics like: "He'd need a rocket up his a$$ to get to that one!"; Jack Parkman mimicking Taylor's bad knees during the preseason; "I think I'll call it the 'Masterbator'; 'Kamikaze' Tanaka's many amusing contributions; 'Wild Thing' Vaughn's "that's enough for today" after five pitches in Spring Training...and more.
Look, with "Major League II," you can't take it seriously. The baseball action sequences play smoothly, but the managerial decisions and player antics are silly. Just take this film for what it is...
The funniest baseball movie of all time, and quite simply, the best.
I know some people are reading that title and thinking, "Wow, this guy's an idiot." But please, hear me out.
"Major League II" is the best of the trilogy, and is an absolutely hilarious baseball film for those who know the game well, and know how truly outlandish this movie is. Outlandish, however, in a good way.
First let me tell you that "Major League II" is a cult classic amongst young baseball players on Long Island. It's like an unspoken understanding, until someone speaks. For example, a pitcher might come in out of the bullpen to face a couple of batters, perform poorly, and then immediately get yanked out of the game.
Cue someone on the bench saying, "Nice game." Others on the bench will instantly begin laughing, and then talk about another scene they think of from "Major League II." The "nice game" line is a reference to manager Jake Taylor taking Roger Dorn out of the game following his only at bat of the season...a hit by pitch. Taylor sends Dorn in there to lean into one during a crucial situation in the ALCS, and Dorn reluctantly obliges. After a hilarious "oh God!" and tumble to the ground, Dorn temporarily refuses to be relieved by a pinch runner.
He eventually gives in and is greeted by Taylor, who pats him on the butt and says, "Nice game." Of course there are other classics like: "He'd need a rocket up his a$$ to get to that one!"; Jack Parkman mimicking Taylor's bad knees during the preseason; "I think I'll call it the 'Masterbator'; 'Kamikaze' Tanaka's many amusing contributions; 'Wild Thing' Vaughn's "that's enough for today" after five pitches in Spring Training...and more.
Look, with "Major League II," you can't take it seriously. The baseball action sequences play smoothly, but the managerial decisions and player antics are silly. Just take this film for what it is...
The funniest baseball movie of all time, and quite simply, the best.
I've decided to start posting movie reviews...
...that I do for no reason on IMDB.com. I probably have a very small audience -- if any -- for these things. But hey, what the hell, sometimes I get bored. VERY Bored. So check them out above...
Sunday, August 24, 2008
The Top 10 Performances in Film History
I had to make the title to this post a little dramatic in order to get you guys to read this. I will be ranking acting performances, but of course I can't order "the top 10 in film history," because I haven't seen every film in history. Based only on movies I've seen, here are the strongest performances to date (counting down):
#10-Dustin Hoffman as Raymond Babbitt in "Rain Man" (1988) and #9-Marlon Brando as Don Vito Corleone in "The Godfather" (1972)
These are the most cliche choices on my list, and that's partially the reason why they rest near the bottom. When everyone raves about a particular performance, it's terribly difficult for them to live up to the hype in my eyes...that's just the way it is.
But Hoffman gives us one of the most lovable characters in film history, and when you think mob boss, you can't help but think of Don Vito Corleone. Brando created an institution with his work.
#8-Denzel Washington as the title character in "Malcolm X" (1992)
Talk about one character carrying an entire film. Not that Mr. X's progression to his position of racial prominence wasn't interesting, but Spike Lee really took us through every little detail. Yet, because of Denzel, we want to be there every step of the way -- particularly when he's giving his speeches to massive crowds. Absolutely incredible.
"Brothers and sisters, I am here to tell you that I charge the white man. I charge the white man with being the greatest murderer on earth. I charge the white man with being the greatest kidnapper on earth. There is no place in this world that this man can go and say he created peace and harmony."
#7-Tom Hanks as Chuck Noland in "Cast Away" (2000)
Surely this is not the most noted performance of Mr. Hanks' illustrious career -- considering the fact that he won Oscars for his roles in both "Philadelphia" and "Forrest Gump" -- but it stands as the most difficult role to play. As Chuck Noland he spends the vast majority of his screen time alone (unless you count "Wilson") and yet does an extremely fine job of getting us to empathize and think, "What would I do in his situation?"
It hurts us when he returns home to find that his wife has moved on.
"And I've lost her all over again. I'm so sad that I don't have Kelly. But I'm so grateful that she was with me on that island. And I know what I have to do now. I gotta keep breathing. Because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?"
#6-Richard Dreyfuss as Glenn Holland in "Mr. Holland's Opus" (1995)
I'm sure some of you are rolling your eyes at this one. I know, I know, the film was a bit melodramatic, but Dreyfuss' character is just magnetic. His depth is tangible, and as goofy and occasionally annoying as he may be, we root for Mr. Holland and appreciate his passion for music and persistence in one profession.
It's a coming of age tale that starts in adulthood; an interesting structure.
"You work for 30 years because you think that what you do makes a difference, you think it matters to people, but then you wake up one morning and find out, well no, you've made a little error there, you're expendable...I should be laughing."
#5-Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in "Tombstone" (1993)
I'm not a big "Western" guy, but Kilmer is just incredible in this one. Funny, smart, coy, deadly, and a helluva drunk. Doc has the quickest shot at the OK Corral and a drinking problem reminiscent of Paul Newman in "The Verdict." Both become heroes in their own way.
Doc Holliday was a great friend to his shootin' mates and his character represents, far and away, the best performance of Kilmer's career.
"It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds."
#4-Kenneth Branagh as the Prince in "Hamlet" (1996)
It's the best on-screen portrayal of the most important character in the history of literature, and perhaps in all of fiction. Prince Hamlet is simultaneously one of the most complicated and normal characters ever written or acted; credit here going to Mr. Shakespeare himself and in this case, Mr. Branagh.
This version of the premier Shakespearean tragedy is all-inclusive and runs over five hours. Somehow, it's engaging throughout. Branagh's energy and execution are invaluable to the film; the only issue, for me, is his look. Wish they could have done better there.
"There is nothing either good or bad...but thinking makes it so."
#3-Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles in "Ray" (2004)
Here's the best example of a long film that remains interesting throughout, thanks entirely to one virtuoso performance. "Ray" is a well-acted movie from end to end, but its plot is fairly mundane and wouldn't be nearly as interesting without Jamie Foxx as Mr. Charles.
I don't remember Ray Charles that well -- all I really know him from is the old Pespi commercials -- but from what I do recall about his mannerisms, Jamie Foxx duplicates them perfectly. Foxx brings Ray's many torments to life, and brings back a man who was taken too soon. We learn that Ray Charles wasn't perfect, but he was a show-stopping entertainer and a unique musician. We forget that we're not actually seeing Mr. Charles; it's Jamie behind those trademark sunglasses.
"As far as I'm concerned, me and God is even, and I do what I damn well please."
#2-Joe Pesci as Tommy DeVito in "Goodfellas" (1990)
The beef with this choice will be, "He played similar characters in other movies, like 'Casino,'" or "he just played himself," but both complaints aren't enough to devalue Pesci's work in "Goodfellas." Tommy DeVito is the best example of a "loose cannon" to ever hit the big screen, and in film with a number of incredible performances, Pesci's was easily the best of the bunch.
The "funny how?" scene is one of the most quoted of all time, one where Pesci showcases his uncanny ability to be scary, insane, and hilarious in the span of a few minutes on screen. Tommy probably has the highest curse-per-scene rate ever estimated, and his middle finger to the world attitude eventually gets him whacked.
"Good shot. Whaddya want from me? It was a good shot."
#1-Denzel Washington as Alonzo Harris in "Training Day" (2001)
Would stuffy, elitist movie critics throughout the country agree with this selection? Obviously not. But let's pay them no mind; from what I've seen, Denzel's performance in "Training Day" is the most magnetic of all. "Training Day" is a fine movie, Ethan Hawke puts in excellent work and the plot has high entertainment value; however, the only reason it is one of my absolute favorite movies is Denzel's character, Alonzo.
Denzel commands the audience's attention better than any actor alive, and Alonzo is the most captivating of his many memorable characters. He's cocky, complicated, "ruthless," intelligent, unpredictable, funny, and cool as hell. Even though he lies to Jake and leaves him for dead, do we really want Alonzo to die at the end? I know I didn't...he was just too damn entertaining.
What is it with me? My top two performances are "villains" who don't even make it out of their films alive. Oh well.
"You've been plannin' this all day?"
"I've been plannin' it all week, son...this shit's chess, it ain't checkers!"
Bonus Lists:
Top Five Female Performances
#5-Alicia Silverstone as Cher Horowitz in "Clueless" (1995)
#4-Julia Roberts as Vivian Ward in "Pretty Woman" (1990)
#3-Kate Hudson as Penny Lane in "Almost Famous" (2000)
#2-Ellen Burstyn as Sara Goldfarb in "Requiem for a Dream" (2000)
#1-Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes in "Misery" (1990)
Top Three Villains
#3-Nicolas Cage as Castor Troy in "Face/Off" (1997)
#2-Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in "No Country for Old Men" (2007)
#1-Heath Ledger as The Joker in "The Dark Knight" (2008). See Review.
#10-Dustin Hoffman as Raymond Babbitt in "Rain Man" (1988) and #9-Marlon Brando as Don Vito Corleone in "The Godfather" (1972)
These are the most cliche choices on my list, and that's partially the reason why they rest near the bottom. When everyone raves about a particular performance, it's terribly difficult for them to live up to the hype in my eyes...that's just the way it is.
But Hoffman gives us one of the most lovable characters in film history, and when you think mob boss, you can't help but think of Don Vito Corleone. Brando created an institution with his work.
#8-Denzel Washington as the title character in "Malcolm X" (1992)
Talk about one character carrying an entire film. Not that Mr. X's progression to his position of racial prominence wasn't interesting, but Spike Lee really took us through every little detail. Yet, because of Denzel, we want to be there every step of the way -- particularly when he's giving his speeches to massive crowds. Absolutely incredible.
"Brothers and sisters, I am here to tell you that I charge the white man. I charge the white man with being the greatest murderer on earth. I charge the white man with being the greatest kidnapper on earth. There is no place in this world that this man can go and say he created peace and harmony."
#7-Tom Hanks as Chuck Noland in "Cast Away" (2000)
Surely this is not the most noted performance of Mr. Hanks' illustrious career -- considering the fact that he won Oscars for his roles in both "Philadelphia" and "Forrest Gump" -- but it stands as the most difficult role to play. As Chuck Noland he spends the vast majority of his screen time alone (unless you count "Wilson") and yet does an extremely fine job of getting us to empathize and think, "What would I do in his situation?"
It hurts us when he returns home to find that his wife has moved on.
"And I've lost her all over again. I'm so sad that I don't have Kelly. But I'm so grateful that she was with me on that island. And I know what I have to do now. I gotta keep breathing. Because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?"
#6-Richard Dreyfuss as Glenn Holland in "Mr. Holland's Opus" (1995)
I'm sure some of you are rolling your eyes at this one. I know, I know, the film was a bit melodramatic, but Dreyfuss' character is just magnetic. His depth is tangible, and as goofy and occasionally annoying as he may be, we root for Mr. Holland and appreciate his passion for music and persistence in one profession.
It's a coming of age tale that starts in adulthood; an interesting structure.
"You work for 30 years because you think that what you do makes a difference, you think it matters to people, but then you wake up one morning and find out, well no, you've made a little error there, you're expendable...I should be laughing."
#5-Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in "Tombstone" (1993)
I'm not a big "Western" guy, but Kilmer is just incredible in this one. Funny, smart, coy, deadly, and a helluva drunk. Doc has the quickest shot at the OK Corral and a drinking problem reminiscent of Paul Newman in "The Verdict." Both become heroes in their own way.
Doc Holliday was a great friend to his shootin' mates and his character represents, far and away, the best performance of Kilmer's career.
"It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds."
#4-Kenneth Branagh as the Prince in "Hamlet" (1996)
It's the best on-screen portrayal of the most important character in the history of literature, and perhaps in all of fiction. Prince Hamlet is simultaneously one of the most complicated and normal characters ever written or acted; credit here going to Mr. Shakespeare himself and in this case, Mr. Branagh.
This version of the premier Shakespearean tragedy is all-inclusive and runs over five hours. Somehow, it's engaging throughout. Branagh's energy and execution are invaluable to the film; the only issue, for me, is his look. Wish they could have done better there.
"There is nothing either good or bad...but thinking makes it so."
#3-Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles in "Ray" (2004)
Here's the best example of a long film that remains interesting throughout, thanks entirely to one virtuoso performance. "Ray" is a well-acted movie from end to end, but its plot is fairly mundane and wouldn't be nearly as interesting without Jamie Foxx as Mr. Charles.
I don't remember Ray Charles that well -- all I really know him from is the old Pespi commercials -- but from what I do recall about his mannerisms, Jamie Foxx duplicates them perfectly. Foxx brings Ray's many torments to life, and brings back a man who was taken too soon. We learn that Ray Charles wasn't perfect, but he was a show-stopping entertainer and a unique musician. We forget that we're not actually seeing Mr. Charles; it's Jamie behind those trademark sunglasses.
"As far as I'm concerned, me and God is even, and I do what I damn well please."
#2-Joe Pesci as Tommy DeVito in "Goodfellas" (1990)
The beef with this choice will be, "He played similar characters in other movies, like 'Casino,'" or "he just played himself," but both complaints aren't enough to devalue Pesci's work in "Goodfellas." Tommy DeVito is the best example of a "loose cannon" to ever hit the big screen, and in film with a number of incredible performances, Pesci's was easily the best of the bunch.
The "funny how?" scene is one of the most quoted of all time, one where Pesci showcases his uncanny ability to be scary, insane, and hilarious in the span of a few minutes on screen. Tommy probably has the highest curse-per-scene rate ever estimated, and his middle finger to the world attitude eventually gets him whacked.
"Good shot. Whaddya want from me? It was a good shot."
#1-Denzel Washington as Alonzo Harris in "Training Day" (2001)
Would stuffy, elitist movie critics throughout the country agree with this selection? Obviously not. But let's pay them no mind; from what I've seen, Denzel's performance in "Training Day" is the most magnetic of all. "Training Day" is a fine movie, Ethan Hawke puts in excellent work and the plot has high entertainment value; however, the only reason it is one of my absolute favorite movies is Denzel's character, Alonzo.
Denzel commands the audience's attention better than any actor alive, and Alonzo is the most captivating of his many memorable characters. He's cocky, complicated, "ruthless," intelligent, unpredictable, funny, and cool as hell. Even though he lies to Jake and leaves him for dead, do we really want Alonzo to die at the end? I know I didn't...he was just too damn entertaining.
What is it with me? My top two performances are "villains" who don't even make it out of their films alive. Oh well.
"You've been plannin' this all day?"
"I've been plannin' it all week, son...this shit's chess, it ain't checkers!"
Bonus Lists:
Top Five Female Performances
#5-Alicia Silverstone as Cher Horowitz in "Clueless" (1995)
#4-Julia Roberts as Vivian Ward in "Pretty Woman" (1990)
#3-Kate Hudson as Penny Lane in "Almost Famous" (2000)
#2-Ellen Burstyn as Sara Goldfarb in "Requiem for a Dream" (2000)
#1-Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes in "Misery" (1990)
Top Three Villains
#3-Nicolas Cage as Castor Troy in "Face/Off" (1997)
#2-Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in "No Country for Old Men" (2007)
#1-Heath Ledger as The Joker in "The Dark Knight" (2008). See Review.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
"The Dark Knight" is not a masterpiece.
** PLOT SPOILERS EVERYWHERE **
Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is one of the better films in the history of its genre, however, it does not qualify as a masterpiece. In fact, it's quite far from such a distinction. It falls short of unquestionable excellence because of a ridiculously high number of plot holes, most of which regard The Joker and his criminal exploits.
It is a given that Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker leaves us with a character who is thoughtful, unpredictable, ruthless, unrelenting, and arguably insane. That is to say, some inconsistencies in the villain should be accepted, if not embraced. But others, to be frank,
are unacceptable because of their stupidity. For example: In the film's opening sequence, a clever bank heist spearheaded by The Joker, the crazed clown kills off his partners as the caper progresses. At the time, it made sense. Pretty simple, the more colleagues he kills off,
the more money that leaves for him. But later on in the film, The Joker burns his half of the criminal underworld's combined fortune. He makes it overtly clear that he is not motivated by money. Not in the least bit.
