#070 - Finals Recap: King's Ring, Miami, Miami, Miami

I will refrain from using a photo on this post. Sorry. I know the photos are why everyone comes here. And by everyone, I mean, someone? Just don't feel like sifting through internet images of all the red and white confetti pouring down on Dwyane Wade's head. Sure, I'm a sore loser.

Simply put, the Heat outplayed the Thunder, and they outplayed them in a way that left little doubt as to which team was ready to win the championship. Congrats to OKC for managing to swing Game 1, but they botched every key moment, every potential opportunity to win a second game, every high-pressure situation from there on out. And not in a finger-pointing kind of way. In just a general, hey guys, we didn't get it done way. Westbrook dribbling it off his foot. Harden missing a fast break layup. Sefolosha getting numerous three pointers blocked. Durant trying to go behind his back in traffic (twice). The no-call on LeBron at the end of Game 2. Each of the biggest moments of the series from Game 2 on ended up flowing the Heat's way. And they deserve all the credit, they did what they needed to, especially the big-time three point shooting of Battier, Chalmers and Miller, and the free-throw shooting of Wade and LeBron in the clutch.

There seems to be a big confusion between not wanting a team to win and being a hater. I've never been a LeBron hater, I'm not sour simply because he won and I want him to suffer endless defeats. I merely preferred the narrative of LeBron on the Cavs, building his own team, crafting his own legend. That's what I wanted to see. Not the Basketball SuperFriends. It has nothing to do with not respecting LeBron's game. I just didn't like his choices. For the last three years, there's never been a time for me when I was uncertain as to who the best player in the league was. It was always LeBron. Even if the Thunder had beaten the Heat, that wouldn't have proven Durant as better. He's not. That's not to say he's not better at certain things, because he is, and his pure scoring ability ranks up there with the greatest of all time. LeBron is a different beast all together. Defense, rebounding, fast break, passing. He performs at a world-class level in almost every facet of the game. There's never been a stronger finisher. End of story. All of the "If they win, what does it mean" conjecture is bullshit. It doesn't mean anything. He still would have been LeBron if they had lost. He still would have been the best in the game. Maybe it might have meant that he didn't play like it, but he had a really solid game in Game 1, and they lost that game. It just turned out throughout the series that he got the help he's been asking for.

The biggest thing I credit LeBron on is his acceptance of his faults. He won't publicly admit it, despite his recent confession that he felt he was immature during the loss to Dallas last year. His game is what speaks to his acquiescence. Instead of trying to be a jumpshooter, taking the opportunities given to him by very cautious defenders, he played aggressive. I don't think he's ever going to be an elite jumpshooter. He can get better, and he has, by he doesn't have the body dynamics of a Ray Allen or a Kevin Durant. His shooting form is too bulky and mechanical. He shoots best only when he has the space to set himself properly. That's okay, it's not the worst thing in the world to not be an elite shooter, but there was a long period of time where it seemed like that's what he wanted. This Finals proved that he understood his weaknesses, and he wouldn't succumb to them. Harden gave him jumper after jumper, "Please shoot it, please, please," and he wouldn't give in. It was easy to see that the biggest problem with the Heat version 1.0 was LeBron's and Wade's jumpshooting. Force them into those 19 footers, and you'll survive. Everyone acknowledged it, except for the players themselves. In the Finals, it seemed like they (at least LeBron) said, "Enough."

The Thunder will roll right along next year. I don't think they'll have any hiccups. They might look to add some depth -- I don't think Derek Fisher can be counted on for the same production next year, though it will be a huge bonus to get Eric Maynor back. They certainly might like a back to the basket scorer, if one exists out there, and it wouldn't kill them to flip Perkins. In my mind, one key player that they're missing is a Stephen Jackson type (or his less aggressive counterpart, Shane Battier). A decent three point shooting wing player who is strong enough to guard the best 2s and 3s in the game while Durant works on his strength and defensive footwork. I think that player would be great for them, because Sefolosha, while being a terrific defender, lacks threat offensively, and Harden in my eyes is a bit undersized. Early mock drafts have them taking Jeff Taylor from Vanderbilt, an excellent shooter for a 6'7" forward, and I think the fit would be great (though his defense is clearly well below what they'd look for). The worst reaction would be to panic and break up parts of the core. I have to give Russell Westbrook a tremendous amount of credit for what he did throughout these playoffs. Last year, I thought he might be the weak link, the problem player that could keep them from reaching their goal. This year, I know for certain that's not the case. Sure, he doesn't always make the extra pass, and his game management is questionable. But this guy gives his heart, night in and night out. When the rest of the team seemed resigned to fate late in Game 5, he was booking it up and down the court, losing by 25 points, taking it hard to the rack, trying to press ball handlers. In the span of a few weeks, I've really grown to love him. If it came down to Harden or Westbrook going forward, I think the Thunder will stick with Russ. He wants it, and he wants it with Durant, his big bro and number one fan. To me, there's a piece of Harden that screams, "I want my own team." He might get his wish.

