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.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
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.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Law and Ethics in Online Journalism
Ethics, law and libel. Three terms we see often in journalism of all sorts; in fact, many colleges have j-courses devoted entirely to ethics, law and/or libel. But in those courses -- or at least the ones I've experienced at the University of Connecticut -- the focus is largely upon print or photo journalism. There isn't much emphasis on the Web.
That's where James C. Foust's "Online Journalism" textbook comes in. He specifically discusses "Legal and Ethical Issues" in chapter 10 of the print version of his book. I read the chapter and I think I'll try to tackle the three activities on p. 235.
Activity 10.1 focuses upon user agreements. I've linked The Chronicle of Higher Education's user agreement here. A user agreement, sometimes seen as "Terms of Use," is the contract between a Web site and its users. It's not something that jumps out at a netizen normally, but virtually all sites have a link to such an agreement somewhere.
For the purposes of Foust's question, I'm going to center on ESPN's Web site. Listed under "Terms of Use" at the bottom of the homepage, it links to Disney's user agreement because of the merger between the two powerhouses.
In regards to copyright, it says: "Notifications of claimed copyright infringement must be sent to Service Provider's Designated Agent," which in this case is WDIG. In terms of linking it says users may be directed to other sites without ESPN's knowledge, at which point they are not liable. As for postings made by users, they make the reader aware of the fact that anything they post may be made available via the Internet and search engines. A fair warning.
These examples would stand up to court challenges because ESPN/Disney is thorough in its definition and rules about copyright, linking and postings. Legally, nothing imperative is left unsaid.
Moving forward, let's take a closer look at linking. There are a few different types of linking. Deep linking is, "bypassing a Web site's home page or other introductory material by linking to a page 'deep' within the site's structure," according to Foust (226). Inline linking is done through the use of HTML and URL's, while associative linking concerns the reputation of the sites that are connected to one another.
In deep linking, the rights that need to be balanced are those of the Web site's central producer and those reaping the benefits of a click on a deep link. Inline linking calls for a balance between the engineers/technicians and site operators, while associative linking requires a balance between the two sites that are linked -- regardless of whether or not the linking is accidental or contrived.
Finally, for activity 10.3 I'll head to CNN.com. I must admit this was Foust's suggestion in his textbook. I'm going to take a look at some of the specific photo credits and get a general idea as to how many copyright owners are out there. Are they far and few between, or plentiful? Let's see...
On the home page I see one credited to Getty Images. In the "World" section I see another to Getty Images. On the "U.S." page there's credit to Kristi Keck of CNN, while mostly all of the sports pictures were credited to SIpictures.com. Of course CNN and Sports Illustrated have merged, as well.
Overall it seems that the number of copyright owners is small. Almost like an oligopoly in the industry.
All this being said, the point is that ethics, law and libel are very much a part of the online journalism realm. As much so, perhaps, as the world of print and photo journalism.
That's where James C. Foust's "Online Journalism" textbook comes in. He specifically discusses "Legal and Ethical Issues" in chapter 10 of the print version of his book. I read the chapter and I think I'll try to tackle the three activities on p. 235.
Activity 10.1 focuses upon user agreements. I've linked The Chronicle of Higher Education's user agreement here. A user agreement, sometimes seen as "Terms of Use," is the contract between a Web site and its users. It's not something that jumps out at a netizen normally, but virtually all sites have a link to such an agreement somewhere.
For the purposes of Foust's question, I'm going to center on ESPN's Web site. Listed under "Terms of Use" at the bottom of the homepage, it links to Disney's user agreement because of the merger between the two powerhouses.
In regards to copyright, it says: "Notifications of claimed copyright infringement must be sent to Service Provider's Designated Agent," which in this case is WDIG. In terms of linking it says users may be directed to other sites without ESPN's knowledge, at which point they are not liable. As for postings made by users, they make the reader aware of the fact that anything they post may be made available via the Internet and search engines. A fair warning.
These examples would stand up to court challenges because ESPN/Disney is thorough in its definition and rules about copyright, linking and postings. Legally, nothing imperative is left unsaid.
Moving forward, let's take a closer look at linking. There are a few different types of linking. Deep linking is, "bypassing a Web site's home page or other introductory material by linking to a page 'deep' within the site's structure," according to Foust (226). Inline linking is done through the use of HTML and URL's, while associative linking concerns the reputation of the sites that are connected to one another.
In deep linking, the rights that need to be balanced are those of the Web site's central producer and those reaping the benefits of a click on a deep link. Inline linking calls for a balance between the engineers/technicians and site operators, while associative linking requires a balance between the two sites that are linked -- regardless of whether or not the linking is accidental or contrived.
Finally, for activity 10.3 I'll head to CNN.com. I must admit this was Foust's suggestion in his textbook. I'm going to take a look at some of the specific photo credits and get a general idea as to how many copyright owners are out there. Are they far and few between, or plentiful? Let's see...
On the home page I see one credited to Getty Images. In the "World" section I see another to Getty Images. On the "U.S." page there's credit to Kristi Keck of CNN, while mostly all of the sports pictures were credited to SIpictures.com. Of course CNN and Sports Illustrated have merged, as well.