So why was the money a factor in the opening scene? It shouldn't have been. Uneven scripting there.
But that's nitpicking in comparison to the film's greater faults. The ultimate reason why "The Dark Knight" falls short of the masterpiece label is because there is absolutely no way, under any circumstances, at any time, on any planet or in any solar system, that The Joker could execute so many complex plans in such a short period of time.
OK, here is where people start saying: "But it's a movie! It doesn't have to be possible." I know, thanks. I agree, it doesn't have to be possible. But, and this is a huge BUT, a film as ambitious and lengthy as "The Dark Knight" wants to be taken seriously. Not only does it want to be taken seriously, I think director Christopher Nolan wants Oscar consideration for the work he has put in here, and cast members have been saying regularly that they don't want this to be considered as a mere "superhero movie," or "action movie." Well if you want to elevate to the level of serious drama, then you have to explain a few things to me.
(1) How does The Joker continue to find willing participants in his escapades when all of his previous crew members end up dead or in jail? The guys he's finding to work for him have to be true idiots. Totally brainless. And that doesn't work because The Joker's plans are meticulous and require precise timing and execution. If these goons are dumb enough to work for him, they aren't smart enough to be effective as help. It's a perpetual contradiction throughout the film, particularly the second act.
(2) Sure The Joker is swift and tricky, but c'mon, he doesn't exactly look like a normal citizen. If city-wide security has been heightened to a level never before seen, how the hell is this maniac with a painted face and wacky hair not being spotted? Does he have an invisible transportation machine or something? He doesn't have supernatural powers, so he shouldn't have a supernatural aura.
(3) When did he have the time to wire the hospital with bombs? Even if one of his goons did it, how did no one in the hospital notice suspicious activity? What about the assassination attempt on the Mayor? The other cops on the firing line didn't notice the most infamous villain in the city standing right next to them? Why? Because he crouched over a little and tried not to make eye contact with them? Please. I could go on for days, too many plot liberties were taken.
I'd actually like to discuss the performances a bit. I think the separation between the strongest part and the rest of the cast is the largest ever with an ensemble of this size and magnitude. Meaning, Heath Ledger's performance was far and away the best in this film, better to the point where it bothered me that no one else was in his realm. The scenes where Ledger was off screen lacked the magnetism and intrigue of the ones in which he appeared. Although appeared is probably not the best word, more like dominated.
Christian Bale was OK as Batman, but he's almost too stoic for a character with such strong morals and opinions. He's also a little bit stiff when he's in playboy mode as Bruce Wayne. I think his performance in "The Prestige" was more emotional, effective, and polished.
Aaron Eckhart was all right as Harvey Dent/Two-Face, but the problem was that the vast majority of the time I was seeing Eckhart on screen, not Dent. The same Eckhart we saw in "Thank You For Smoking." Also, a man with a finely tuned social philosophy, like Dent, would not totally flip his ideology after the loss of a close loved one. Hopefully the angle is that the toxin causing the disfigurement messed more with his brain than we were led on to believe.
Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman were believable as always, but of course they are underused as Alfred and Lucius Fox. Gary Oldman probably contributed the second strongest performance in the film as Commissioner Gordon, and Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Rachel Dawes) was a step up from Katie Holmes as far as execution and timing -- but that's not saying much. The scene in which The Joker meets Rachel may have been more effective with Holmes.
I really could go on for days, but I'll spare you. All in all, I liked the film because it had some thought-provoking sequences involving moral dilemmas and intriguing societal questions, and in having such "The Dark Knight" succeeded in escaping the "superhero movie" label. But it's not a masterpiece.
Plain and simply, it has too many holes.
Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is one of the better films in the history of its genre, however, it does not qualify as a masterpiece. In fact, it's quite far from such a distinction. It falls short of unquestionable excellence because of a ridiculously high number of plot holes, most of which regard The Joker and his criminal exploits.
It is a given that Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker leaves us with a character who is thoughtful, unpredictable, ruthless, unrelenting, and arguably insane. That is to say, some inconsistencies in the villain should be accepted, if not embraced. But others, to be frank,
are unacceptable because of their stupidity. For example: In the film's opening sequence, a clever bank heist spearheaded by The Joker, the crazed clown kills off his partners as the caper progresses. At the time, it made sense. Pretty simple, the more colleagues he kills off,
the more money that leaves for him. But later on in the film, The Joker burns his half of the criminal underworld's combined fortune. He makes it overtly clear that he is not motivated by money. Not in the least bit.
So why was the money a factor in the opening scene? It shouldn't have been. Uneven scripting there.
But that's nitpicking in comparison to the film's greater faults. The ultimate reason why "The Dark Knight" falls short of the masterpiece label is because there is absolutely no way, under any circumstances, at any time, on any planet or in any solar system, that The Joker could execute so many complex plans in such a short period of time.
OK, here is where people start saying: "But it's a movie! It doesn't have to be possible." I know, thanks. I agree, it doesn't have to be possible. But, and this is a huge BUT, a film as ambitious and lengthy as "The Dark Knight" wants to be taken seriously. Not only does it want to be taken seriously, I think director Christopher Nolan wants Oscar consideration for the work he has put in here, and cast members have been saying regularly that they don't want this to be considered as a mere "superhero movie," or "action movie." Well if you want to elevate to the level of serious drama, then you have to explain a few things to me.
(1) How does The Joker continue to find willing participants in his escapades when all of his previous crew members end up dead or in jail? The guys he's finding to work for him have to be true idiots. Totally brainless. And that doesn't work because The Joker's plans are meticulous and require precise timing and execution. If these goons are dumb enough to work for him, they aren't smart enough to be effective as help. It's a perpetual contradiction throughout the film, particularly the second act.
(2) Sure The Joker is swift and tricky, but c'mon, he doesn't exactly look like a normal citizen. If city-wide security has been heightened to a level never before seen, how the hell is this maniac with a painted face and wacky hair not being spotted? Does he have an invisible transportation machine or something? He doesn't have supernatural powers, so he shouldn't have a supernatural aura.
(3) When did he have the time to wire the hospital with bombs? Even if one of his goons did it, how did no one in the hospital notice suspicious activity? What about the assassination attempt on the Mayor? The other cops on the firing line didn't notice the most infamous villain in the city standing right next to them? Why? Because he crouched over a little and tried not to make eye contact with them? Please. I could go on for days, too many plot liberties were taken.
I'd actually like to discuss the performances a bit. I think the separation between the strongest part and the rest of the cast is the largest ever with an ensemble of this size and magnitude. Meaning, Heath Ledger's performance was far and away the best in this film, better to the point where it bothered me that no one else was in his realm. The scenes where Ledger was off screen lacked the magnetism and intrigue of the ones in which he appeared. Although appeared is probably not the best word, more like dominated.
Christian Bale was OK as Batman, but he's almost too stoic for a character with such strong morals and opinions. He's also a little bit stiff when he's in playboy mode as Bruce Wayne. I think his performance in "The Prestige" was more emotional, effective, and polished.
Aaron Eckhart was all right as Harvey Dent/Two-Face, but the problem was that the vast majority of the time I was seeing Eckhart on screen, not Dent. The same Eckhart we saw in "Thank You For Smoking." Also, a man with a finely tuned social philosophy, like Dent, would not totally flip his ideology after the loss of a close loved one. Hopefully the angle is that the toxin causing the disfigurement messed more with his brain than we were led on to believe.
Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman were believable as always, but of course they are underused as Alfred and Lucius Fox. Gary Oldman probably contributed the second strongest performance in the film as Commissioner Gordon, and Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Rachel Dawes) was a step up from Katie Holmes as far as execution and timing -- but that's not saying much. The scene in which The Joker meets Rachel may have been more effective with Holmes.
I really could go on for days, but I'll spare you. All in all, I liked the film because it had some thought-provoking sequences involving moral dilemmas and intriguing societal questions, and in having such "The Dark Knight" succeeded in escaping the "superhero movie" label. But it's not a masterpiece.
Plain and simply, it has too many holes.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Here's a Surprise: The Mets are Driving Me Crazy
Coming off a semi-dramatic victory last night -- thanks to my boy Carlos Beltran -- this afternoon's game is a big one for the Mets. With ace Johan Santana on the hill, the Mets need to build off last night's resiliency and scrape together another victory to get things rolling.
But before we get to this afternoon's match-up, let's look back at a few of the disasters from yesterday's game that have since been swept under the rug (because it ended in a win).
First and foremost, there's Willie Randolph's decision to take Mike Pelfrey out of the ballgame in the 9th, after surrendering a bloop single to Stephen Drew. The facts: Pelfrey had given up just five hits in eight innings of work, including eight strikeouts and only a pair of early walks. He did, however, have 112 pitches.
On the other end, Billy Wagner -- Pelfrey's eventual replacement -- was coming off a horrific performance in San Diego in which he allowed a clean single to a lefty (journeyman Jody Gerut) and then a three-run bomb to old vet Tony Clark.
So what was Willie's rationale? Well, as always, he was doing his best to try to play things by "the book." The book says if you let a pitcher with a high pitch count go out there for the 9th and allows the leadoff hitter (of the inning) to get on, then you gotta yank him out. So, Willie did exactly that.
But c'mon. Can Willie think outside the box every once in awhile??? Give me a break!!!
Outside of the box, Pelfrey was throwing the best game of his Major League career against a first-place team that just couldn't figure him out. At times he overpowered them, in other instances he froze them with blazers on the corner.
Outside of the box, 112 pitches wasn't a pitch count that Willie needed to worry about. Pelfrey clearly had the game under control, and he's a young kid who throws predominantly fastballs and sinkers -- the strain on his precious arm isn't as bad as it would be for young guys who throw sharp breaking balls (the Mark Prior's, Kerry Wood's and A.J. Burnett's of the past.)
To Willie's defense, I know he was considering a few other factors. (1) Getting Pelfrey out with only one runner on would protect him from a potential game-tying home run off Wagner. Wagner doesn't like coming in with one runner on base, let alone two. I know that's a pessimistic way to think about one of the game's premier closers, but the fact is Wagner is prone to the longball when hitters know it is coming (like Mark Reynolds on a 3-2 count last night).
(2) Willie wanted to protect Pelfrey from blowing the game himself. You know the cliches -- "protect his confidence," "protect his psyche." If Willie had left him in there and made it his game to lose, and he blew it, we know many people would be saying "why didn't Willie go to Wagner?" today.
(3) He wanted to put Wagner back out there so he could shake off his terrible performance in San Diego, and get back on track. The Mets need Wagner to be dominant if they're going to continue playing tight, low-scoring games.
And what do I have to say about those three reasons? All BULLSHIT.
Sure, Pelfrey's young in baseball years, but he's a big boy in real life. He wasn't afraid of blowing that game last night, but he was damn sure terrified when Wagner was in there. Leave Pelfrey in there, and let him determine the outcome. If he blows it -- and let me make it clear that I don't think he would have -- then you pat him on the back when it's over and tell him "you still pitched a hell of a game, kid."
All right, deep breath. Moving on from there...
I CAN'T STAND Brian Schneider. But I don't really blame him, because he didn't trade himself to the Mets, and he doesn't play himself over Ramon Castro. Brian Schneider sucks. He's a .253 lifetime hitter. Sure, he's a catcher and their average averages are lower, but he's weak, has no pop and he swings like a 67-year old man. He grounds out slowly to second more than any player I've ever seen.
So if I don't blame Schneider for sucking, who do I blame? Omar Minaya and Willie Randolph, of course. Again, most of the blame has to go to Willie here. Minaya traded for Schneider, but he also brought us Ryan Church in the deal -- without question, Church was our best player for the first 1/4 of this season.
It's Willie's fault for sticking with Schneider as the No. 1 catcher. Yea yea, I've heard all the garbage about Schneider being great for the pitching staff and good defensively, but I don't care -- we need hits! We have to start hitting! And that means Ramon Castro should be the primary catcher. Besides, how great can Schneider be with the pitchers? Oliver Perez, John Maine and Aaron Heilman are all worse than they were last season.
I'm not saying Castro should play every single day behind the dish, because that's not realistic. Ramon's a little heavy and his weight has indirectly led to various injuries in the past, including one at the beginning of this season. Castro should start three out of every four games. In the other game they can squeeze Schneider in there, or even Raul Casanova who is probably a more dangerous hitter.
Speaking of Casanova, I didn't like the decision to send him down. I liked having the three catchers because it made Castro available to be our top pinch hitter, although Willie didn't really take much advantage of that. He's always too worried about sticking to "the book" and making sure he has a catcher saved for a potential extra inning situation. Because what happens if you use all of your catchers to hit and then the last one gets injured in extra innings on a freak play? Oh no, not the freak play injury! We have to send Robinson Cancel up there instead! Gotta save Castro!
C'mon!
All right, I'm getting too riled up. Let's just get a win today and keep going from there.
But before we get to this afternoon's match-up, let's look back at a few of the disasters from yesterday's game that have since been swept under the rug (because it ended in a win).
First and foremost, there's Willie Randolph's decision to take Mike Pelfrey out of the ballgame in the 9th, after surrendering a bloop single to Stephen Drew. The facts: Pelfrey had given up just five hits in eight innings of work, including eight strikeouts and only a pair of early walks. He did, however, have 112 pitches.
On the other end, Billy Wagner -- Pelfrey's eventual replacement -- was coming off a horrific performance in San Diego in which he allowed a clean single to a lefty (journeyman Jody Gerut) and then a three-run bomb to old vet Tony Clark.
So what was Willie's rationale? Well, as always, he was doing his best to try to play things by "the book." The book says if you let a pitcher with a high pitch count go out there for the 9th and allows the leadoff hitter (of the inning) to get on, then you gotta yank him out. So, Willie did exactly that.
But c'mon. Can Willie think outside the box every once in awhile??? Give me a break!!!
Outside of the box, Pelfrey was throwing the best game of his Major League career against a first-place team that just couldn't figure him out. At times he overpowered them, in other instances he froze them with blazers on the corner.
Outside of the box, 112 pitches wasn't a pitch count that Willie needed to worry about. Pelfrey clearly had the game under control, and he's a young kid who throws predominantly fastballs and sinkers -- the strain on his precious arm isn't as bad as it would be for young guys who throw sharp breaking balls (the Mark Prior's, Kerry Wood's and A.J. Burnett's of the past.)
To Willie's defense, I know he was considering a few other factors. (1) Getting Pelfrey out with only one runner on would protect him from a potential game-tying home run off Wagner. Wagner doesn't like coming in with one runner on base, let alone two. I know that's a pessimistic way to think about one of the game's premier closers, but the fact is Wagner is prone to the longball when hitters know it is coming (like Mark Reynolds on a 3-2 count last night).
(2) Willie wanted to protect Pelfrey from blowing the game himself. You know the cliches -- "protect his confidence," "protect his psyche." If Willie had left him in there and made it his game to lose, and he blew it, we know many people would be saying "why didn't Willie go to Wagner?" today.
(3) He wanted to put Wagner back out there so he could shake off his terrible performance in San Diego, and get back on track. The Mets need Wagner to be dominant if they're going to continue playing tight, low-scoring games.
And what do I have to say about those three reasons? All BULLSHIT.
Sure, Pelfrey's young in baseball years, but he's a big boy in real life. He wasn't afraid of blowing that game last night, but he was damn sure terrified when Wagner was in there. Leave Pelfrey in there, and let him determine the outcome. If he blows it -- and let me make it clear that I don't think he would have -- then you pat him on the back when it's over and tell him "you still pitched a hell of a game, kid."
All right, deep breath. Moving on from there...
I CAN'T STAND Brian Schneider. But I don't really blame him, because he didn't trade himself to the Mets, and he doesn't play himself over Ramon Castro. Brian Schneider sucks. He's a .253 lifetime hitter. Sure, he's a catcher and their average averages are lower, but he's weak, has no pop and he swings like a 67-year old man. He grounds out slowly to second more than any player I've ever seen.