I can't really explain why it is that I like this Thunder team -- I just do. I enjoyed Durant's performance his one year at Texas, and naturally, I was interested to see where he went in the pros. He and I are built similarly, and if there's anyone's game that I would want to have myself, it'd probably be his, but that certainly doesn't explain all of it. Once they moved and the prospect of a new team was out there, I paid more attention. They had a solid core, young guys, likeable guys. Westbrook was a pinball, Durant was the anchor. Keeping it steady. I was a fan of Harden at Arizona State (at least, until he laid a massive egg in the NCAA Tournament) and it was nice to see him go to OKC in the draft. And Nick Collison has truly become one of my favorite players in the league. He accepts who is he, and doesn't try to do any more. That's admirable. I've felt an affinity for this team for a while, and I was really pumped to see them get to the Finals. Unfortunately, once they got there, they ran into a team that was playing better.

The one thing everyone can agree on from this playoffs is that the Heat did it, and they did it without controversy. I understand Rose and Howard were injured -- but given their teams' performances without them, I hardly think they would have factored enough to take out Miami. And OKC got the short end of the stick on many questionable calls, but in my eyes, I don't think they did enough otherwise to warrant that gripe. There's no fix, there's no barking about preferential treatment. LeBron James was the best player of the playoffs, is the best player in the game, and he got himself a championship, thanks to an extremely productive supporting cast.

Not liking a team is not the same as hating on them. Last year, there was an abundance of undue venom spewed LeBron's way for how he played in the Finals. He underperformed, they lost, I think he probably felt bad enough about that. I didn't want to see them win last year, and I was happy for Dirk when the Mavs got it. I didn't want to see them win this year, and I'm pretty bummed for Durant and the rest of the Thunder that they fell short. LeBron deciding to bail on the Cavs and trying to do it with Wade in Miami left a bad taste in my mouth. I felt like it robbed us of seeing a potential legend in the making in a place nobody expected; he had a chance to make Cleveland his own. It didn't change his skills as a player, I just didn't like it. But dislike is different from disrespect. The Heat played superbly in the Finals, and throughout most of the playoffs. They got what they deserved.

#069 - Finals Game 3: MIA 91, OKC 85

Sometimes, there isn't a ton of in-depth analysis to be made on a sporting event. Sometimes, there aren't hidden stats that help to explain the bigger picture. Sometimes, everything that you believe you're seeing is reflected in the outcome of the game.

Game 3 was one of those times.

The Heat didn't play that great. Their offense seemed simple: they made layups and dunks and free throws, but nothing else. So, their poorest possessions came when they dribbled and dribbled and then shot a jumper. Their defense defense was just about the same: when they guarded tight, the Thunder rarely scored, and they came up with a lot of takeaways. So, their poorest possessions came when they didn't get around screens or jogged back in transition. It was pretty easy to see, as you were watching the game, that this was a team that wasn't firing on all cylinders.

The good news for the Heat? The Thunder were firing on less. A lot was said about the Thunder finally playing a strong first half, not falling into a double digit deficit. They played good, not great, weathering an early onslaught of Heat layups and forcing them to shoot some jumpers late. Durant seemed to have it going when he got space (the space was easier to be found when it wasn't LeBron guarding him) but nobody else was really playing well offensively.

