Friday, March 26, 2010
Blow
Just watched blow and I immediately had two related but conflicting feelings. First, I enjoyed the movie. I left feeling a bit melancholy because the movie had succeeded in making me identify with the main character, George Jung. He comes across as a relatively good person who gets caught up over his head and basically fails over and over. A lovable loser if you will. But then again, he's a drug dealer. And not just any small time drug dealer, but a massive scale drug dealer. You might say that the two drugs that he seemed to deal in were the most harmless of illegal drugs, but the seedy side of the drug world barely seemed to grace the movie. Maybe he never had to get his hands dirty, but that seems to pushing the believability a bit when it's a bit stretched to begin with.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Tim Duncan
You mention Hollinger's categorization of Tim Duncan, but you dismiss it without reason. Tim Duncan IS a center. He plays in the deep post as the main post option. He defends the opponents center, and plays defense like a center. The only reason that Duncan isn't considered a center by his team is that he doesn't want to be categorized as a center because of all the great centers who have played whom he would be compared against. He wants to be the best power forward ever, not the 5th or 6th best center of all time.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Bill Simmons
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/news/story?id=4058647
I'm writing you because I listen to your podcasts and you seem to be on my side about statistics. You understand their value, but you consider them a useful tool, but not the Holy Word. Can you please address internally the problems with talking about these statistics like win share and PER the same way something concrete like points is talked about? They never mention the error bounds that are built into their models, and they just spout these numbers as if it could encompass all the interactions on the basketball court. They give brief time to defense, but only when it is in agreement with their own measures.
I'm really tired of seeing all these articles that seem nothing more than propaganda to make it seem like Hollinger or ESPN have created an infallible measure that everyone needs to get on board with. I come to ESPN for sports reporting, not biased ignorant journalism.
I'm writing you because I listen to your podcasts and you seem to be on my side about statistics. You understand their value, but you consider them a useful tool, but not the Holy Word. Can you please address internally the problems with talking about these statistics like win share and PER the same way something concrete like points is talked about? They never mention the error bounds that are built into their models, and they just spout these numbers as if it could encompass all the interactions on the basketball court. They give brief time to defense, but only when it is in agreement with their own measures.
I'm really tired of seeing all these articles that seem nothing more than propaganda to make it seem like Hollinger or ESPN have created an infallible measure that everyone needs to get on board with. I come to ESPN for sports reporting, not biased ignorant journalism.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Letter to the Ombudsman
I'm a longtime ESPN fan, and I heard you on Bill Simmons podcast. Thank you for coming on, I hope that we can get more espn people on his show. I feel like he will be critical about things that should be addressed, both positive and negative.
You talked about announcers who get complaints. I do enjoy the basketball coverage and think that this is not an issue with them Breen, Van Gundy, and Jackson, but I think that one of the main problems I dislike is bias in the announcers. If an announcer can't keep his personal bias out of his reporting, he should not be announcing. For example when the patriots were on their run toward the perfect season, Mike Tirico couldn't help but show how happy he was whenever they had anything bad happen to them. Or with Kobe, certain announcers feed into the negative stories that are told about him. I just wanted to give a heads up that I feel strongly about this issue, and if I notice further incidents I will send another message.
Thank you, and I'm glad I've discovered this forum for voicing issues.
You talked about announcers who get complaints. I do enjoy the basketball coverage and think that this is not an issue with them Breen, Van Gundy, and Jackson, but I think that one of the main problems I dislike is bias in the announcers. If an announcer can't keep his personal bias out of his reporting, he should not be announcing. For example when the patriots were on their run toward the perfect season, Mike Tirico couldn't help but show how happy he was whenever they had anything bad happen to them. Or with Kobe, certain announcers feed into the negative stories that are told about him. I just wanted to give a heads up that I feel strongly about this issue, and if I notice further incidents I will send another message.