So if I don't blame Schneider for sucking, who do I blame? Omar Minaya and Willie Randolph, of course. Again, most of the blame has to go to Willie here. Minaya traded for Schneider, but he also brought us Ryan Church in the deal -- without question, Church was our best player for the first 1/4 of this season.
It's Willie's fault for sticking with Schneider as the No. 1 catcher. Yea yea, I've heard all the garbage about Schneider being great for the pitching staff and good defensively, but I don't care -- we need hits! We have to start hitting! And that means Ramon Castro should be the primary catcher. Besides, how great can Schneider be with the pitchers? Oliver Perez, John Maine and Aaron Heilman are all worse than they were last season.
I'm not saying Castro should play every single day behind the dish, because that's not realistic. Ramon's a little heavy and his weight has indirectly led to various injuries in the past, including one at the beginning of this season. Castro should start three out of every four games. In the other game they can squeeze Schneider in there, or even Raul Casanova who is probably a more dangerous hitter.
Speaking of Casanova, I didn't like the decision to send him down. I liked having the three catchers because it made Castro available to be our top pinch hitter, although Willie didn't really take much advantage of that. He's always too worried about sticking to "the book" and making sure he has a catcher saved for a potential extra inning situation. Because what happens if you use all of your catchers to hit and then the last one gets injured in extra innings on a freak play? Oh no, not the freak play injury! We have to send Robinson Cancel up there instead! Gotta save Castro!
C'mon!
All right, I'm getting too riled up. Let's just get a win today and keep going from there.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The MLB's Top 10 Starting Pitchers
It's a new era in baseball, the era of zero dominant pitchers. Sure, there are some great pitchers and plenty of above-average guys, but there is no one as dominant as Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, etc. were in their primes.
Simply put, no pitcher is safe in today's Major Leagues. I just saw 77-year old Tony Clark hit a game winning, pinch hit home run off a 96 mph Billy Wagner fastball, low and outside on the black. Not to mention the fact that the ball soared over the center field fence of the league's most spacious park (Petco). If that can happen, then no matter how impressive your stuff is, ML hitters can get to you. Any inning, any situation.
As a result, the door is wide open for discussion. It's difficult to set general standards for the rankings on this list, so I'll do my best to explain my rationale at each particular position. Here goes:
#1-Josh Beckett, RHP-Boston Red Sox
I know what you're thinking -- Beckett's ERA is slightly over 4 right now. But the rationale is this: If everything was on the line and you had your pick of every Major League pitcher, wouldn't you send Beckett to the mound?
If the answer in your mind was "no," then you're probably on drugs or know very little about baseball. Beckett's career regular season numbers may not be as impressive as the Brandon Webb's, Jake Peavy's and Johan Santana's of the world, but the big fella has pitched in the postseason twice -- once with Florida and last year with Boston -- and both times he made opposing hitters look like little leaguers.
Oh yea...his team won the World Series both times, too.
Beckett is menacing, nasty, and poised -- an unusual but impressive trio of traits. He features a 94-98 mph fastball -- sometimes maintaining 96-97 as late as the 8th or 9th inning -- and baseball's sharpest overhand breaking ball. When he's on with the cranker, and using it with regularity, Beckett's unhittable. Just ask the 2002 Yankees, or last year's Rockies, Indians and Angels.
Beckett's the premier postseason starter in the bigs, and in my opinion, he has the best power repertoire in the league.
#2-Brandon Webb, RHP-Arizona Diamondbacks
Like Beckett, Webb is a giant on the hill. However, their pitching styles compare like Steve Nash and Dwight Howard -- two entirely different entities. While Beckett looks to strike fear into the hearts of his opponents with launched rockets, Webb tries to lull hitters to sleep with movement and varying speeds.
Webb is currently 11-2, boasting the most wins in baseball by two (over Joe Saunders, Mike Mussina and Cliff Lee.) He's fifth in the Majors in ERA (2.58) and he was one of the top statistical pitchers over the course of the past two seasons, as well.
Webb's bread-and-butter is a sharp, darting sinker that he throws virtually all of the time. He likes to work off that sinker with a nice diving change-up and a deceiving slider. I'm not big on "what ifs," but I do wonder if Webb would be as successful as an American League pitcher. For some reason, I highly doubt he'd retain his current level of success.
But there's no substance behind that. All I know is Webb changes speeds well, has great command, and a mind for the game. He's earned this No. 2 spot.
#3-Jake Peavy, RHP-San Diego Padres
Here's a guy who has really had to work to convince me of his greatness over the years. What turns me off about Peavy is he's essentially a two-pitch pitcher (fastball/slider) and his arm angle puts him at a severe disadvantage against left-handed hitters.
And yet there he is at the top of the ML strikeout totals every year. Sure, he probably won't be up there at the end of this season, but that's merely due to injury. Peavy is a gamer, he throws strikes, attacks hitters, works fast and puts righties away when he needs to. He has a plus slider, and the movement on his two-seam fastball is incredible.
Of course, Peavy's also reaped the benefits of Petco Park through the years. But I can't fault a guy for sticking with a team with a favorable pitchers' ballpark. That's just smart business on his part.
#4-Roy Halladay, RHP-Toronto Blue Jays
See, here's a good example of the "no dominant pitchers" thing. Halladay's just not that special. Don't get me wrong, he's been one of the top pitchers in the American League for quite awhile now -- despite having to deal with the Red Sox and Yankees four or five times every year -- but he doesn't blow anyone away.
Halladay's greatest strength is his durability. Right now he's leading the Majors in complete games with 5, and the second-place pitcher has just two. Roy is known for his big hook, and exceptional command of both sides of the plate. He keeps his pitch count down, changes speeds well, and can still get it up around 94-95 mph when he needs to bite down.
There's not a team in baseball who wouldn't love to have a player with Halladay's mentality and guts.
#5-Johan Santana, LHP-New York Mets
A couple of years ago, this guy was the closest thing to the primes of Pedro, Maddux etc. Johan's just not at that level anymore. He continues to exhibit great control, almost to a fault. Santana's been getting hurt on many two-strike pitches this season.
That said, he's still 7-4 with a nice 3.08 ERA right now. Santana makes the opposition hit at his pace, and he controls the middle of the diamond by fielding his position well. His patented change-up isn't diving as much as it used to, but he's still 11th in the bigs in strikeouts.
There's not too much else to say about Johan at this point. He's still a good pitcher, but I don't think anyone fears him.
#6-Carlos Zambrano, RHP-Chicago Cubs
Major League Baseball's version of "Big Z" confuses me. When Zambrano first came up, he threw 96-99 mph with a free-and-easy motion, and his numbers weren't exceptional. Now he's bigger, stiffer and throws slower, and he's barely getting touched. Carlos is 8-2 with a 3.01 ERA.
However, his 63 Ks in 92 innings speaks volumes about the deterioration of his stuff. But I'm not gonna knock the guy too much -- he's the best pitcher on the "best" team in baseball at the moment. Still, I'd look for a bit of a second half decline.
#7-C.C. Sabathia, LHP-Cleveland Indians
This is where the list really starts to get ugly. Sure, C.C. is the AL's reigning Cy Young award winner, but he's currenly 3-8 with 4.81 ERA.
Yikes. I know, that's shitty.
But C.C. is third in the Majors in strikeouts, with 82. That means his stuff is still sharp, and he's probably pitched into some bad luck during the first half. Like Beckett, Sabathia can be an intimidating force on the hill, and he's not afraid to continually pressure hitters with his 93-97 mph fastball -- especially on the inner portion of the plate.
Expect C.C. to bounce back in the "wins" column after the All-Star break.
#8-Chien-Ming Wang, RHP-New York Yankees
When I told a few friends that Wang was probably going to make this list, their reaction was "ewwwww." His ERA is over 4.50, and he's not a flashy strikeout pitcher.
But -- and it's a significant "but" -- Wang's a winner. At least, in the regular season he is. Despite the relatively high ERA, the tall sinkerballer has a solid 6-2 record. In fact, Wang has the most wins of any pitcher in baseball over the course of the past three seasons. That statistic alone is enough to earn him a position on this list.
Wang has been anything but lights out so far this year, but his winning percentage remains strong and he rarely ever seems shaken or intimidated on the mound.
#9-Daisuke Matsuzaka, RHP-Boston Red Sox
When I saw Dice-K's first Major League start at the beginning of last season, I told a few Red Sox fans: "He's going to be fine. A good pitcher, an eventual all-star -- but not a superstar."
Now, I'm not so sure. My doubt has something to do with lack of exceptional pitching in the league today, but Dice is 8-0 with an impressive 2.53 ERA. These statistics come, of course, in spite of the friendly offensive confines of Fenway Park. The success says a lot about Matsuzaka's competitive fire and grit.
Also, few recall that Dice-K was undefeated (3-0) in the postseason last year. Not too shabby for a ML rookie.
Matsuzaka has about seven pitches (although a few of them seem like the same pitch most of the time) and he's intelligent with his selection. I guess some of that credit can go to the Sox's captain, Jason Varitek. Either way, Dice-K has done more than enough to earn a low-level spot on this list.
#10-Dan Haren, RHP-Arizona Diamondbacks
This spot could have gone to a number of different guys -- I'm going with Haren because he was a true ace last season, and he continues to pitch well this year while dealing with a new setting in Arizona. Haren has six wins for the first-place Diamondbacks, and his 3.44 ERA places him amongst the league's best.
Haren features a 92-95 mph four-seam fastball, and one of baseball's nastiest splitters. He doesn't look as electric as he did last season, but there's no question that he continues to get the job done. He may loosen up and improve as the weather heats up in the desert.
Honorable Mention:
#11-Scott Kazmir, LHP-Tampa Bay Rays
#12-Ben Sheets, RHP-Milwaukee Brewers
#13-Felix Hernandez, RHP-Seattle Mariners
#14-Cole Hamels, LHP-Philadelphia Phillies
#15-Tim Hudson, RHP-Atlanta Braves
** As always, I welcome all comments/opposing lists below. **
Simply put, no pitcher is safe in today's Major Leagues. I just saw 77-year old Tony Clark hit a game winning, pinch hit home run off a 96 mph Billy Wagner fastball, low and outside on the black. Not to mention the fact that the ball soared over the center field fence of the league's most spacious park (Petco). If that can happen, then no matter how impressive your stuff is, ML hitters can get to you. Any inning, any situation.
As a result, the door is wide open for discussion. It's difficult to set general standards for the rankings on this list, so I'll do my best to explain my rationale at each particular position. Here goes:
#1-Josh Beckett, RHP-Boston Red Sox
I know what you're thinking -- Beckett's ERA is slightly over 4 right now. But the rationale is this: If everything was on the line and you had your pick of every Major League pitcher, wouldn't you send Beckett to the mound?
If the answer in your mind was "no," then you're probably on drugs or know very little about baseball. Beckett's career regular season numbers may not be as impressive as the Brandon Webb's, Jake Peavy's and Johan Santana's of the world, but the big fella has pitched in the postseason twice -- once with Florida and last year with Boston -- and both times he made opposing hitters look like little leaguers.
Oh yea...his team won the World Series both times, too.
Beckett is menacing, nasty, and poised -- an unusual but impressive trio of traits. He features a 94-98 mph fastball -- sometimes maintaining 96-97 as late as the 8th or 9th inning -- and baseball's sharpest overhand breaking ball. When he's on with the cranker, and using it with regularity, Beckett's unhittable. Just ask the 2002 Yankees, or last year's Rockies, Indians and Angels.
Beckett's the premier postseason starter in the bigs, and in my opinion, he has the best power repertoire in the league.
#2-Brandon Webb, RHP-Arizona Diamondbacks
Like Beckett, Webb is a giant on the hill. However, their pitching styles compare like Steve Nash and Dwight Howard -- two entirely different entities. While Beckett looks to strike fear into the hearts of his opponents with launched rockets, Webb tries to lull hitters to sleep with movement and varying speeds.
Webb is currently 11-2, boasting the most wins in baseball by two (over Joe Saunders, Mike Mussina and Cliff Lee.) He's fifth in the Majors in ERA (2.58) and he was one of the top statistical pitchers over the course of the past two seasons, as well.
Webb's bread-and-butter is a sharp, darting sinker that he throws virtually all of the time. He likes to work off that sinker with a nice diving change-up and a deceiving slider. I'm not big on "what ifs," but I do wonder if Webb would be as successful as an American League pitcher. For some reason, I highly doubt he'd retain his current level of success.
But there's no substance behind that. All I know is Webb changes speeds well, has great command, and a mind for the game. He's earned this No. 2 spot.
#3-Jake Peavy, RHP-San Diego Padres
Here's a guy who has really had to work to convince me of his greatness over the years. What turns me off about Peavy is he's essentially a two-pitch pitcher (fastball/slider) and his arm angle puts him at a severe disadvantage against left-handed hitters.
And yet there he is at the top of the ML strikeout totals every year. Sure, he probably won't be up there at the end of this season, but that's merely due to injury. Peavy is a gamer, he throws strikes, attacks hitters, works fast and puts righties away when he needs to. He has a plus slider, and the movement on his two-seam fastball is incredible.
Of course, Peavy's also reaped the benefits of Petco Park through the years. But I can't fault a guy for sticking with a team with a favorable pitchers' ballpark. That's just smart business on his part.
#4-Roy Halladay, RHP-Toronto Blue Jays
See, here's a good example of the "no dominant pitchers" thing. Halladay's just not that special. Don't get me wrong, he's been one of the top pitchers in the American League for quite awhile now -- despite having to deal with the Red Sox and Yankees four or five times every year -- but he doesn't blow anyone away.
Halladay's greatest strength is his durability. Right now he's leading the Majors in complete games with 5, and the second-place pitcher has just two. Roy is known for his big hook, and exceptional command of both sides of the plate. He keeps his pitch count down, changes speeds well, and can still get it up around 94-95 mph when he needs to bite down.
There's not a team in baseball who wouldn't love to have a player with Halladay's mentality and guts.
#5-Johan Santana, LHP-New York Mets
A couple of years ago, this guy was the closest thing to the primes of Pedro, Maddux etc. Johan's just not at that level anymore. He continues to exhibit great control, almost to a fault. Santana's been getting hurt on many two-strike pitches this season.
That said, he's still 7-4 with a nice 3.08 ERA right now. Santana makes the opposition hit at his pace, and he controls the middle of the diamond by fielding his position well. His patented change-up isn't diving as much as it used to, but he's still 11th in the bigs in strikeouts.
There's not too much else to say about Johan at this point. He's still a good pitcher, but I don't think anyone fears him.
#6-Carlos Zambrano, RHP-Chicago Cubs
Major League Baseball's version of "Big Z" confuses me. When Zambrano first came up, he threw 96-99 mph with a free-and-easy motion, and his numbers weren't exceptional. Now he's bigger, stiffer and throws slower, and he's barely getting touched. Carlos is 8-2 with a 3.01 ERA.
However, his 63 Ks in 92 innings speaks volumes about the deterioration of his stuff. But I'm not gonna knock the guy too much -- he's the best pitcher on the "best" team in baseball at the moment. Still, I'd look for a bit of a second half decline.
#7-C.C. Sabathia, LHP-Cleveland Indians
This is where the list really starts to get ugly. Sure, C.C. is the AL's reigning Cy Young award winner, but he's currenly 3-8 with 4.81 ERA.
Yikes. I know, that's shitty.
But C.C. is third in the Majors in strikeouts, with 82. That means his stuff is still sharp, and he's probably pitched into some bad luck during the first half. Like Beckett, Sabathia can be an intimidating force on the hill, and he's not afraid to continually pressure hitters with his 93-97 mph fastball -- especially on the inner portion of the plate.
Expect C.C. to bounce back in the "wins" column after the All-Star break.
#8-Chien-Ming Wang, RHP-New York Yankees
When I told a few friends that Wang was probably going to make this list, their reaction was "ewwwww." His ERA is over 4.50, and he's not a flashy strikeout pitcher.
But -- and it's a significant "but" -- Wang's a winner. At least, in the regular season he is. Despite the relatively high ERA, the tall sinkerballer has a solid 6-2 record. In fact, Wang has the most wins of any pitcher in baseball over the course of the past three seasons. That statistic alone is enough to earn him a position on this list.