It was the first time, maybe all playoffs, that I could truly say the Thunder under-performed. And it's a shame, because the game was there for the taking. They built a 10-point lead off of Derek Fisher's absurd three pointer-and-one play in the third quarter, you know, the one right after Durant got his fourth foul and went to the bench. Ten points! On the road! In Miami! And then after squandering that with an offensively futile lineup (Harden, Cook, Sefolosha, Collison, Fisher ... seriously, Brooks?) they managed to cut it back to 1 with 1:30 left following Sefolosha's steal and Westbrook's jumper. The game was there for the taking.

Unfortunately, they didn't take it.

The last 1:30 of the game highlighted all the problems for the Thunder that the previous three plays had tried to erase: they fouled the Heat, often times far from the basket, the Heat nailed (almost) all of their foul shots, Westbrook missed a wide open three pointer, Sefolosha threw away an inbound pass, and Durant failed to establish himself in a good position to catch the ball and get a shot off. You might expect to see a similar sequence in a mid-February game against a lesser opponent, but in the Finals, you can't survive when you play like that in the most crucial 1:30 of the season.

That being said, I believe there are some positives that the Thunder can potentially take advantage of going into Game 4. It's up to them, however.

One: when Durant is trying to get the ball when guarded by James in the fourth quarter, it seems like he struggles mightily when trying to post him up and play back to the basket. This is not a surprise. LeBron James is close to the strongest player in the league, and in this series, is certainly the strongest player on the court. He has regularly pushed Kendrick Perkins out of the paint without much difficulty. In my estimation, Durant has fared better against LeBron when he has the ball already in his hands and is facing him. What does this mean going forward? Honestly, start watching some tapes of Allen Iverson. Far too often, the Thunder offense consists of Westbrook dribbling out top while waiting for Durant to position himself at the elbow for an entry lob, typically when they run a screen play to switch Durant onto Westbrook's defender, or when running Durant around a pindown screen set by Sefolosha. All season, this has worked fine, and you don't like to change the strategies that got you to the Finals once you're there. But they didn't play the Heat all season. When you stick out your butt and start backing into a defender, you're inviting contact. The refs will allow the defender more freedom to push you back, knowing that it was because you initiated. If you catch a ball out top in space and face a defender, any contact from that point is likely going to be a foul (thanks to the rules instituted by the NBA a few years ago to re-ignite scoring). Since fouling out against Boston, I believe LeBron James has shown an aversion to fouling. He feels that he's too important to the team (and he's right). Additionally, he doesn't see the benefit to fouling Durant, a good free throw shooter. I'm not a professional coach, and I don't have the experience these guys have, but from watching the games, I think you HAVE to start considering running Durant off screens or finding some way for him to catch the ball with space. If he adds 25 pounds down the road, then he can start making more plays with his body.

Two: John Hollinger, finally, thankfully, mercifully posted an article on his blog that breaks down the effectiveness of the Thunder's small-ball (KD at the 4, three guards) lineup using each of their three big men (Perkins, Collison, Ibaka). The article is here: PER Diem Blog. (Note: it's an Insider, so if you're not an Insider, I apologize.) The summary? Perkins played a bunch of minutes with the small ball lineup in Game 3, and was not effective. Collison, likewise, wasn't either (though he gets a pass in my book for playing with the small lineup sans Durant and Westbrook, as mentioned above). Ibaka only got a few seconds. So Hollinger went through the stats of the season, and found all the scenarios where Perkins, Collison, and Ibaka played with the small ball lineup. The results? Perkins was +5.0 per 48 minutes regular season, +5.3 playoffs. Collison was +20.3 regular season, +13.1 playoffs. Ibaka was +19.1 regular season, +19.7 playoffs. Yes, +5.0 is good enough to win games. But the reality is, they're staring at a dominant lineup, and not using it. Ibaka sat the entire fourth quarter. Why? He's faster than Perkins, a better shooter, better finisher at the rim, and a better shot blocker. Perkins is rather plodding. He takes a long time to gather himself once he receives a pass, has far too often begun to dribble with the ball and subsequently turned it over (traveling, steal, offensive foul), and has negligible vertical lift. That's not his fault. He's a large man with a history of knee issues. I credit the effort that he gives night in and night out, but he spent the fourth quarter being responsible for Chris Bosh (Bosh entered with 9:40, Perkins entered with 5:58). From 5:58 on, Bosh had 4 rebounds, including 2 offensive. Perkins had 1. I know that's a small sample size, but Bosh is simply too quick and too long for Perkins. His more natural rival would be Ibaka. I spent the entire second half saying this, and felt vindicated when the numbers came out to support my hypothesis. Each of these games has come down to a tense fourth quarter, with the game able to be won by either side. Spoelstra has stuck with his guns, playing his five best players a majority of the late game minutes (James, Wade, Chalmers, Bosh, Battier). Scott Brooks, alternatively, has not--sticking instead with Perkins and Derek Fisher for major minutes. Though Fisher continues to make surprisingly big plays, I still want to see the lineup without him on the floor. I understand that substitutions throughout the game is about managing energy and matchups. But to me (and to about every coach from what I've seen) the last six or eight minutes of a close game are when you ignore a player's rest and concentrate on getting your best lineup on the floor. The Thunder's five best players are Ibaka, Durant, Westbrook, Harden (despite his performance so far) and Sefolosha. Hollinger, amazingly, indicates that they've used this lineup for a total of FOUR minutes this season, which is an appalling number. Certainly not all their games have been against opponents like the Heat or Spurs, who both use a combination of one big man and four guards/small forwards, but this lineup needs to find its way onto the court. I'd be willing to substitute Collison for Ibaka, even, as I think Collison has more polished defensive rotational skills and is a better screener offensively.