Thank you, and I'm glad I've discovered this forum for voicing issues.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Lakers 101, Mavs 98
Personal Recap
A great great game. The lakers came out in the first quarter running their offense, hitting cutters with passes, and making shots. The mavs missed a bunch of shots, and the lakers went up by 11. Kobe, as is his new tactic, shot sparingly and tried to get everyone else involved early to maintain their energy and focus in the game. But the lakers couldn't maintain, and by the end of the quarter had cut the lakers' lead to 6. Even though the lakers had been up, there was a feeling that the lead wasn't safe at all. The mavs wouldn't keep missing so many shots, and the lakers couldn't operate with such efficiency.
In the second quarter, the mavs quickly cut down the lead, and by the end of the quarter had pushed out to a 3 point lead. During the third quarter, the mavs kept up their attack, and themselves went up by 11. It was at this point that the lakers were in real danger of losing the game, in fact the announcer said as much. But the lakers kept their calm, (which is a real signatute of any Phil Jackson coached team), and slowly cut down the lead a bit. A few miscues at the end of the quarter still left the mavs up by 9.
The fourth quarter was quite exciting. The lakers wouldn't let the mavs extend the lead, and made quite a few attempts to cut the lead down. They got it down to about 4-5 points multiple times, but the mavs would always push the lead back up right away. At one point kobe made 3 in a row, and 4 out of 5, and you got the feeling he was trying to WILL the lakers to victory. Right here, the game was on the razor's edge, and one mistake of any sort, turnover, foul, missed shot, could have easily swayed the decision. I could feel a strange detached feeling as I felt like the game was going to come down to the final ticks.
As the lakers got closer, and were down by about 4, an unlikely hero emerged. Sasha Vujacic had been hitting all night, but he hit first one three from the left side of the court to get the to within one, and then later with about 30 seconds to go, hit another 3 to put them ahead by 2. Jason Terry drove the lane with nobody in front of him, and then there was either a spectacular play or a foul depending on your leaning. Smush Parker came from opposite side of the court, along the baseline, and swatted Terry's hand along with the ball. The ball came out to the lakers who eventually sent Luke Walton to the line. The Terry/Parker play was really close, Smush hit the hand which was on the ball, and therefore "part of the ball" at the time, but could have been been whistled for hitting the wrist, but luckily for lakers fans the call fell their way. Luke only made one of two free throws, and so the mavs had one more chance to tie it with a three, but luckily it was Devean George who ended up with the mavs final shot.
Post Game Notes
Devean George
If you don't remember the guy, he made quite a few great plays for the lakers during their runs, and some important threes. However, I seem to remember his misses much more, and he never reached the potential we expected of him. He was always a great defender, and quite athletic, but he never developed any consistancy with his 3-point shot. His role is much better filled with a tandem of Luke Walton, and Maurice Evans. Luke isn't nearly as athletic, but has developed the three this year, and is a better passer, and has some post up moves. Maurice is an even better defender than George ever was, and he has a quality mid range jumpers as his offensive tool.
Kobe's Defense
One key to the game was that near the end, Phil put Kobe on Dirk. Now this is no easy task, seeing as Kobe gives up around 5 - 7 inches on Dirk Diggler. But Kobe played physical, ball denial defense, and I think the change of pace if nothing else kinda bothered Dirk at the end. Dirk ended up taking a few more jumpers, and not driving as much. Although Dirk made those jumpers, it felt like it stagnated their offense a bit.
Lakers' Attitude
One great thing about the lakers is that they are calm under pressure, and try to maintain a level demeanor in the face of adversity. Now this is great for end of game situations, where efficient execution will win the game. But it also seems to cause the lakers to not react properly to certain game time situations. If the lakers go down by a lot of points, they don't seem to amp up their energy properly, and try to change the flow of the game. Sometimes they can grind down the lead, but it seems to take a very long time to accomplish. If the lakers go up, this calm attitude sometimes seems to cause them to become lackadasical, and allow their opponents to get back in the game. Luckily, the later problem seems to have been solved, or at least improved as evidenced by the previous two games in Sacramento and Denver. In both games the lakers went up by a large margin, but whereas in the first game the Kings came back to send the game to overtime, (and eventually lose), the lakers kept up the pressure in the Nuggets game, and the game was never truly in question mid-way through the third quarter.