Wang has been anything but lights out so far this year, but his winning percentage remains strong and he rarely ever seems shaken or intimidated on the mound.
#9-Daisuke Matsuzaka, RHP-Boston Red Sox
When I saw Dice-K's first Major League start at the beginning of last season, I told a few Red Sox fans: "He's going to be fine. A good pitcher, an eventual all-star -- but not a superstar."
Now, I'm not so sure. My doubt has something to do with lack of exceptional pitching in the league today, but Dice is 8-0 with an impressive 2.53 ERA. These statistics come, of course, in spite of the friendly offensive confines of Fenway Park. The success says a lot about Matsuzaka's competitive fire and grit.
Also, few recall that Dice-K was undefeated (3-0) in the postseason last year. Not too shabby for a ML rookie.
Matsuzaka has about seven pitches (although a few of them seem like the same pitch most of the time) and he's intelligent with his selection. I guess some of that credit can go to the Sox's captain, Jason Varitek. Either way, Dice-K has done more than enough to earn a low-level spot on this list.
#10-Dan Haren, RHP-Arizona Diamondbacks
This spot could have gone to a number of different guys -- I'm going with Haren because he was a true ace last season, and he continues to pitch well this year while dealing with a new setting in Arizona. Haren has six wins for the first-place Diamondbacks, and his 3.44 ERA places him amongst the league's best.
Haren features a 92-95 mph four-seam fastball, and one of baseball's nastiest splitters. He doesn't look as electric as he did last season, but there's no question that he continues to get the job done. He may loosen up and improve as the weather heats up in the desert.
Honorable Mention:
#11-Scott Kazmir, LHP-Tampa Bay Rays
#12-Ben Sheets, RHP-Milwaukee Brewers
#13-Felix Hernandez, RHP-Seattle Mariners
#14-Cole Hamels, LHP-Philadelphia Phillies
#15-Tim Hudson, RHP-Atlanta Braves
** As always, I welcome all comments/opposing lists below. **
Monday, April 21, 2008
Coaching Costs Wizards, Mavericks in Game 1
Out of the 16 NBA playoff teams, the Dallas Mavericks definitely have the worst coach. Avery Johnson let his guys blow game 1 in New Orleans, and I place all of the blame on him.
The Mavs maintained a comfortable 10-point lead for much of the first half, and to be honest, they weren't even playing that well. The Hornets were looking like the most overrated playoff team, and I was feeling good about my prediction for the series.
Then, Avery allowed Chris Paul to explode. Everyone in the world knows that Jason Kidd can't defend anymore, and yet there he was covering CP3 on about half of the Hornets' possessions. Josh Howard or Devean George should have been guarding CP3 on every possession -- no exceptions, not even on switches. Paul did his thing in the third quarter, and it was all over from there.
Offensively, the Mavs reflected zero preparation and preparedness. Jerry Stackhouse attempted six or seven heavily contested shots, and Kidd wasn't making an effort to get Jason Terry involved. When the Mavs made their run to the NBA Finals two years ago, Terry was clearly the No. 2 option behind Dirk Nowitzki. Now, he's lucky if he's the fourth option. Put two-and-two together Avery -- get Terry some more looks.
The camera shows Avery calling plays from the sideline, and when it flashes back to the action, none of the Mavs appear to be listening or carrying out Johnson's requests. That's not a good sign. The Mavs dumbed it all the way down to, "Let's just dump it in to Dirk every time and put all of the pressure on him" during the second half. Step in and shake things up, Avery!
Then there's Eddie Jordan and the Wizards. I swear his players don't even know he exists. There is no way the Cavs should have pulled out game 1 -- everyone but LeBron was awful or worse. Arenas spent the final four minutes of the game playing one-on-one (the preferred offensive strategy of every Wizard) and tossing up wild, contested runners in the lane.
Move the ball around! Set some screens, get some player movement, pick and roll, something. Jeez. They were really tough to watch down the stretch. Granted, Antawn Jamison probably should have capitalized on some of the clean looks he had in the final quarter; but most of those looks came in one pass-quick shot fashion. Brendan Haywood was a force in the first half, how about a pick and roll to get him another point-blank attempt at the rim?
Nope. I don't know if Haywood was even on the floor. Didn't seem like it. Arenas was playing 1-on-5; this is the playoffs, do something Eddie Jordan!
Well, what did I learn this weekend?
I should probably be having second thoughts about my predictions of victory for the Mavericks and Wizards. Thanks Avery. Thanks Eddie. You both suck.
The Mavs maintained a comfortable 10-point lead for much of the first half, and to be honest, they weren't even playing that well. The Hornets were looking like the most overrated playoff team, and I was feeling good about my prediction for the series.
Then, Avery allowed Chris Paul to explode. Everyone in the world knows that Jason Kidd can't defend anymore, and yet there he was covering CP3 on about half of the Hornets' possessions. Josh Howard or Devean George should have been guarding CP3 on every possession -- no exceptions, not even on switches. Paul did his thing in the third quarter, and it was all over from there.
Offensively, the Mavs reflected zero preparation and preparedness. Jerry Stackhouse attempted six or seven heavily contested shots, and Kidd wasn't making an effort to get Jason Terry involved. When the Mavs made their run to the NBA Finals two years ago, Terry was clearly the No. 2 option behind Dirk Nowitzki. Now, he's lucky if he's the fourth option. Put two-and-two together Avery -- get Terry some more looks.
The camera shows Avery calling plays from the sideline, and when it flashes back to the action, none of the Mavs appear to be listening or carrying out Johnson's requests. That's not a good sign. The Mavs dumbed it all the way down to, "Let's just dump it in to Dirk every time and put all of the pressure on him" during the second half. Step in and shake things up, Avery!
Then there's Eddie Jordan and the Wizards. I swear his players don't even know he exists. There is no way the Cavs should have pulled out game 1 -- everyone but LeBron was awful or worse. Arenas spent the final four minutes of the game playing one-on-one (the preferred offensive strategy of every Wizard) and tossing up wild, contested runners in the lane.
Move the ball around! Set some screens, get some player movement, pick and roll, something. Jeez. They were really tough to watch down the stretch. Granted, Antawn Jamison probably should have capitalized on some of the clean looks he had in the final quarter; but most of those looks came in one pass-quick shot fashion. Brendan Haywood was a force in the first half, how about a pick and roll to get him another point-blank attempt at the rim?
Nope. I don't know if Haywood was even on the floor. Didn't seem like it. Arenas was playing 1-on-5; this is the playoffs, do something Eddie Jordan!
Well, what did I learn this weekend?
I should probably be having second thoughts about my predictions of victory for the Mavericks and Wizards. Thanks Avery. Thanks Eddie. You both suck.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Gotta Love the NBA Playoffs
C'mon, you have to be pumped about the NBA playoffs. It's been a highly entertaining and competitive regular season, and it'll only get better in the postseason.
I have to admit, I'm a little upset about some of the first round match-ups -- particularly Suns/Spurs and Mavericks/Hornets. The Suns and Spurs are two of the top four teams in the entire league (along with the Celtics and Lakers), so it sucks that one of them will leave us before the second round. Would have loved to see a Western final four of Lakers, Spurs, Suns, Jazz; but the match-ups clearly don't allow for that.
Mavs/Hornets bothers me because I don't like either team. The Mavs put me to sleep a large majority of the time, but I do like Dirk's fire of late. I still feel like the Hornets have been pulling the wool over everyone's eyes all season. CP3 ceaselessly came up with big plays during the regular season, but we all know the playoffs are a totally different story. The Mavs won't hesitate to force him to shoot from the perimeter. That's where CP3 struggled in international play a couple of years back; but of course, he's improved his touch since then.
I'll side with the Mavs on this one, because I have a tendency to support the underdog. Hey, who didn't love the Warriors last postseason? The Mavs have switched roles, dropping from then-No. 1 to No. 7 today, but perhaps that will work in their favor. The old no expectations = less pressure idea. There's no question that Paul will outplay Jason Kidd, but to what extent? Plus you have to like Dirk-Josh Howard-Jason Terry over David West-Peja Stojakovic-Morris Peterson. It shall be interesting, but I trust Dirk this time around. Mavs it is.
Wizards/Cavs should be the most competitive series. DeShawn Stevenson is talkin' shit about LeBron and the Cavs, and I like that. It's probably not great for the Wizards that LeBron is going to be pumped, but it's a pleasure for us as fans. The games will be tight and the intensity of the LeBron/DeShawn match-up should be entertaining. Of course LeBron will be the most effective player in the series, but don't underestimate Stevenson -- he's a scrappy defender. If he can get into LeBron's head (like he did in a regular season game earlier this year) for a couple of the series' games, the Wizards can steal victories.
Don't forget that "Agent Zero" is back for Washington. Gilbert is taking less wild shots, too -- a big plus. Of course the issues with the Wizards are always their non-existent defense (with the exception of Stevenson) and the fact that Arenas, Antawn Jamison and Caron Butler are all one-on-one offensive players. There's really no such thing as "continuity" when it comes to the Wizards' offense. But sometimes talent is all that's necessary for victory. The Wizards' roster boasts far superior talent than the Cavs'. It's a coin toss, but I'm taking the Wizards.
First Round Winner Predictions:
West: Lakers, Suns, Mavs, Jazz
East: Celtics, Pistons, Wizards, Magic
Time to leave and take advantage of the spring weather. Enjoy tomorrow's first round games.
I have to admit, I'm a little upset about some of the first round match-ups -- particularly Suns/Spurs and Mavericks/Hornets. The Suns and Spurs are two of the top four teams in the entire league (along with the Celtics and Lakers), so it sucks that one of them will leave us before the second round. Would have loved to see a Western final four of Lakers, Spurs, Suns, Jazz; but the match-ups clearly don't allow for that.
Mavs/Hornets bothers me because I don't like either team. The Mavs put me to sleep a large majority of the time, but I do like Dirk's fire of late. I still feel like the Hornets have been pulling the wool over everyone's eyes all season. CP3 ceaselessly came up with big plays during the regular season, but we all know the playoffs are a totally different story. The Mavs won't hesitate to force him to shoot from the perimeter. That's where CP3 struggled in international play a couple of years back; but of course, he's improved his touch since then.
I'll side with the Mavs on this one, because I have a tendency to support the underdog. Hey, who didn't love the Warriors last postseason? The Mavs have switched roles, dropping from then-No. 1 to No. 7 today, but perhaps that will work in their favor. The old no expectations = less pressure idea. There's no question that Paul will outplay Jason Kidd, but to what extent? Plus you have to like Dirk-Josh Howard-Jason Terry over David West-Peja Stojakovic-Morris Peterson. It shall be interesting, but I trust Dirk this time around. Mavs it is.
Wizards/Cavs should be the most competitive series. DeShawn Stevenson is talkin' shit about LeBron and the Cavs, and I like that. It's probably not great for the Wizards that LeBron is going to be pumped, but it's a pleasure for us as fans. The games will be tight and the intensity of the LeBron/DeShawn match-up should be entertaining. Of course LeBron will be the most effective player in the series, but don't underestimate Stevenson -- he's a scrappy defender. If he can get into LeBron's head (like he did in a regular season game earlier this year) for a couple of the series' games, the Wizards can steal victories.
Don't forget that "Agent Zero" is back for Washington. Gilbert is taking less wild shots, too -- a big plus. Of course the issues with the Wizards are always their non-existent defense (with the exception of Stevenson) and the fact that Arenas, Antawn Jamison and Caron Butler are all one-on-one offensive players. There's really no such thing as "continuity" when it comes to the Wizards' offense. But sometimes talent is all that's necessary for victory. The Wizards' roster boasts far superior talent than the Cavs'. It's a coin toss, but I'm taking the Wizards.
First Round Winner Predictions:
West: Lakers, Suns, Mavs, Jazz
East: Celtics, Pistons, Wizards, Magic
Time to leave and take advantage of the spring weather. Enjoy tomorrow's first round games.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The NBA's Top 10 Players (Updated)
Earlier this season -- on Feb. 15 to be exact -- I made a top 10 list. For those of you who are (understandably) too lazy to follow the link to it, I'll refresh your memory: Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Steve Nash, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, Yao Ming, and Amare Stoudemire -- in that order.
Well, Yao and D-Wade are out for the season, so we can say goodbye to them. Gilbert Arenas, Elton Brand and Jermaine O'Neal have all returned from injury since last time, but none of them have earned a spot on this new list. So who gets to join the rest of the big guns? You'll have to read on and see.
#1-Kobe Bryant, SG-Los Angeles Lakers
Nothing has happened in the past month and a half that would change Kobe's position on this list. In fact, throw in a recent 53-point game (with nine threes) and the Lakers' success even without both Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum, and everything is looking up for Mr. Bryant.
He's the most well-rounded offensive player in the NBA, a phenomenal defensive player, his team is winning out west, and he already has three rings to his name. He's the man right now, no doubt.
#2-LeBron James, SF-Cleveland Cavs
Same deal here with "King James." He's doing everything he can to keep his mediocre Cleveland teammates in the upper echelon of the Eastern Conference, and for this list's purposes he remains a step behind Kobe. Like Kobe, Bron Bron is virtually unstoppable offensively; but, he doesn't defend nearly as well as Kobe, and his outside shooting is clearly less consistent.
Of course he's still extremely young, but it's tough to occupy that No. 1 spot without a championship ring on your finger. Gotta prove it to me. I don't doubt LeBron, but being in the inferior Eastern Conference, he may have to show me a title before he can truly approach Kobe.
#3-Kevin Garnett, PF-Boston Celtics
Here's where the changes begin. This guy is such an incredible player. I've had the pleasure of watching him on a game-to-game basis for the first time this season, and I've been immeasurably impressed.
KG is everything you can ask for in a franchise player -- he has size, length, a soft touch, post moves, scores in the mid-range, blocks shots, gets in passing lanes, passes well, is unselfish, and makes his free throws. He is a great teammate -- Paul Pierce and Ray Allen have to be loving this. I'll be honest with you, every time I see Garnett it seems like he can score any time he wants. He can pivot both right and left, shoot upright, hit fadeaways, step-ups, leaners -- he's just a machine.
And yet, he always keeps his teammates involved. KG knows when it comes down to it, teams are going to double him in big spots. Those teammates -- Pierce, Allen, Eddie House and James Posey -- are going to have to knock down clutch shots. Those shooters are all playing with confidence, thanks to Garnett.
#4-Chris Paul, PG-New Orleans Hornets
All right, I'm sold. It's hard to give "CP3" his due because I want Kobe to win MVP, and I've been sticking up for Nash all season -- but the kid is just relentless. He refuses to let his teammates down, making plays in key spots over, and over, and over.
Unfortunately for my feelings, CP3 is probably deserving of the MVP award. Even though Kobe is the best player in the world, and his team has played well this season, Paul is doing more with less. Yes, Gasol came over late, and Bynum has been out for a large portion of the year, but the Lakers are an exceptionally deep team.
The same cannot be said of the Hornets. Tyson Chandler has to play an obscene amount of minutes because the other options are Hilton Armstrong and Melvin Ely. Morris Peterson is still the starting shooting guard, and he's been pretty close to terrible from start-to-finish.
Yet there are the Hornets, always hovering at or around that No. 1 spot in the West. CP3 is killin it. David West is an excellent No. 2 option, but Paul deserves the vast majority of the credit. Some kudos to Byron Scott, though. Wish you were still with my Nets. What a travesty.
#5-Steve Nash, PG-Phoenix Suns
It's official, after an impressively long run at the top of the list, Mr. Nash is now the second-best point guard in the NBA. Don't get me wrong, it's still extremely close with CP3.
The reason for the slight demotion? The separation between Nash and Amare Stoudemire is shrinking. It's almost to the point where Amare is the best player on the Suns -- he's that good right now. Nash is still the man, controlling the tempo and creating all of the easy opportunities for his teammates, but he's not quite as dominant as the four players ahead of him on this list. Yea, David West is a great player -- but he's light years behind CP3. Amare, on the other hand, is right there behind Nash.
Plus, CP3 is an amazing defender. We all know Nash is always the worst defender on this list. If defense is one of the key tiebreakers between Kobe and LeBron, that has to hold true here with Paul and Nash.