Miami Summary

Game MVPs:
-LeBron James (29 pts, 14 reb, 3 ast, clutch free throw shooting)
-Chris Bosh (poor shooting but always seemed to come up with the huge defensive plays and rebounds)

Unsustainable Positives:
-They made 16 more free throws than the Thunder. I don't expect this trend to continue.

Sustainable Positives:
-Bosh figuring out how to impact the game when he doesn't get touches. Here's a guy who I watched absolutely obliterate his team's chances against Chicago with a 1-for-18 shooting performance. Tonight he shot 3-for-12, but instead of forcing it, got key rebounds and blocks. This is a scary concept for OKC, who must counter with more of Ibaka on Bosh, who is simply too long and too quick for Perkins.
-LeBron James getting to the bucket. This is a running theme.

Unsustainable Negatives:
-Their outside shooting, while not good, is not as bad as this. They shot something like 12% from outside the paint.

Sustainable Negatives:
-OKC was letting Wade shoot jumpers. He was taking them, and missing them, for the most part. This is again a running theme.
-Chalmers and Norris Cole combined 1-for-10. Luckily this time, Chalmers only had one turnover.


Oklahoma City Summary

Game MVPs:
-Serge Ibaka, sadly (seemed to make a nice difference defensively when he was in, but only played 22 minutes)

Unsustainable Positives:
-Four point plays from Derek Fisher.
-Forced 9 Miami turnovers in the fourth quarter. This is insane, and they're probably the only team to ever do that and still lose.

Sustainable Positives:
-Durant had it going early, but that was about it. Need to find this more consistently throughout the game. Far too often, he's content with letting his teammates take over the offense, as he likes to encourage a supportive environment. When your back is against the ropes in the Finals, this needs to change.
-Until the fourth quarter, they were doing a great job keeping control of the ball. The shots weren't falling, but they were maintaining possession and not giving up easy ones.

Unsustainable Negatives:
-I want to say such poor free throw shooting, but I'm not positive. They haven't shot well yet this series.
-It's not likely Harden goes 2-for-10 again. Crossing my fingers.

Sustainable Negatives:
-They were significantly out rebounded, which is something that needs to change. With the small ball lineup, Harden, Westbrook, and Sefolosha have to make a serious effort to get on the glass.

#068 - Finals Game 1: OKC 105 MIA 94

The Thunder are getting a little too comfortable with this "comeback in the second half" business. After a subpar showing in the first half and some understandable first-Finals-game-ever jitters, they did what they've done the last three series and turned up the juice in the second, outscoring Miami 58-40 en route to capturing their first ever Finals victory.