A great great game. The lakers came out in the first quarter running their offense, hitting cutters with passes, and making shots. The mavs missed a bunch of shots, and the lakers went up by 11. Kobe, as is his new tactic, shot sparingly and tried to get everyone else involved early to maintain their energy and focus in the game. But the lakers couldn't maintain, and by the end of the quarter had cut the lakers' lead to 6. Even though the lakers had been up, there was a feeling that the lead wasn't safe at all. The mavs wouldn't keep missing so many shots, and the lakers couldn't operate with such efficiency.
In the second quarter, the mavs quickly cut down the lead, and by the end of the quarter had pushed out to a 3 point lead. During the third quarter, the mavs kept up their attack, and themselves went up by 11. It was at this point that the lakers were in real danger of losing the game, in fact the announcer said as much. But the lakers kept their calm, (which is a real signatute of any Phil Jackson coached team), and slowly cut down the lead a bit. A few miscues at the end of the quarter still left the mavs up by 9.
The fourth quarter was quite exciting. The lakers wouldn't let the mavs extend the lead, and made quite a few attempts to cut the lead down. They got it down to about 4-5 points multiple times, but the mavs would always push the lead back up right away. At one point kobe made 3 in a row, and 4 out of 5, and you got the feeling he was trying to WILL the lakers to victory. Right here, the game was on the razor's edge, and one mistake of any sort, turnover, foul, missed shot, could have easily swayed the decision. I could feel a strange detached feeling as I felt like the game was going to come down to the final ticks.
As the lakers got closer, and were down by about 4, an unlikely hero emerged. Sasha Vujacic had been hitting all night, but he hit first one three from the left side of the court to get the to within one, and then later with about 30 seconds to go, hit another 3 to put them ahead by 2. Jason Terry drove the lane with nobody in front of him, and then there was either a spectacular play or a foul depending on your leaning. Smush Parker came from opposite side of the court, along the baseline, and swatted Terry's hand along with the ball. The ball came out to the lakers who eventually sent Luke Walton to the line. The Terry/Parker play was really close, Smush hit the hand which was on the ball, and therefore "part of the ball" at the time, but could have been been whistled for hitting the wrist, but luckily for lakers fans the call fell their way. Luke only made one of two free throws, and so the mavs had one more chance to tie it with a three, but luckily it was Devean George who ended up with the mavs final shot.
Post Game Notes
Devean George
If you don't remember the guy, he made quite a few great plays for the lakers during their runs, and some important threes. However, I seem to remember his misses much more, and he never reached the potential we expected of him. He was always a great defender, and quite athletic, but he never developed any consistancy with his 3-point shot. His role is much better filled with a tandem of Luke Walton, and Maurice Evans. Luke isn't nearly as athletic, but has developed the three this year, and is a better passer, and has some post up moves. Maurice is an even better defender than George ever was, and he has a quality mid range jumpers as his offensive tool.
Kobe's Defense
One key to the game was that near the end, Phil put Kobe on Dirk. Now this is no easy task, seeing as Kobe gives up around 5 - 7 inches on Dirk Diggler. But Kobe played physical, ball denial defense, and I think the change of pace if nothing else kinda bothered Dirk at the end. Dirk ended up taking a few more jumpers, and not driving as much. Although Dirk made those jumpers, it felt like it stagnated their offense a bit.
Lakers' Attitude
One great thing about the lakers is that they are calm under pressure, and try to maintain a level demeanor in the face of adversity. Now this is great for end of game situations, where efficient execution will win the game. But it also seems to cause the lakers to not react properly to certain game time situations. If the lakers go down by a lot of points, they don't seem to amp up their energy properly, and try to change the flow of the game. Sometimes they can grind down the lead, but it seems to take a very long time to accomplish. If the lakers go up, this calm attitude sometimes seems to cause them to become lackadasical, and allow their opponents to get back in the game. Luckily, the later problem seems to have been solved, or at least improved as evidenced by the previous two games in Sacramento and Denver. In both games the lakers went up by a large margin, but whereas in the first game the Kings came back to send the game to overtime, (and eventually lose), the lakers kept up the pressure in the Nuggets game, and the game was never truly in question mid-way through the third quarter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)