#6-Tim Duncan, PF-San Antonio Spurs
Like Nash, I see the separation between Duncan and his top teammates shrinking. In the past month and a half, there have been plenty of nights where Manu Ginobili looked like the best player on the Spurs. Of course, in the long run Duncan is still their guy -- that's why he's No. 6 and Ginobili isn't on the list.
Yes, Timmy has the rings that LeBron, KG, CP3 and Nash don't, but simply put -- he's just not better than those guys right now. I could see merit to an argument placing Duncan over Nash, but that's it. There's just no way he's better than Kobe, LeBron, KG or CP3. Duncan is older, less explosive and less dominant on a nightly basis.
But he's still the "Big Fundamental," and the Spurs are right up at the top of the conference again. As long as the Spurs keep winning, it'll be impossible to keep Timmy off this list. He's just sinking down a bit with age.
#7-Amare Stoudemire, PF-Phoenix Suns
He's such a beast. He puts up 30 and 10 more than anyone -- it seems like he does it almost every game. Amare's No. 6 in the league in scoring right now, and that's only because the NBA chooses to keep Wade active in the rankings. But for the purposes of this list, Amare's the No. 5 scorer in the NBA.
Amare plays above the rim, he dunks on everyone, he's efficient at the foul line, a great mid-range shooter, good shotblocker, and his athleticism is absolutely off the charts. He's certainly closing in on Duncan.
#8-Dirk Nowitzki, PF-Dallas Mavericks
As much as I keep wanting to force him off this list, Dirk keeps holding on for dear life. He's still probably the most unique basketball player in the universe, and with the exception of Josh Howard's week of dominance, the Mavericks have been relying on Dirk more than ever. His immense value was clearly shown during the Mavs's skid in his injury absence.
He's probably the second-worst defender in the top 10, but there's little he can't do offensively. Dirk's straight deadly inside of the three-point line. He has great footwork, a high release and seems comfortable from any angle.
#9-Allen Iverson, SG-Denver Nuggets
Welcome aboard, AI. "The Answer" has been hovering just outside of my top 10 for quite awhile. He'd probably still be on the outside looking in if Yao and D-Wade were healthy, but hey, they aren't. Iverson, on the other hand, is always durable and consistently plays through pain.
Iverson remains one of the premier players at crunch time. He's expressionless in the fourth quarter, and he plays it like any other quarter. AI has no fear -- or at the very least, he never appears nervous. He's a Hall of Fame scorer and his Nuggets are outplaying Baron Davis' Warriors right now, that's why AI is getting the nod. Carmelo Anthony isn't quite as reliable in clutch situations, so Iverson is the top Nugget.
#10-Baron Davis, PG-Golden State Warriors
I always talk about "The Baron" in my posts so I'll keep this one relatively short. It's astonishing that B Diddy has the Warriors in contention again with absolutely no inside presence. But, if they do eventually miss out on the playoffs, this spot may have to go to Dwight Howard or Deron Williams. We'll see.
Well, Yao and D-Wade are out for the season, so we can say goodbye to them. Gilbert Arenas, Elton Brand and Jermaine O'Neal have all returned from injury since last time, but none of them have earned a spot on this new list. So who gets to join the rest of the big guns? You'll have to read on and see.
#1-Kobe Bryant, SG-Los Angeles Lakers
Nothing has happened in the past month and a half that would change Kobe's position on this list. In fact, throw in a recent 53-point game (with nine threes) and the Lakers' success even without both Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum, and everything is looking up for Mr. Bryant.
He's the most well-rounded offensive player in the NBA, a phenomenal defensive player, his team is winning out west, and he already has three rings to his name. He's the man right now, no doubt.
#2-LeBron James, SF-Cleveland Cavs
Same deal here with "King James." He's doing everything he can to keep his mediocre Cleveland teammates in the upper echelon of the Eastern Conference, and for this list's purposes he remains a step behind Kobe. Like Kobe, Bron Bron is virtually unstoppable offensively; but, he doesn't defend nearly as well as Kobe, and his outside shooting is clearly less consistent.
Of course he's still extremely young, but it's tough to occupy that No. 1 spot without a championship ring on your finger. Gotta prove it to me. I don't doubt LeBron, but being in the inferior Eastern Conference, he may have to show me a title before he can truly approach Kobe.
#3-Kevin Garnett, PF-Boston Celtics
Here's where the changes begin. This guy is such an incredible player. I've had the pleasure of watching him on a game-to-game basis for the first time this season, and I've been immeasurably impressed.
KG is everything you can ask for in a franchise player -- he has size, length, a soft touch, post moves, scores in the mid-range, blocks shots, gets in passing lanes, passes well, is unselfish, and makes his free throws. He is a great teammate -- Paul Pierce and Ray Allen have to be loving this. I'll be honest with you, every time I see Garnett it seems like he can score any time he wants. He can pivot both right and left, shoot upright, hit fadeaways, step-ups, leaners -- he's just a machine.
And yet, he always keeps his teammates involved. KG knows when it comes down to it, teams are going to double him in big spots. Those teammates -- Pierce, Allen, Eddie House and James Posey -- are going to have to knock down clutch shots. Those shooters are all playing with confidence, thanks to Garnett.
#4-Chris Paul, PG-New Orleans Hornets
All right, I'm sold. It's hard to give "CP3" his due because I want Kobe to win MVP, and I've been sticking up for Nash all season -- but the kid is just relentless. He refuses to let his teammates down, making plays in key spots over, and over, and over.
Unfortunately for my feelings, CP3 is probably deserving of the MVP award. Even though Kobe is the best player in the world, and his team has played well this season, Paul is doing more with less. Yes, Gasol came over late, and Bynum has been out for a large portion of the year, but the Lakers are an exceptionally deep team.
The same cannot be said of the Hornets. Tyson Chandler has to play an obscene amount of minutes because the other options are Hilton Armstrong and Melvin Ely. Morris Peterson is still the starting shooting guard, and he's been pretty close to terrible from start-to-finish.
Yet there are the Hornets, always hovering at or around that No. 1 spot in the West. CP3 is killin it. David West is an excellent No. 2 option, but Paul deserves the vast majority of the credit. Some kudos to Byron Scott, though. Wish you were still with my Nets. What a travesty.
#5-Steve Nash, PG-Phoenix Suns
It's official, after an impressively long run at the top of the list, Mr. Nash is now the second-best point guard in the NBA. Don't get me wrong, it's still extremely close with CP3.
The reason for the slight demotion? The separation between Nash and Amare Stoudemire is shrinking. It's almost to the point where Amare is the best player on the Suns -- he's that good right now. Nash is still the man, controlling the tempo and creating all of the easy opportunities for his teammates, but he's not quite as dominant as the four players ahead of him on this list. Yea, David West is a great player -- but he's light years behind CP3. Amare, on the other hand, is right there behind Nash.
Plus, CP3 is an amazing defender. We all know Nash is always the worst defender on this list. If defense is one of the key tiebreakers between Kobe and LeBron, that has to hold true here with Paul and Nash.
#6-Tim Duncan, PF-San Antonio Spurs
Like Nash, I see the separation between Duncan and his top teammates shrinking. In the past month and a half, there have been plenty of nights where Manu Ginobili looked like the best player on the Spurs. Of course, in the long run Duncan is still their guy -- that's why he's No. 6 and Ginobili isn't on the list.
Yes, Timmy has the rings that LeBron, KG, CP3 and Nash don't, but simply put -- he's just not better than those guys right now. I could see merit to an argument placing Duncan over Nash, but that's it. There's just no way he's better than Kobe, LeBron, KG or CP3. Duncan is older, less explosive and less dominant on a nightly basis.
But he's still the "Big Fundamental," and the Spurs are right up at the top of the conference again. As long as the Spurs keep winning, it'll be impossible to keep Timmy off this list. He's just sinking down a bit with age.
#7-Amare Stoudemire, PF-Phoenix Suns
He's such a beast. He puts up 30 and 10 more than anyone -- it seems like he does it almost every game. Amare's No. 6 in the league in scoring right now, and that's only because the NBA chooses to keep Wade active in the rankings. But for the purposes of this list, Amare's the No. 5 scorer in the NBA.
Amare plays above the rim, he dunks on everyone, he's efficient at the foul line, a great mid-range shooter, good shotblocker, and his athleticism is absolutely off the charts. He's certainly closing in on Duncan.
#8-Dirk Nowitzki, PF-Dallas Mavericks
As much as I keep wanting to force him off this list, Dirk keeps holding on for dear life. He's still probably the most unique basketball player in the universe, and with the exception of Josh Howard's week of dominance, the Mavericks have been relying on Dirk more than ever. His immense value was clearly shown during the Mavs's skid in his injury absence.
He's probably the second-worst defender in the top 10, but there's little he can't do offensively. Dirk's straight deadly inside of the three-point line. He has great footwork, a high release and seems comfortable from any angle.
#9-Allen Iverson, SG-Denver Nuggets
Welcome aboard, AI. "The Answer" has been hovering just outside of my top 10 for quite awhile. He'd probably still be on the outside looking in if Yao and D-Wade were healthy, but hey, they aren't. Iverson, on the other hand, is always durable and consistently plays through pain.
Iverson remains one of the premier players at crunch time. He's expressionless in the fourth quarter, and he plays it like any other quarter. AI has no fear -- or at the very least, he never appears nervous. He's a Hall of Fame scorer and his Nuggets are outplaying Baron Davis' Warriors right now, that's why AI is getting the nod. Carmelo Anthony isn't quite as reliable in clutch situations, so Iverson is the top Nugget.
#10-Baron Davis, PG-Golden State Warriors
I always talk about "The Baron" in my posts so I'll keep this one relatively short. It's astonishing that B Diddy has the Warriors in contention again with absolutely no inside presence. But, if they do eventually miss out on the playoffs, this spot may have to go to Dwight Howard or Deron Williams. We'll see.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
A Knockout Blow: Yao Ming Out for Season
Let me begin this post by saying that ESPN NBA analyst Greg Anthony is an idiot. In one, 30 minute show this evening, he made three statements that made me want to jump through the television and slap some sense into him. He said:
#1-That the Rockets will definitely make the playoffs without Yao Ming.
I'm not saying it's impossible; what really pissed me off was his reason why: "The Rockets have players who know how to win, like Shane Battier and Luis Scola."
What have either of those guys won in the NBA??? Luis Scola is a freakin' rookie!!! I'm well aware that Scola has experience winning in international play, but international play is not the NBA. If international play was the NBA, then the USA team wouldn't have lost in the 2004 Olympics.
Battier spent a bunch of seasons losing as a member of the Grizzlies, and the Rockets haven't won a playoff series since he's arrived, either. Has he won a playoff series anywhere? I don't think he has. What the hell is Greg Anthony talking about!? I know Battier had experiencing winning at Duke (I bet you know where I'm going with this), but college basketball is not the NBA!
Hey Greg, I have a question for you -- when did international and college basketball become equivalent to the NBA? What are you talking about with Scola and Battier!!??
As for my take on the Rockets -- I can't see them maintaining a playoff spot. Look at it this way, they are on a 13-game winning streak and yet they are only No. 7 in the West. The Denver Nuggets are on the outside looking in right now and they're only 3.5 games behind Houston. With their Big Three intact -- Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony and Marcus Camby -- I see the Nuggets overtaking the Rockets, probably with relative ease.
Tracy McGrady's shot has flattened out and as a result, he's even streakier now than he was in the past. I can't see him pulling a Kobe from the past two seasons and leading a team of misfits to the playoffs in the NBA's clearly superior conference. Speaking of Kobe and the Lakers...
#2-Anthony said that he's concerned about the Lakers in the playoffs because they lack "big-game experience."
The Lakers have Kobe Bryant and Derek Fisher!!!!!!!!!!
Kobe is the premier clutch player in the league and I'd have no problem arguing that Fisher is a top 5-10 clutch shooter. They have six rings between the two of them. Phil Jackson is their head coach...he has nine rings. Well, let's see, that's 15 rings between the three.
Hey Greg, fifteen rings equals "not enough playoff experience?" How many do they need? 30? 40? 1,221?
Give me a break.
Look, if Kobe and Fisher isn't enough, Lamar Odom has participated in the playoffs the past three years. Sasha Vujacic, Luke Walton and Vladimir Radmanovic have all been in the playoffs the past two seasons.
Greg, I can't handle your opinion. I just can't.
#3-Greg Anthony said that Monta Ellis is definitely the Warriors' MVP.
What the hell happened to Baron Davis!!?? I'm not trying to take anything away from Ellis, not by any stretch of the imagination -- he's rapidly becoming one of the elite combo guards in all of basketball.
But...Baron Davis is still the best and MOST VALUABLE player on the Warriors. Ellis probably wouldn't have developed into the scorer he is without Davis' commandeering of Golden State's up-tempo offense. Stephen Jackson wouldn't be averaging near a career-high in points without Baron. Andris Biedrins wouldn't be shooting like 90% from the floor without pretty dimes from Baron. Their success all funnels back to Baron.
I don't care if Greg Anthony had a long career in the NBA. There is no doubt in my mind that I know more about today's NBA than he does. ESPN...I'm waiting.
#1-That the Rockets will definitely make the playoffs without Yao Ming.
I'm not saying it's impossible; what really pissed me off was his reason why: "The Rockets have players who know how to win, like Shane Battier and Luis Scola."
What have either of those guys won in the NBA??? Luis Scola is a freakin' rookie!!! I'm well aware that Scola has experience winning in international play, but international play is not the NBA. If international play was the NBA, then the USA team wouldn't have lost in the 2004 Olympics.
Battier spent a bunch of seasons losing as a member of the Grizzlies, and the Rockets haven't won a playoff series since he's arrived, either. Has he won a playoff series anywhere? I don't think he has. What the hell is Greg Anthony talking about!? I know Battier had experiencing winning at Duke (I bet you know where I'm going with this), but college basketball is not the NBA!
Hey Greg, I have a question for you -- when did international and college basketball become equivalent to the NBA? What are you talking about with Scola and Battier!!??
As for my take on the Rockets -- I can't see them maintaining a playoff spot. Look at it this way, they are on a 13-game winning streak and yet they are only No. 7 in the West. The Denver Nuggets are on the outside looking in right now and they're only 3.5 games behind Houston. With their Big Three intact -- Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony and Marcus Camby -- I see the Nuggets overtaking the Rockets, probably with relative ease.
Tracy McGrady's shot has flattened out and as a result, he's even streakier now than he was in the past. I can't see him pulling a Kobe from the past two seasons and leading a team of misfits to the playoffs in the NBA's clearly superior conference. Speaking of Kobe and the Lakers...
#2-Anthony said that he's concerned about the Lakers in the playoffs because they lack "big-game experience."
The Lakers have Kobe Bryant and Derek Fisher!!!!!!!!!!
Kobe is the premier clutch player in the league and I'd have no problem arguing that Fisher is a top 5-10 clutch shooter. They have six rings between the two of them. Phil Jackson is their head coach...he has nine rings. Well, let's see, that's 15 rings between the three.
Hey Greg, fifteen rings equals "not enough playoff experience?" How many do they need? 30? 40? 1,221?
Give me a break.
Look, if Kobe and Fisher isn't enough, Lamar Odom has participated in the playoffs the past three years. Sasha Vujacic, Luke Walton and Vladimir Radmanovic have all been in the playoffs the past two seasons.
Greg, I can't handle your opinion. I just can't.
#3-Greg Anthony said that Monta Ellis is definitely the Warriors' MVP.
What the hell happened to Baron Davis!!?? I'm not trying to take anything away from Ellis, not by any stretch of the imagination -- he's rapidly becoming one of the elite combo guards in all of basketball.
But...Baron Davis is still the best and MOST VALUABLE player on the Warriors. Ellis probably wouldn't have developed into the scorer he is without Davis' commandeering of Golden State's up-tempo offense. Stephen Jackson wouldn't be averaging near a career-high in points without Baron. Andris Biedrins wouldn't be shooting like 90% from the floor without pretty dimes from Baron. Their success all funnels back to Baron.