Since I sat and watched the game tip to buzzer, I feel like there's not much to say that hasn't already been said, somewhere, by someone. The Heat jumped out on top by moving the ball (seriously, they were playing hot potato like you would have never thought from them) and drilling three pointer after three pointer early on. Chalmers got in the act, Battier was feeling the rejuvenation; it was kind of a scary thing to witness. As I told my buddy yesterday before the game, I am aware there's no way for the Thunder to truly stop LeBron. Only he can stop himself from getting what he wants, but if his teammates shoot 50%, it's going to be game over. In the first half, it seemed like his teammates were going substantially better than that, and it led to a 7 point halftime lead (which everyone agreed was far closer than it should have been).

In the third quarter, the Thunder got their act together. And it was a thing of beauty. I have to credit Brooks for recognizing what wasn't working early and fixing it late. He hasn't been the best at that, but two huge keys for OKC in the second half were Thabo Sefolosha and Nick Collison. Collison was ALWAYS around the screen when Miami tried to pick and roll. He always put himself between the ball and the basket, something which Perkins was struggling with in the first. And Sefolosha made Wade and LeBron work hard for every shot, every dribble. There's simply no way to quantify that contribution. His pokes led to numerous loose balls, forced shots as the shot clock was running out, and a serious amount of frustration for Wade.

Of course, the other part of the story is that Durant and Westbrook went into obliteration mode. Westbrook was an absolute demon for the Thunder, firing himself into the lane and dropping filthy lefty finger rolls all night. His springs are ridiculous. Whereas most human beings need to collect themselves to jump high into the air, Westbrook will be sprinting full speed and suddenly lift himself three feet off the ground. There's not a tougher guy to score on in transition than LeBron James, but even he looked like he was standing in cement a few times while Westbrook was gliding over him for two. I will still adamantly declare that any possession where he dribbles, dribbles, doesn't pass, and then pulls a jumpshot (especially three pointer) is a terrible possession, but you can't deny his impact on the game last night.

Then there's Durant. He scored a cool and quiet 36 points (read TrueHoop's take here). Seriously, if you watched the game, you would have likely thought Westbrook outscored him. Instead, Durant had 9 more points than Russell's 27. He forced one bad shot (the turn around jumper in the corner, I think he was trying to draw a foul) that made you think, "Ahh, too aggressive," but otherwise, his points just steadily piled up, playing the tortoise to Westbrook's hare, casually draining open jumpers and right handed scoop shots. Sometimes I think he might have a medical condition that makes him immune to high pressure situations. I'm not even joking about this. Anyone in their right mind would have panicked about being cut up by the Heat at the start of their first Finals game ever. LeBron James is rightly terrifying, and it didn't seem like he was doing his worst damage early on. But the Thunder went into halftime, feeling a little momentum from the end of the half, and they probably all looked towards Durant, team leader, team hitman, and saw how calm and unconcerned he was. It's exactly the attitude I expected every game from the San Antonio Spurs: "We don't care how much we're down, what the series score is, who is playing well for the other team. We've got this. And if we don't get this, we'll get the next one." Somewhere around Game 4 of the WCF, the Thunder stole that confidence from the Spurs. You'd never be able to convince me it wasn't Durant's doing. And that's why they're sitting with a 1-0 lead in the Finals.


Miami Summary

Game MVPs:
-LeBron James (30 pts, 9 reb, 4 ast, 4 stl)
-Shane Battier's first half (13 pts, 3/3 3FG)

Unsustainable Positives:
-The lights out shooting to start. I know these are professional guys and I know Miami built its team to be outside shooters surround LeBron and Wade, but two seasons worth of evidence is enough to discount one hot half. Especially from Chalmers.
-Starting the game with an 11-to-1 assist to turnover ratio. Everything was working for them early, and that's a common theme, but as the series gets more tense and the need for LeBron to exert his power grows, those assist numbers will drop.
-42 minutes for Wade and Battier. There's talk that Wade is injured, and maybe it's true, or maybe all of the unnecessary flying to the ground is catching up to him (sorry, cheap shot). They needed to play because it seemed like Miami could steal Game 1 on the road. Now that they didn't, you wonder if the minutes are going to slow them down in Game 2 (or further).