Overall it seems that the number of copyright owners is small. Almost like an oligopoly in the industry.
All this being said, the point is that ethics, law and libel are very much a part of the online journalism realm. As much so, perhaps, as the world of print and photo journalism.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Non-Traditional Storytelling Techniques
Print, audio and video. Generally online journalists stick to those mediums for storytelling, but that doesn't mean they are the only viable options.
For new examples, let's take a look at chapter 9 of James C. Foust's "Online Journalism" textbook. Specifically, I'll focus on the section of the Web text called "Types of Media Elements."
Flash journalism is an interesting storytelling possibility. Flash journalism allows for the combination of audio, video, text and pictures in one medium. This can certainly be extremely helpful in packaging a story and giving the reader a number of different options. Perhaps the best aspect of flash journalism is that it allows the reader to select the way they'd like to get the story, according to Jose Marquez, a producer at KQED Interactive.
Photo composition is another potentially beneficial technique. Often Web photos are blurry, disorganized and mismanaged -- but focusing on composition can rectify those problems. Composition centers upon the way the subjects of the photo are positioned in the frame and the amount of zoom or focus that is used after the fact. An example from the link I've provided is that photo of the family of four pushed to the left in the wide scope, but then centered and enlarged on its own. The second option is much more effective and clearer.
Perhaps the most contemporary and interesting new example is under the heading "Going Digital." This section discusses the recording of interviews directly into a reporter's computer. So much for the old paper and pen. This technique can work if a reporter plugs their tape recorder directly into their computer's slot for the multimedia sound card.
Moving on to question 2 on page 214 of Foust's print textbook, the "game" elements discussed at the end of the chapter certainly do help the reader get a better understanding of the information at hand. Looking at the three examples -- The Enron Blame Game, Minnesota Public Radio Budget Balancer and Can You Spot the Threats? -- it is easier to comprehend each situation when put into game format where competition is involved.
I liken this to high school teachers or college professors who like to play factual Jeopardy with their students in order to make them more interested and enthusiastic about their subject matter. It generally works.
Finishing up with question 3, a story I recently worked on that could have used some multimedia elements was called "Cut A-Rod Some Slack." This column was in defense of the Yankees' Alex Rodriguez who is constantly under great fan and media scrutiny.
I would have featured a video clip of A-Rod's game-winning, walk-off grand slam so my readers could get a look at what I was describing. For audio I would have utilized a clip of the rowdy fan reaction at Yankee Stadium. Perhaps I could have added an interactive slideshow of the post-homer celebration which was quite a sight to see.
These features could enhance the story in ways that print cannot by putting the readers back into the actual moment with the same feel and intensity of the instance. My words do the story justice, but the sights and sounds help the reader relive it.
For new examples, let's take a look at chapter 9 of James C. Foust's "Online Journalism" textbook. Specifically, I'll focus on the section of the Web text called "Types of Media Elements."
Flash journalism is an interesting storytelling possibility. Flash journalism allows for the combination of audio, video, text and pictures in one medium. This can certainly be extremely helpful in packaging a story and giving the reader a number of different options. Perhaps the best aspect of flash journalism is that it allows the reader to select the way they'd like to get the story, according to Jose Marquez, a producer at KQED Interactive.
Photo composition is another potentially beneficial technique. Often Web photos are blurry, disorganized and mismanaged -- but focusing on composition can rectify those problems. Composition centers upon the way the subjects of the photo are positioned in the frame and the amount of zoom or focus that is used after the fact. An example from the link I've provided is that photo of the family of four pushed to the left in the wide scope, but then centered and enlarged on its own. The second option is much more effective and clearer.
Perhaps the most contemporary and interesting new example is under the heading "Going Digital." This section discusses the recording of interviews directly into a reporter's computer. So much for the old paper and pen. This technique can work if a reporter plugs their tape recorder directly into their computer's slot for the multimedia sound card.
Moving on to question 2 on page 214 of Foust's print textbook, the "game" elements discussed at the end of the chapter certainly do help the reader get a better understanding of the information at hand. Looking at the three examples -- The Enron Blame Game, Minnesota Public Radio Budget Balancer and Can You Spot the Threats? -- it is easier to comprehend each situation when put into game format where competition is involved.
I liken this to high school teachers or college professors who like to play factual Jeopardy with their students in order to make them more interested and enthusiastic about their subject matter. It generally works.
Finishing up with question 3, a story I recently worked on that could have used some multimedia elements was called "Cut A-Rod Some Slack." This column was in defense of the Yankees' Alex Rodriguez who is constantly under great fan and media scrutiny.
I would have featured a video clip of A-Rod's game-winning, walk-off grand slam so my readers could get a look at what I was describing. For audio I would have utilized a clip of the rowdy fan reaction at Yankee Stadium. Perhaps I could have added an interactive slideshow of the post-homer celebration which was quite a sight to see.
These features could enhance the story in ways that print cannot by putting the readers back into the actual moment with the same feel and intensity of the instance. My words do the story justice, but the sights and sounds help the reader relive it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)