I don't care if Greg Anthony had a long career in the NBA. There is no doubt in my mind that I know more about today's NBA than he does. ESPN...I'm waiting.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Give Devean George a Break
I know most people want to see Jason Kidd in Dallas so the Western Conference can add to its intrigue. As a result, Devean George -- the man who is ultimately responsible for the delay or potential demise of the Kidd deal -- is taking serious heat from Mavs fans and media outlets across the country.
Let's put things in perspective. Yes, George is one of the worst three players in the proposed trade (along with Mo Ager and Malik Allen) but the animosity toward him in the media for "holding up" the big trade is unfair. When I say media, I'm referring mostly to what I've seen on Sportscenter and NBA Shootaround, but there have been implications of disdain elsewhere, too.
In sports we have a tendency to look at players as objects, toys, pawns or whatever you want to call them that lacks the human element. Devean George is a real person with a life, he's not a figurine or a computer animation. I have no clue about his family situation but who knows, he probably doesn't want to relocate his family and life, or live in limbo in regards to New Jersey's plans for him.
Now if George didn't have the no-trade clause (or perhaps no-trade option is the better phrase), I wouldn't be sticking up for him -- but he does have it. He was smart enough to sign a contract that places power in his hands and takes influence away from Dallas' executives. I think it's totally understandable that he doesn't want to go from one of the premier teams in the Western Conference to a borderline playoff contender in the East. Besides, we all know the Nets only want him for his expiring contract, George is certainly not in their long-term plans.
I respect the way he has handled himself as well. Dallas' home crowd booed the shit out of him a few nights ago and they chanted "stop being selfish" every time George touched the rock. What'd George say after the game? Shrugged and said quietly, "I'm the bad guy...I know."
That's a true professional. If it were me I probably would have lashed out through the media and attacked the fans. From the fan perspective, I know they want Jason Kidd and it's quite likely that he'd make the Mavericks a better team, but don't attack George for not wanting to change his life and head over to an average team in a top-heavy conference.
Why can I take this stance? Because as a Nets supporter, I want the trade to go through. We can't ask for much more than two immediate contributors in Devin Harris and DeSagana Diop, a young shooter (Ager), two draft picks and some cash. But I don't hate George because he's held the trade up; if it happens it happens...if not, well, I understand where he's coming from.
Let's put things in perspective. Yes, George is one of the worst three players in the proposed trade (along with Mo Ager and Malik Allen) but the animosity toward him in the media for "holding up" the big trade is unfair. When I say media, I'm referring mostly to what I've seen on Sportscenter and NBA Shootaround, but there have been implications of disdain elsewhere, too.
In sports we have a tendency to look at players as objects, toys, pawns or whatever you want to call them that lacks the human element. Devean George is a real person with a life, he's not a figurine or a computer animation. I have no clue about his family situation but who knows, he probably doesn't want to relocate his family and life, or live in limbo in regards to New Jersey's plans for him.
Now if George didn't have the no-trade clause (or perhaps no-trade option is the better phrase), I wouldn't be sticking up for him -- but he does have it. He was smart enough to sign a contract that places power in his hands and takes influence away from Dallas' executives. I think it's totally understandable that he doesn't want to go from one of the premier teams in the Western Conference to a borderline playoff contender in the East. Besides, we all know the Nets only want him for his expiring contract, George is certainly not in their long-term plans.
I respect the way he has handled himself as well. Dallas' home crowd booed the shit out of him a few nights ago and they chanted "stop being selfish" every time George touched the rock. What'd George say after the game? Shrugged and said quietly, "I'm the bad guy...I know."
That's a true professional. If it were me I probably would have lashed out through the media and attacked the fans. From the fan perspective, I know they want Jason Kidd and it's quite likely that he'd make the Mavericks a better team, but don't attack George for not wanting to change his life and head over to an average team in a top-heavy conference.
Why can I take this stance? Because as a Nets supporter, I want the trade to go through. We can't ask for much more than two immediate contributors in Devin Harris and DeSagana Diop, a young shooter (Ager), two draft picks and some cash. But I don't hate George because he's held the trade up; if it happens it happens...if not, well, I understand where he's coming from.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The NBA's Top 10 Players
I was sitting at lunch with a friend of mine today and amidst conversation about the NBA, I asked him to list his top 10 players. In no particular order, he said: Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, Carmelo Anthony, Allen Iverson, Chris Bosh, Brandon Roy, Andrew Bynum, Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki.
Obviously the Lakers are his favorite team (Bynum) and obviously he's an idiot. It's a really bizarre list. The point here is, he really struggled as he sifted through the teams and players in his mind. As he blurted out this peculiar group of 10, I realized that after the top five, this list isn't easy to form. Not at all, really.
But of course, I have to give it a go now. This is not my MVP rankings, it's simply the best 10 players in the NBA. Here's my list:
#1-Kobe Bryant, SG-Los Angeles Lakers
The gap has closed this year -- I've been more impressed with LeBron than ever -- but Kobe is still the best player in the NBA. He's far superior to LeBron on the defensive end, he's clearly a better outside shooter, has the three rings and a slightly better basketball IQ. Not to say that LeBron lacks court awareness (he's actually quite savvy for his age), but Kobe knows exactly when to turn it on on both ends of the floor. LeBron doesn't know when to kick it in gear defensively.
Of course there is all the crap about Kobe getting his teammates more involved this season blah, blah, blah. Yes, he's more unselfish than he has been in recent years, but the major difference is that his teammates are actually knocking down shots and finishing plays down low. Kobe spoon fed his teammates plenty of times during the last two seasons, only to have Kwame Brown miss dunks and Maurice Evans miss wide open threes in the corner. Not this year. The Lakers are a legitimate title contender and Kobe will probably get that ever-elusive first MVP award.
#2-LeBron James, G/F-Cleveland Cavs
I've already talked about him a bit already, but I guess King James is worthy of some more discussion. Why has he grown on me this year? Because his teammates absolutely suck. The Cavs were struggling mightily early on and yet LeBron has single-handedly turned things around for a team whose second best player is probably Daniel "Booby" Gibson.
Zydrunas Ilgauskas is a reliable center but is far from spectacular at this stage in his career. Larry Hughes is a disgrace. He appears to be extremely athletic and talented, but he gets worse and worse every season. His jumper has flattened out and his decision-making is horrifying. I could go on and on about how bad LeBron's supporting cast is (Drew Gooden has also grossly underperformed) but the point is it's amazing that he finds a way to win with these bums. I know the East is a joke -- especially after the top three -- but the Cavs are far ahead of more talented teams, like the Nets and Knicks, in the standings. It's all LeBron. If the Cavs finish in the top three in the East he's probably more deserving of the MVP than Kobe.
#3-Steve Nash, PG-Phoenix Suns
This one was really tough. I've shuffled Nash back-and-forth with Garnett in my mind many times. I think the key here is that Nash has two of the last three league MVP awards and he's not slowing down this season -- the Suns are first in the mighty Western Conference.
Nash truly "makes" players, meaning he improves their game to a level that no one else could take them to (except maybe Jason Kidd). He turned Shawn Marion into the player he is today and despite a strong first outing with the Heat, I don't know if "The Matrix" will be a consistent offensive force without Nash. Now don't get me wrong here, Amare Stoudemire is an absolute beast -- but many of his dunks, lay-ups and free throw attempts are a direct result of gorgeous dimes from Nash. Nash has taken the careers of Raja Bell and Boris Diaw to another level as well.
The one knock on Nash is of course, his defense. He's frail and clearly devotes more effort and energy to his offense. It's not all bad -- that extra offensive energy makes the Suns the prolific scoring team that they are -- but the lack of size and defensive skill can certainly hurt Phoenix in late-game situations against point guards who like to post up. In a one-on-one playoff situation I could see Nash having serious problems with strong PGs like Baron Davis and Deron Williams.
Regardless, Nash is still the third best player in the league because he elevates the play of his teammates better than anyone else, and can also create many easy looks for himself.
#4-Kevin Garnett, PF-Boston Celtics
Talk about turning a franchise around. Yes, KG has been out for about seven games with an abdominal strain, but we've seen him do it all in the games leading up to the injury. Like Kobe, Garnett is a true two-way player. I wouldn't say Kobe is a lock as a top five defensive player, but Garnett definitely is. He communicates incredibly well with his teammates and knows his rotations as well or better than any other big man in the NBA. Garnett gets steals, blocks, disrupts passing lanes and turns away slashers who try to get to his bucket.
Offensively, my complaint with Garnett is that he's too unselfish. That seems to be working just fine with Boston, but it hurt his team in the long run with Minnesota. KG has an unusually soft touch for a power forward and his footwork is virtually impeccable. He's an excellent passer -- particularly out of a double-team -- who finds his shooters (Pierce, Allen, House, Posey) open behind the three-point line.
Why is he behind Nash? Because he had too many poor seasons in a row with the Timberwolves. That was his franchise and he never took his teammates or the franchise as a whole to a consistently competitive level.
#5-Tim Duncan, PF-San Antonio Spurs
I think this is really the last no-brainer in the top five. The order is obviously subjective, but I think there is a clear divide from No. 6 on.
Duncan is the best player on what has been the most consistent and best team over the course of the past six seasons. There's no question that he's deteriorating physically, but I don't see any loss of skill. Duncan is the most intelligent big man in the league and second-most experienced under pressure (after Shaq). He may be the league's premier team defender and he's Old Reliable on both ends of the court. Like Garnett, he's a terrific passer out of the box and has a plethora of post moves.
Don't forget about the three rings. So why is he behind Garnett, who has zero rings? Because KG has the fresher legs and clearly has plenty of all-star seasons to come, while Duncan's longevity is now in question. KG is slicker in the post and quicker defensively. His turnaround jumper is pure and almost automatic, whereas Duncan's consistent use of the glass causes odd bounces and awkward, line-drive misses. Not that "the bank" hasn't served Duncan well, it's that Garnett's paint game is higher percentage at this stage in their careers.
Also, the Spurs appear to be sliding toward the middle of the playoff pack this season. But then again, I said that last year too. The Celtics and Spurs have to be considered two of the top five championship contenders, so whoever wins out this season (Duncan or KG) will earn the four spot heading into the offseason. Right now, Garnett is the fresher and slightly better player.
#6-Dirk Nowitzki, PF-Dallas Mavericks
This is where it starts to get tough. The reigning MVP is one of the most unique players in NBA history, but he's not a clear-cut No. 6. I'm giving him the nod because Dallas is maintaining itself in the West's top three and Dirk is their best player. Along with Yao Ming, Amare Stoudemire and LeBron, Dirk has some of the most distinct and incredible talent in the league. Around 7-feet tall, Dirk can score off the dribble with pull-up jumpers and extends all the way out to the three-point line with ease. There really is no other player like him.
The problem with Dirk: he's not a reliable go-to-guy in high pressure situations. I think he's capable of making big shots, but he questions himself when the spotlight is undoubtedly upon his head. He's partly responsible for Dallas' collapse against Golden State last season, but I don't think Dallas is as good as they led everyone to believe during the regular season. I also believe that Golden State became a totally different and significantly improved team after trading Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy for Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington. By season's end, the Warriors were not a true No. 8 seed -- they were much better than that.
That said, the Mavs still haven't won the big one. Obviously they collapsed against the Heat in the finals two seasons ago, and then again last year. But let's see where they end up this season. Dirk is still their man, but if they crap out early in the playoffs again, he may very well drop on this list.
#7-Chris Paul, PG-New Orleans Hornets
No question the toughest spot on the list. I thought about this one for awhile, considered many different guys. What sold me? I just don't think Paul's teammates are that good. I think it's pretty damn astonishing that they are right up there with the top contenders in the West, and Paul deserves all the credit in the world. David West is better than solid in the paint and he's a very nice No. 2 option, but I'm underwhelmed by the rest of the cast.
Paul has this team on his back. He seems to have an unusually astute understanding of when to involve his teammates, and when to shoulder the scoring load. Tyson Chandler, Peja Stojakovic and Morris Peterson round out Paul's starting teammates; none of them can be relied upon for consistent offense. Stojakovic and Peterson are shooters so of course they get hot at times, but Peja is constantly injured and Mo Pete's collective statistics are extremely disappointing. What Paul is doing is similar to what Nash has been doing in Phoenix for the past four seasons, except Amare is better than anyone on Paul's team.
I know Paul's young and has plenty to prove (he's never won a playoff series) but I can't punish him for being relatively new to the league. What he has accomplished thus far is truly amazing; we'll see how it goes for New Orleans in the second half. As of right now, Paul has the edge at the No. 7 spot in the NBA.
#8-Dwyane Wade, G-Miami Heat
I really wanted to drop D-Wade out of the top 10, but I couldn't look past the shiny championship ring on his finger. I have not been impressed with his play this season at all. Yes, I know he's playing with a relatively serious injury but there are no excuses for the Heat being 9-40 in the Minor League (the East). Are they bad? Without a doubt. Should they be 9-40? No way in hell. I place a majority of the blame on Wade.
Wade is trying the Kobe strategy of the past two seasons, which can also be referred to as the Allen Iverson strategy with the Sixers -- but he's failing miserably. Wade's in the top five in scoring and he's still getting to the line, but his FG% has dipped dramatically. Kobe and Iverson were able to get their teams into the playoffs by jacking up an obscenely high number of shots (as Gilbert Arenas did last season), but there is no way the Heat are getting there.
Up to this point in the season (prior to the trade) I'm sure it's been frustrating having Shaq in and out of the lineup. Too bad. Mark Blount is a very decent back-up center, in fact he was solid as a starter for the Timberwolves the last two years. Wade should be running the pick-and-roll and pick-and-pop with Blount to get him easy looks that he is capable of converting. Wade should also be running the break with Jason Williams, Dorell Wright and Ricky Davis. They looked like a much better offensive team running the break this weekend against the Lakers (in Marion's first game). But it's too late now, Wade and Riley let this team spiral out of control.
Wade still has the ring that Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Michael Redd and Ray Allen don't have. That's why he's the No. 2 shooting guard in the league and No. 8 overall.
#9-Yao Ming, C-Houston Rockets
I'm sure this selection will be somewhat controversial for those of you who actually care about my opinion. Let's get one thing straight, Yao Ming should be the most dominant player in the NBA. Is he? No; he's too passive. What he is is arguably the most skilled big man in professional basketball history. At around 7-foot-6, somehow, Yao has the shooting touch of a 2-guard and the footwork of a ballet dancer who's a bit too tall. His free throw percentage is mind-boggling (consistently over 80 percent) -- consider the serious foul-line struggles of Shaq, Dwight Howard, Ben Wallace, Andris Biedrins, Tyson Chandler, etc. Yao inexplicably knocks them down with ease at the stripe.
The possible complaints: Yao hasn't won anything, he's soft and/or he turns over the ball too much.
The first one is undeniable, but the Rockets have won seven in a row and appear to finally be settling into a comfort level with Rick Adelman. Besides, there are plenty of guys who haven't won a title on this list: LeBron, Nash, Garnett, Dirk and Chris Paul.
The second one...well, he's soft in his own way. Yao is mentally soft; he's no longer physically soft like he was a few years back. He's mentally soft in the sense that he refuses to overshoot, even when the situation calls for it. Yao will hit two face-up jumpers in a row and then distribute to his teammates the next three to five plays, even when he's not being doubled. He has the ability to average 30 points per night, and do it with relative ease -- he just refuses to take full command. Quite simply, lacks the "killer instinct."
The third complaint...yea, he has a turnover problem considering his position. However, it's easily solvable -- stop passing so much. Shoot the ball, Yao!
#10-Amare Stoudemire, PF/C-Phoenix Suns
I'll be honest with you, the battle for the No. 10 spot was a furious one. It could have gone any way; any of the four (see honorable mention below) would have been a justified choice, but I'm going with Amare. As I mentioned earlier, Amare is one of the most unique players in the NBA -- he's a big man who runs the floor like a quick little guard and finishes like a high-flying swingman. He's one of the most freakish athletes I've ever seen.
From a talent and ability standpoint, I could see a legitimate argument for Amare as the third-most talented player in the NBA (after Kobe and LeBron). He's an excellent rebounder; a tenacious, intimidating defender; has a beautiful stroke at the foul line and very soft touch in the mid-range, and he's the league's top frontcourt player on the fastbreak. He's actually a decent passer as well.