Sustainable Positives:
-LeBron getting to the hoop. This is not new, this is exactly what everyone has been saying about him for years and years. If he has a head of steam, there's never been anyone to compare to him (and I include Jordan, it's simply a matter of the physics of LeBron's weight).
-Ball movement. Like the Thunder, the Heat are almost unstoppable front-runners. Wade and LeBron are zipping the ball back and forth setting each other up for layups and dunks. When they're trailing, the offense goes stagnant.

Unsustainable Negatives:
-Wade shot 7-19. This is growing closer to a sustainable one as his effectiveness wanes. But he's going to have a game or two where it's all him.
-Bosh was 4-11 and a -16 +/-. He's a better player than that, no matter how much I like to see him fail.

Sustainable Negatives:
-All the missed jumpers in the second half. Wade has always had an issue with the jump shot. He came into the league without one, had one for a little while when everyone was terrified of him getting to the rim, and now it seems like it's fading on him. Instead, he's much more content with pump faking and trying to draw the lean-in foul every time he gets the ball. I'm growing very tired of his referee baiting. He's going to start looking like Derek Fisher soon.


Oklahoma City Summary

Game MVPs:
Russell Westbrook (27 pts, 8 reb, 11 ast, 2 to)
Thabo Sefolosha (9 pts, 2 stl, 1 blk, best on-ball defense in the game)
*Obviously there's a pull to include Durant. But for me, he could have had that game in a win or a loss. Westbrook rebounding from his poor start was a huge difference maker in the second half.

Unsustainable Positives:
-Westbrook had 11 assists and only 2 turnovers. That's very unusual for him. I think the Thunder could really use Eric Maynor's true point guard skill set off the bench.
-Team shooting. As a team, they shot 52%. Just not likely to continue against the Heat's defense, though they didn't really make too many shots I expected them to miss.

Sustainable Positives:
-Westbrook getting to the hoop. When he sits and watches his own game film, he HAS to see how effective he is when he's at the rim, and how ineffective he is taking long jumpers, right?
-Sefolosha's defense. They showed that he had 9 minutes in the first half. Perhaps it was a move to save his legs for the second, but I was significantly worried about the fact that the Thunder took Game 6 against the Spurs without a contribution from Thabo. Brooks needs to know that he needs to be on the court. And at this point, I much prefer his defense to be on James than Wade.

Unsustainable Negatives:
-They only got one really good 8 minute stretch from Ibaka and one buzzer beating jumper from Harden. I think Ibaka is going to make a much bigger impact defending the paint coming up. He had 0 blocks, which means he's due for like 6 in the next game. And Harden seems to be a guy who doesn't mind not getting his. He thinks, "It's no big deal. I'm gonna have my game. Just watch."
-They shot worse from three point (29%) and the free throw line (74%) than Miami (42%, 78%). That's just not going to continue.

Sustainable Negatives:
-Perkins had two turnovers. As many as Westbrook, on maybe 1/40th the number of touches. Don't pass him the ball if he's more than 8 feet from the basket. Seriously.

#067 - Thunder, Thunder, Thunder

The Oklahoma City Thunder's Game 6 victory over the San Antonio Spurs -- to vault them into the NBA Finals for the first time (usually what people say when they might expect a second, third, etc.) -- seemed like a transcendent moment. For a lot of reasons. A passing of the torch, a coming of age, the realization of potential. Whichever you want to call it. Here was a team that only four games earlier had been dangling over the edge, facing a 2-0 deficit against an absolute steamroller of a Spurs team that had won 20 consecutive games, almost all of them by a hefty margin. The Thunder were only days away from defeat, a second straight Western Conference Finals disappointment against a more experienced team. Only, nobody would have called it a collapse, like they would have with the Heat, or the Lakers. It would have been, tip your cap to the opponent, and OKC give yourselves a hearty round of applause for a fantastic season. In a lot of ways, they were just too young to be expected to win. Not when faced with the Spurs, a team that was not only in that moment playing viciously efficient basketball, but that also had years and years of playoff experience and countless combined championship rings to lean on. Not when led by the effervescent Kevin Durant, a happy go lucky 23 year old who glides through (the almost non-existent) criticism just like he glides through opposing defenses. There was not the weight of those expectations. The OKC fans were so great, they'd give a standing ovation no matter what the outcome. There was no chance they would let anyone down. They're a young team, fun to watch, fun to root for, but their championships were still future commodities. It'll happen some day.