The reason why he isn't ranked higher is because we've never seen Amare in a leading role. I also mentioned earlier that Nash feeds him many of his easy baskets; it's almost as if Nash gets the credit for Amare's finishes. That leads people to question Amare's individual game. I am not one of those people, but I am forced to question how he would do as a No. 1 option elsewhere. There is no way I can know (with certainty) how he'd perform. So while he may very well be more talented than Garnett, Duncan and Dirk, Amare lacks the weight of the "franchise player" label that those three carry on their backs. Amare is the only secondary player on this list.
Honorable Mention:
#11-Allen Iverson, G-Denver Nuggets
#12-Carmelo Anthony, SF-Denver Nuggets
#13-Baron Davis, PG-Golden State Warriors
#14-Dwight Howard, PF/C-Orlando Magic
#15-Carlos Boozer, PF-Utah Jazz
** Please feel free to post your comments and/or questions below. I welcome all feedback. **
Obviously the Lakers are his favorite team (Bynum) and obviously he's an idiot. It's a really bizarre list. The point here is, he really struggled as he sifted through the teams and players in his mind. As he blurted out this peculiar group of 10, I realized that after the top five, this list isn't easy to form. Not at all, really.
But of course, I have to give it a go now. This is not my MVP rankings, it's simply the best 10 players in the NBA. Here's my list:
#1-Kobe Bryant, SG-Los Angeles Lakers
The gap has closed this year -- I've been more impressed with LeBron than ever -- but Kobe is still the best player in the NBA. He's far superior to LeBron on the defensive end, he's clearly a better outside shooter, has the three rings and a slightly better basketball IQ. Not to say that LeBron lacks court awareness (he's actually quite savvy for his age), but Kobe knows exactly when to turn it on on both ends of the floor. LeBron doesn't know when to kick it in gear defensively.
Of course there is all the crap about Kobe getting his teammates more involved this season blah, blah, blah. Yes, he's more unselfish than he has been in recent years, but the major difference is that his teammates are actually knocking down shots and finishing plays down low. Kobe spoon fed his teammates plenty of times during the last two seasons, only to have Kwame Brown miss dunks and Maurice Evans miss wide open threes in the corner. Not this year. The Lakers are a legitimate title contender and Kobe will probably get that ever-elusive first MVP award.
#2-LeBron James, G/F-Cleveland Cavs
I've already talked about him a bit already, but I guess King James is worthy of some more discussion. Why has he grown on me this year? Because his teammates absolutely suck. The Cavs were struggling mightily early on and yet LeBron has single-handedly turned things around for a team whose second best player is probably Daniel "Booby" Gibson.
Zydrunas Ilgauskas is a reliable center but is far from spectacular at this stage in his career. Larry Hughes is a disgrace. He appears to be extremely athletic and talented, but he gets worse and worse every season. His jumper has flattened out and his decision-making is horrifying. I could go on and on about how bad LeBron's supporting cast is (Drew Gooden has also grossly underperformed) but the point is it's amazing that he finds a way to win with these bums. I know the East is a joke -- especially after the top three -- but the Cavs are far ahead of more talented teams, like the Nets and Knicks, in the standings. It's all LeBron. If the Cavs finish in the top three in the East he's probably more deserving of the MVP than Kobe.
#3-Steve Nash, PG-Phoenix Suns
This one was really tough. I've shuffled Nash back-and-forth with Garnett in my mind many times. I think the key here is that Nash has two of the last three league MVP awards and he's not slowing down this season -- the Suns are first in the mighty Western Conference.
Nash truly "makes" players, meaning he improves their game to a level that no one else could take them to (except maybe Jason Kidd). He turned Shawn Marion into the player he is today and despite a strong first outing with the Heat, I don't know if "The Matrix" will be a consistent offensive force without Nash. Now don't get me wrong here, Amare Stoudemire is an absolute beast -- but many of his dunks, lay-ups and free throw attempts are a direct result of gorgeous dimes from Nash. Nash has taken the careers of Raja Bell and Boris Diaw to another level as well.
The one knock on Nash is of course, his defense. He's frail and clearly devotes more effort and energy to his offense. It's not all bad -- that extra offensive energy makes the Suns the prolific scoring team that they are -- but the lack of size and defensive skill can certainly hurt Phoenix in late-game situations against point guards who like to post up. In a one-on-one playoff situation I could see Nash having serious problems with strong PGs like Baron Davis and Deron Williams.
Regardless, Nash is still the third best player in the league because he elevates the play of his teammates better than anyone else, and can also create many easy looks for himself.
#4-Kevin Garnett, PF-Boston Celtics
Talk about turning a franchise around. Yes, KG has been out for about seven games with an abdominal strain, but we've seen him do it all in the games leading up to the injury. Like Kobe, Garnett is a true two-way player. I wouldn't say Kobe is a lock as a top five defensive player, but Garnett definitely is. He communicates incredibly well with his teammates and knows his rotations as well or better than any other big man in the NBA. Garnett gets steals, blocks, disrupts passing lanes and turns away slashers who try to get to his bucket.
Offensively, my complaint with Garnett is that he's too unselfish. That seems to be working just fine with Boston, but it hurt his team in the long run with Minnesota. KG has an unusually soft touch for a power forward and his footwork is virtually impeccable. He's an excellent passer -- particularly out of a double-team -- who finds his shooters (Pierce, Allen, House, Posey) open behind the three-point line.
Why is he behind Nash? Because he had too many poor seasons in a row with the Timberwolves. That was his franchise and he never took his teammates or the franchise as a whole to a consistently competitive level.
#5-Tim Duncan, PF-San Antonio Spurs
I think this is really the last no-brainer in the top five. The order is obviously subjective, but I think there is a clear divide from No. 6 on.
Duncan is the best player on what has been the most consistent and best team over the course of the past six seasons. There's no question that he's deteriorating physically, but I don't see any loss of skill. Duncan is the most intelligent big man in the league and second-most experienced under pressure (after Shaq). He may be the league's premier team defender and he's Old Reliable on both ends of the court. Like Garnett, he's a terrific passer out of the box and has a plethora of post moves.
Don't forget about the three rings. So why is he behind Garnett, who has zero rings? Because KG has the fresher legs and clearly has plenty of all-star seasons to come, while Duncan's longevity is now in question. KG is slicker in the post and quicker defensively. His turnaround jumper is pure and almost automatic, whereas Duncan's consistent use of the glass causes odd bounces and awkward, line-drive misses. Not that "the bank" hasn't served Duncan well, it's that Garnett's paint game is higher percentage at this stage in their careers.
Also, the Spurs appear to be sliding toward the middle of the playoff pack this season. But then again, I said that last year too. The Celtics and Spurs have to be considered two of the top five championship contenders, so whoever wins out this season (Duncan or KG) will earn the four spot heading into the offseason. Right now, Garnett is the fresher and slightly better player.
#6-Dirk Nowitzki, PF-Dallas Mavericks
This is where it starts to get tough. The reigning MVP is one of the most unique players in NBA history, but he's not a clear-cut No. 6. I'm giving him the nod because Dallas is maintaining itself in the West's top three and Dirk is their best player. Along with Yao Ming, Amare Stoudemire and LeBron, Dirk has some of the most distinct and incredible talent in the league. Around 7-feet tall, Dirk can score off the dribble with pull-up jumpers and extends all the way out to the three-point line with ease. There really is no other player like him.
The problem with Dirk: he's not a reliable go-to-guy in high pressure situations. I think he's capable of making big shots, but he questions himself when the spotlight is undoubtedly upon his head. He's partly responsible for Dallas' collapse against Golden State last season, but I don't think Dallas is as good as they led everyone to believe during the regular season. I also believe that Golden State became a totally different and significantly improved team after trading Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy for Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington. By season's end, the Warriors were not a true No. 8 seed -- they were much better than that.
That said, the Mavs still haven't won the big one. Obviously they collapsed against the Heat in the finals two seasons ago, and then again last year. But let's see where they end up this season. Dirk is still their man, but if they crap out early in the playoffs again, he may very well drop on this list.
#7-Chris Paul, PG-New Orleans Hornets
No question the toughest spot on the list. I thought about this one for awhile, considered many different guys. What sold me? I just don't think Paul's teammates are that good. I think it's pretty damn astonishing that they are right up there with the top contenders in the West, and Paul deserves all the credit in the world. David West is better than solid in the paint and he's a very nice No. 2 option, but I'm underwhelmed by the rest of the cast.
Paul has this team on his back. He seems to have an unusually astute understanding of when to involve his teammates, and when to shoulder the scoring load. Tyson Chandler, Peja Stojakovic and Morris Peterson round out Paul's starting teammates; none of them can be relied upon for consistent offense. Stojakovic and Peterson are shooters so of course they get hot at times, but Peja is constantly injured and Mo Pete's collective statistics are extremely disappointing. What Paul is doing is similar to what Nash has been doing in Phoenix for the past four seasons, except Amare is better than anyone on Paul's team.
I know Paul's young and has plenty to prove (he's never won a playoff series) but I can't punish him for being relatively new to the league. What he has accomplished thus far is truly amazing; we'll see how it goes for New Orleans in the second half. As of right now, Paul has the edge at the No. 7 spot in the NBA.
#8-Dwyane Wade, G-Miami Heat
I really wanted to drop D-Wade out of the top 10, but I couldn't look past the shiny championship ring on his finger. I have not been impressed with his play this season at all. Yes, I know he's playing with a relatively serious injury but there are no excuses for the Heat being 9-40 in the Minor League (the East). Are they bad? Without a doubt. Should they be 9-40? No way in hell. I place a majority of the blame on Wade.
Wade is trying the Kobe strategy of the past two seasons, which can also be referred to as the Allen Iverson strategy with the Sixers -- but he's failing miserably. Wade's in the top five in scoring and he's still getting to the line, but his FG% has dipped dramatically. Kobe and Iverson were able to get their teams into the playoffs by jacking up an obscenely high number of shots (as Gilbert Arenas did last season), but there is no way the Heat are getting there.
Up to this point in the season (prior to the trade) I'm sure it's been frustrating having Shaq in and out of the lineup. Too bad. Mark Blount is a very decent back-up center, in fact he was solid as a starter for the Timberwolves the last two years. Wade should be running the pick-and-roll and pick-and-pop with Blount to get him easy looks that he is capable of converting. Wade should also be running the break with Jason Williams, Dorell Wright and Ricky Davis. They looked like a much better offensive team running the break this weekend against the Lakers (in Marion's first game). But it's too late now, Wade and Riley let this team spiral out of control.
Wade still has the ring that Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Michael Redd and Ray Allen don't have. That's why he's the No. 2 shooting guard in the league and No. 8 overall.
#9-Yao Ming, C-Houston Rockets
I'm sure this selection will be somewhat controversial for those of you who actually care about my opinion. Let's get one thing straight, Yao Ming should be the most dominant player in the NBA. Is he? No; he's too passive. What he is is arguably the most skilled big man in professional basketball history. At around 7-foot-6, somehow, Yao has the shooting touch of a 2-guard and the footwork of a ballet dancer who's a bit too tall. His free throw percentage is mind-boggling (consistently over 80 percent) -- consider the serious foul-line struggles of Shaq, Dwight Howard, Ben Wallace, Andris Biedrins, Tyson Chandler, etc. Yao inexplicably knocks them down with ease at the stripe.
The possible complaints: Yao hasn't won anything, he's soft and/or he turns over the ball too much.
The first one is undeniable, but the Rockets have won seven in a row and appear to finally be settling into a comfort level with Rick Adelman. Besides, there are plenty of guys who haven't won a title on this list: LeBron, Nash, Garnett, Dirk and Chris Paul.
The second one...well, he's soft in his own way. Yao is mentally soft; he's no longer physically soft like he was a few years back. He's mentally soft in the sense that he refuses to overshoot, even when the situation calls for it. Yao will hit two face-up jumpers in a row and then distribute to his teammates the next three to five plays, even when he's not being doubled. He has the ability to average 30 points per night, and do it with relative ease -- he just refuses to take full command. Quite simply, lacks the "killer instinct."
The third complaint...yea, he has a turnover problem considering his position. However, it's easily solvable -- stop passing so much. Shoot the ball, Yao!
#10-Amare Stoudemire, PF/C-Phoenix Suns
I'll be honest with you, the battle for the No. 10 spot was a furious one. It could have gone any way; any of the four (see honorable mention below) would have been a justified choice, but I'm going with Amare. As I mentioned earlier, Amare is one of the most unique players in the NBA -- he's a big man who runs the floor like a quick little guard and finishes like a high-flying swingman. He's one of the most freakish athletes I've ever seen.
From a talent and ability standpoint, I could see a legitimate argument for Amare as the third-most talented player in the NBA (after Kobe and LeBron). He's an excellent rebounder; a tenacious, intimidating defender; has a beautiful stroke at the foul line and very soft touch in the mid-range, and he's the league's top frontcourt player on the fastbreak. He's actually a decent passer as well.
The reason why he isn't ranked higher is because we've never seen Amare in a leading role. I also mentioned earlier that Nash feeds him many of his easy baskets; it's almost as if Nash gets the credit for Amare's finishes. That leads people to question Amare's individual game. I am not one of those people, but I am forced to question how he would do as a No. 1 option elsewhere. There is no way I can know (with certainty) how he'd perform. So while he may very well be more talented than Garnett, Duncan and Dirk, Amare lacks the weight of the "franchise player" label that those three carry on their backs. Amare is the only secondary player on this list.
Honorable Mention:
#11-Allen Iverson, G-Denver Nuggets
#12-Carmelo Anthony, SF-Denver Nuggets
#13-Baron Davis, PG-Golden State Warriors
#14-Dwight Howard, PF/C-Orlando Magic
#15-Carlos Boozer, PF-Utah Jazz
** Please feel free to post your comments and/or questions below. I welcome all feedback. **
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Luke Walton is Awful.
I'm watching the Suns spank the Lakers right now and I couldn't help but write about how overrated Luke Walton is.
Walton was injured for awhile and announcers and Lakers' personnel kept saying that they were "eagerly awaiting" his return to the starting lineup. Why? I'm pretty sure the Lakers stormed to the top of the Western Conference in Walton's absence. Coincidence? Maybe. But there's no doubt that Trevor Ariza -- Walton's temporary replacement -- is a far superior player.
Kobe and Phil Jackson are always raving about Walton. As a matter of fact, prior to tonight's game, they both said that Walton has to play a primary role in Andrew Bynum's absence. I can't understand the obsession...
(Whoops. Vujacic just cut it to 10 with more than 10 minutes remaining in the fourth. So much for the blowout.)
Let's review. Walton loves to post up against other small forwards, but his post game is average at best. He doesn't elevate on his turnaround or face-up jumper and his mid-range shots are often tipped or blocked.
He's far from an exceptional athlete and he's a highly overrated perimeter shooter. He had an impressive stretch from the three-point line during the first half of the 06-07 season, and that's it.
He's a decent defender and a flashy passer, but has a strong propensity for the turnover -- especially considering his position.
Ariza is quicker, more athletic, longer, a better defender, slasher and finisher. The funny part is that he's a smarter player than Walton. Funny because Walton is sometimes referred to as a "heady" player. In actuality, he forces the action way too often. When Ariza was in the starting lineup he stayed within himself and took quality shots. He's also a better shooter than people think.
In other news, Kwame Brown is almost as bad as Walton. With Bynum out almost two months, the Lakers desperately need Chris Mihm to return. Mihm is notably agile for his size and provides good length and finishing ability. Brown's a pretty decent defender, but he can't put the ball in the hoop.
If the Lakers can get healthy in Bynum's absence (Mihm, Radmanovic both out tonight) they should be able to stay in the top four in the West. The lineup should be Fisher, Kobe, Ariza, Odom and Mihm, but Phil is stubborn. He really believes in Walton and Kwame -- the "Zenmaster" boggles my mind sometimes.
There's really no need for Walton at all. Radmanovic serves more of a purpose as a backup small forward because he can get unconscious from three. If he's having one of his "space cadet" nights, the Lakers can move Kobe to the 3 if Ariza's off the court. I have no problem with Fisher, Vujacic/Farmar, Kobe, Odom, Mihm/Turiaf. Turiaf's an undersized big man, but he's clearly a hardworker and better offensive player than Kwame.
I'm a closet Lakers fan. My favorite teams are really the Knicks and Nets, but some players (like Walton) just frustrate the hell outta me. Zach Randolph and Jason Collins round out the "players I can't stand" list.
More the next time I'm agitated.
Walton was injured for awhile and announcers and Lakers' personnel kept saying that they were "eagerly awaiting" his return to the starting lineup. Why? I'm pretty sure the Lakers stormed to the top of the Western Conference in Walton's absence. Coincidence? Maybe. But there's no doubt that Trevor Ariza -- Walton's temporary replacement -- is a far superior player.
Kobe and Phil Jackson are always raving about Walton. As a matter of fact, prior to tonight's game, they both said that Walton has to play a primary role in Andrew Bynum's absence. I can't understand the obsession...
(Whoops. Vujacic just cut it to 10 with more than 10 minutes remaining in the fourth. So much for the blowout.)
Let's review. Walton loves to post up against other small forwards, but his post game is average at best. He doesn't elevate on his turnaround or face-up jumper and his mid-range shots are often tipped or blocked.
He's far from an exceptional athlete and he's a highly overrated perimeter shooter. He had an impressive stretch from the three-point line during the first half of the 06-07 season, and that's it.
He's a decent defender and a flashy passer, but has a strong propensity for the turnover -- especially considering his position.
Ariza is quicker, more athletic, longer, a better defender, slasher and finisher. The funny part is that he's a smarter player than Walton. Funny because Walton is sometimes referred to as a "heady" player. In actuality, he forces the action way too often. When Ariza was in the starting lineup he stayed within himself and took quality shots. He's also a better shooter than people think.
In other news, Kwame Brown is almost as bad as Walton. With Bynum out almost two months, the Lakers desperately need Chris Mihm to return. Mihm is notably agile for his size and provides good length and finishing ability. Brown's a pretty decent defender, but he can't put the ball in the hoop.
If the Lakers can get healthy in Bynum's absence (Mihm, Radmanovic both out tonight) they should be able to stay in the top four in the West. The lineup should be Fisher, Kobe, Ariza, Odom and Mihm, but Phil is stubborn. He really believes in Walton and Kwame -- the "Zenmaster" boggles my mind sometimes.
There's really no need for Walton at all. Radmanovic serves more of a purpose as a backup small forward because he can get unconscious from three. If he's having one of his "space cadet" nights, the Lakers can move Kobe to the 3 if Ariza's off the court. I have no problem with Fisher, Vujacic/Farmar, Kobe, Odom, Mihm/Turiaf. Turiaf's an undersized big man, but he's clearly a hardworker and better offensive player than Kwame.
I'm a closet Lakers fan. My favorite teams are really the Knicks and Nets, but some players (like Walton) just frustrate the hell outta me. Zach Randolph and Jason Collins round out the "players I can't stand" list.
More the next time I'm agitated.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Tony dies at the conclusion of "The Sopranos" -- with detailed evidence
Tony Soprano is undoubtedly whacked in Holsten's diner in the concluding scene of the series finale.
This analysis has nothing to do with the YouTube hoax video that claims the boy scouts, black men and the "Man in Members Only Jacket" have appeared in past episodes -- in fact, that video is as inaccurate as they come. But that's not the point here (if you'd like to see me dissect and dismantle that video, feel free to look for a future post).
The easiest way to do this is to take it from the top.
The scene opens with Tony walking into the diner. To me, there is an immediate hint that Tony's death is imminent. If you freeze frame his stroll up to the door, there is a particular instance where -- through the reflection of a window -- the brake lights of a background car appear like an assassin's red beams on Tony's forehead and stomach. At this exact moment, Tony's eyes appear to be closed. Seems like textbook foreshadowing to me.
If you're a person who doesn't believe in directorial framing, mise en scene, or narrative symbolism and foreshadowing -- trust me, these things exist. Especially with a creator of David Chase's caliber. A quick rationalization for the preceding paragraph is: why show Tony walking past the window at all? Why not have him walk directly in, or begin his stroll closer to the door? The answer is simple...Chase wanted us to see that shot of the brake lights.
Considering the fanatical anticipation of this finale, everything about this concluding scene had to be carefully crafted. The best way to watch this scene is to assume that everything -- literally everything -- on screen is there for a reason.
Moving on. We see Tony walk into the diner and then pause, seemingly surprised to see nothing ominous or dangerous. Then we get a full shot of everyone in the seating area, with the light shining on Tony in the middle of the screen. The only things that stand out about this shot are Tony and the bengal on the wall in the upper left. Granted it appears to be a poster for the Cincinnati Bengals (the football team), the animal looks fierce and menacing and it's overlooking Tony.
More suggestive than the bengal's expression is the color of the poster. The color of the seating area shot is notably dull (primarily green and brown), but the bengal's tongue is a sharp red and there's a red smear directly below its head. Certainly brings to mind a smear of blood, which is symbolic of Tony's blood that spills off screen at the scene's end.
Then Tony takes a seat and we get our first close-up of the songs he's sifting through. The three song titles that jump out at me are "Those Were the Days," "Only the Strong Survive" and "Victim of Love":
"Were" is a deliberate use of the past tense, suggesting that Tony's time on earth is expiring and he's soon to be a thing of the past.
Tony is clearly on edge and more vulnerable than usual, which brings into question his strength. If "only the strong survive," then there's reason to believe that Tony won't survive this night.
"Victim of Love" -- of course, Tony is soon to be the victim of an assassination.
Then Tony flips to a second set of songs. Here, take notice of "A Lonely Place," "This Magic Moment" and "I'm Alive":
An old adage says "death is a lonely place."
"This Magic Moment" is self-referential on Chase's part. It's a magic moment in his career, but more importantly, how monumental is this scene if Tony isn't killed? Simply put, it's not. It's even more magical for Chase because he may be the only one who knows with absolutely certainty that Tony is killed.
And "I'm Alive"? Well, not for long Tony.
Then we get a seemingly meaningless shot of a waitress taking someone else's order -- but wait, there's that red smear from the Bengals poster again. Look, it's behind her on the left.
Then some more songs, "Who Will You Run To?" most notably. There's nowhere to run for Tony.
On to the oft-referenced focused shot of "Don't Stop Believing" and "Any Way You Want It". Theorists love to throw these together to create, "Don't Stop Believing Any Way You Want It" -- which no doubt, is clever -- but my eye darts to the song below these two that is partially cut off: "I'll Never Be In Love Again."
Tony can't be in love again if he's dead, right? (At least, this much we assume. Let's not open up another unrelated debate).
Then fittingly enough, Tony flips back to "A Lonely Place." Sure, this could just be referring to the fact that he's sitting at the table by himself, but I like the "death is a lonely place" interpretation better, don't you?
In comes the mysterious trucker. I don't think he's our man. He's merely there to raise suspicion and make us uneasy. He's no killer.
Soon after, Carmela makes her entrance. Again, color is key. Her coat is a dark, sharp red. The spilling of blood is near.
Tony slaps a menu down for her and we get a shot of a young couple sitting on the same side of a booth, bickering playfully. A clear juxtaposition to the older Soprano couple whose playful days are long gone. I think that's a nostalgic shot, a nice memory from the past that flashes through Tony's mind prior to his death.
Carmela takes off her coat and sure enough, the shirt below is black. Red and black -- the colors classically symbolic of blood and death. Hmm.
The Sopranos chat for a bit and we get another look at the misleading trucker.
Then, our man walks in, in perhaps the most deliberate shot of the entire scene. The killer walks in a step ahead of A.J. and blocks us from seeing A.J. in full. There is no question this shows the killer standing in the metaphorical way of A.J. and his father. This is the man who will separate father and son, permanently.
Tony looks up, almost proudly, at his son. They chat and the killer -- the "Man in Members Only Jacket," according to IMDB (scroll all the way to the bottom) and the final episode's credits -- certainly appears to be looking over at the Sopranos' table.
Then we get Meadow's first attempt at parking with a shot of her glaring red brake lights and another circular red light reflected through her windshield. The interior of her car is black. Black and red, again. If that's not enough red and black for you, back inside the diner the booth seats are red but a shadow makes it look black behind A.J. Hints of blood and death everywhere.
The killer looks over again. The Sopranos continue chatting, then we get a solo shot of A.J. as Tony playfully tosses his rolled up straw wrapper in his face. As A.J. looks down for a second, that red beam looms again in the distance. We see Tony's shoulder, and the beam (metaphorically) has a clean shot at him.
Meadow tries to park again, and the killer makes his move to the bathroom. Tony, paranoid, looks up. No gun is being pointed at him, so he looks back down. Unfortunately for Tony, he has good reason to be paranoid this time.
Two black men walk in, they're not killers. They are noticeably interested in the food up front.
Meadow finally parks and then sprints across the street. Why is she sprinting? Is she that concerned about being a little late for a dinner with her immediate family? Why does she looked so distressed? I don't think it's because she had trouble parking the car, it's not a look of frustration...
Meadow's face and actions are Chase's way of telling us that something terrible is definitely about to happen. Tony peers up and it's lights out. His daughter is the last thing he sees on this earth.
It harkens back to Bobby saying something way back like, "I bet you don't even see it coming when (death) happens," which was re-introduced in the episode when Bobby was whacked. Tony doesn't see it coming, the killer comes out of the bathroom and blasts him in the side of the head. An ode to Michael Corleone in "The Godfather."
Evidence also lies in Chase's choice to list the killer as "The Man in Members Only Jacket." The first episode of the sixth season is called "Members Only" -- an episode in which Junior shoots Tony.
The end result...
If there's a "Sopranos" movie some day, one thing's for sure...Tony won't be in it.
This analysis has nothing to do with the YouTube hoax video that claims the boy scouts, black men and the "Man in Members Only Jacket" have appeared in past episodes -- in fact, that video is as inaccurate as they come. But that's not the point here (if you'd like to see me dissect and dismantle that video, feel free to look for a future post).
The easiest way to do this is to take it from the top.
The scene opens with Tony walking into the diner. To me, there is an immediate hint that Tony's death is imminent. If you freeze frame his stroll up to the door, there is a particular instance where -- through the reflection of a window -- the brake lights of a background car appear like an assassin's red beams on Tony's forehead and stomach. At this exact moment, Tony's eyes appear to be closed. Seems like textbook foreshadowing to me.
If you're a person who doesn't believe in directorial framing, mise en scene, or narrative symbolism and foreshadowing -- trust me, these things exist. Especially with a creator of David Chase's caliber. A quick rationalization for the preceding paragraph is: why show Tony walking past the window at all? Why not have him walk directly in, or begin his stroll closer to the door? The answer is simple...Chase wanted us to see that shot of the brake lights.
Considering the fanatical anticipation of this finale, everything about this concluding scene had to be carefully crafted. The best way to watch this scene is to assume that everything -- literally everything -- on screen is there for a reason.
Moving on. We see Tony walk into the diner and then pause, seemingly surprised to see nothing ominous or dangerous. Then we get a full shot of everyone in the seating area, with the light shining on Tony in the middle of the screen. The only things that stand out about this shot are Tony and the bengal on the wall in the upper left. Granted it appears to be a poster for the Cincinnati Bengals (the football team), the animal looks fierce and menacing and it's overlooking Tony.
More suggestive than the bengal's expression is the color of the poster. The color of the seating area shot is notably dull (primarily green and brown), but the bengal's tongue is a sharp red and there's a red smear directly below its head. Certainly brings to mind a smear of blood, which is symbolic of Tony's blood that spills off screen at the scene's end.
Then Tony takes a seat and we get our first close-up of the songs he's sifting through. The three song titles that jump out at me are "Those Were the Days," "Only the Strong Survive" and "Victim of Love":
"Were" is a deliberate use of the past tense, suggesting that Tony's time on earth is expiring and he's soon to be a thing of the past.
Tony is clearly on edge and more vulnerable than usual, which brings into question his strength. If "only the strong survive," then there's reason to believe that Tony won't survive this night.
"Victim of Love" -- of course, Tony is soon to be the victim of an assassination.
Then Tony flips to a second set of songs. Here, take notice of "A Lonely Place," "This Magic Moment" and "I'm Alive":
An old adage says "death is a lonely place."
"This Magic Moment" is self-referential on Chase's part. It's a magic moment in his career, but more importantly, how monumental is this scene if Tony isn't killed? Simply put, it's not. It's even more magical for Chase because he may be the only one who knows with absolutely certainty that Tony is killed.
And "I'm Alive"? Well, not for long Tony.
Then we get a seemingly meaningless shot of a waitress taking someone else's order -- but wait, there's that red smear from the Bengals poster again. Look, it's behind her on the left.
Then some more songs, "Who Will You Run To?" most notably. There's nowhere to run for Tony.
On to the oft-referenced focused shot of "Don't Stop Believing" and "Any Way You Want It". Theorists love to throw these together to create, "Don't Stop Believing Any Way You Want It" -- which no doubt, is clever -- but my eye darts to the song below these two that is partially cut off: "I'll Never Be In Love Again."
Tony can't be in love again if he's dead, right? (At least, this much we assume. Let's not open up another unrelated debate).
Then fittingly enough, Tony flips back to "A Lonely Place." Sure, this could just be referring to the fact that he's sitting at the table by himself, but I like the "death is a lonely place" interpretation better, don't you?
In comes the mysterious trucker. I don't think he's our man. He's merely there to raise suspicion and make us uneasy. He's no killer.
Soon after, Carmela makes her entrance. Again, color is key. Her coat is a dark, sharp red. The spilling of blood is near.
Tony slaps a menu down for her and we get a shot of a young couple sitting on the same side of a booth, bickering playfully. A clear juxtaposition to the older Soprano couple whose playful days are long gone. I think that's a nostalgic shot, a nice memory from the past that flashes through Tony's mind prior to his death.
Carmela takes off her coat and sure enough, the shirt below is black. Red and black -- the colors classically symbolic of blood and death. Hmm.
The Sopranos chat for a bit and we get another look at the misleading trucker.
Then, our man walks in, in perhaps the most deliberate shot of the entire scene. The killer walks in a step ahead of A.J. and blocks us from seeing A.J. in full. There is no question this shows the killer standing in the metaphorical way of A.J. and his father. This is the man who will separate father and son, permanently.
Tony looks up, almost proudly, at his son. They chat and the killer -- the "Man in Members Only Jacket," according to IMDB (scroll all the way to the bottom) and the final episode's credits -- certainly appears to be looking over at the Sopranos' table.
Then we get Meadow's first attempt at parking with a shot of her glaring red brake lights and another circular red light reflected through her windshield. The interior of her car is black. Black and red, again. If that's not enough red and black for you, back inside the diner the booth seats are red but a shadow makes it look black behind A.J. Hints of blood and death everywhere.
The killer looks over again. The Sopranos continue chatting, then we get a solo shot of A.J. as Tony playfully tosses his rolled up straw wrapper in his face. As A.J. looks down for a second, that red beam looms again in the distance. We see Tony's shoulder, and the beam (metaphorically) has a clean shot at him.
Meadow tries to park again, and the killer makes his move to the bathroom. Tony, paranoid, looks up. No gun is being pointed at him, so he looks back down. Unfortunately for Tony, he has good reason to be paranoid this time.
Two black men walk in, they're not killers. They are noticeably interested in the food up front.
Meadow finally parks and then sprints across the street. Why is she sprinting? Is she that concerned about being a little late for a dinner with her immediate family? Why does she looked so distressed? I don't think it's because she had trouble parking the car, it's not a look of frustration...
Meadow's face and actions are Chase's way of telling us that something terrible is definitely about to happen. Tony peers up and it's lights out. His daughter is the last thing he sees on this earth.
It harkens back to Bobby saying something way back like, "I bet you don't even see it coming when (death) happens," which was re-introduced in the episode when Bobby was whacked. Tony doesn't see it coming, the killer comes out of the bathroom and blasts him in the side of the head. An ode to Michael Corleone in "The Godfather."
Evidence also lies in Chase's choice to list the killer as "The Man in Members Only Jacket." The first episode of the sixth season is called "Members Only" -- an episode in which Junior shoots Tony.
The end result...
If there's a "Sopranos" movie some day, one thing's for sure...Tony won't be in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)