Of course they took care of business at home in Game 3. San Antonio was gassed. They had won 20 straight but out-hustling, out-passing, and out-shooting their opponents. Every break was going their way, which was a striking blow to any naysayer who professes that you can't engineer your own luck. The Spurs were engineered. Well-oiled. But a little old. The Thunder rolled them in Game 3, a result the Spurs seemed somewhat resigned to, knowing, "Nobody goes undefeated." But Game 4 was an intriguing experience. The Spurs themselves got out-Spurs-ed. OKC swung the ball around freely, happily, letting role players get buckets and keeping the pressure off of the key guys. Whenever San Antonio made a run, the Thunder let them come, took a deep breath, and carried on. It's not that OKC's not prone to panic basketball. It happened many times in Games 1 and 2. Russell Westbrook, as electrifying as he is, is far too prone to one-man possessions. No passes, too many crossovers, and a wild pull up jumpshot that clangs off the rim. Kevin Durant, oddly enough, seems to transform into a wild passer when he plays panicky. Instead of forcing bad shots, which he almost never does, he'll leap into the air without knowing his destination, and then try to force a backdoor pass to brick-handed Kendrick Perkins, or a cross-court floater through three defenders. The Spurs were poise on poise, and were certain to take advantage of the Thunder's youthful miscues. Only they didn't. They took each blow and regrouped. They got the ball into the hands of their best playmaker (and without question one of the three guys in the NBA who should at least TOUCH the ball on every crunch time possession). Durant buried jumper after jumper. For a guy who's thin frame makes it look like he's exerting his last breath just to come around a screen or post a defender up, those jumpshots could have been made in his sleep. They're effortless. His arms are so long, it looks like the ball's halfway to the basket by the time he lets it go. That level of grace is addicting. Michael Jordan was a superstar in the late 80s, when he was a dunk machine, throwing down at every opportunity. But he became a legend in the mid 90s with a smooth stroke an a supernatural vision for weaving through traffic. Not that I'm here comparing Durant to Jordan, because I think they are wildly different, but whereas Lebron James represents the power (I'm not sure there has EVER been a one-on-five full-steam-ahead force like him, and I'm not just being superlative) then Durant most certainly represents the grace. His shots are just so damned pretty -- not necessarily his mechanics, but most importantly the splash of the net. Just watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtHq9RFQeqc

As it was, winning two games at home didn't necessarily cement that they were playing for a title. Being the lower seed, it was a requirement to win on the road to reach the Finals. And the Game 5 victory was one of the most impressive I've ever seen. Like Game 4, the Thunder spent most of the middle of the game with a lead, only to see San Antonio claw their way back in with an aggressive second half start. It was a true test. On the road, having surrendered a 13 point lead in what seemed like only seconds, it required a second-level leap in composure that I wasn't sure the Thunder had. They had won crucial road games in Dallas and Los Angeles, coming back from double digit fourth quarter deficits each time, but neither of those games had a Finals trip hanging in the balance. Both the Thunder and the Spurs had taken prizefight level swings at each other, and the game had basically reset itself, with only 15 minutes to play. OKC went back to a tried and true formula -- get the ball into Durant's hands. He was a calming presence, and Westbrook and Harden followed suit. I was really shocked at how they had done it, not just the fact of beating San Antonio on the road in Game 5 with the series at stake, but the fact that this young team (that had missed out on so many game closing opportunities last year versus Dallas) was able to collect themselves after squandering a sizeable lead like that against championship level competition. I understand the Thunder have as much (or more) talent when compared with any other team in the league, but talent's not everything. While I wanted them to be able to pull it off, I also knew that San Antonio could make adjustments better than anyone, and just when you thought they were down, they could stun you. In Game 6, they almost proved me right, coming out on fire, dropping every three pointer they could find into the bucket and racing to an 18 point lead. I can think of a bunch of arenas around the league where this would have been a death sentence -- Los Angeles, Miami, Philadelphia. It's a huge credit to the fans of OKC that the Thunder hung around in that game. They didn't give up. Maybe they knew something about this team that few others did. Maybe they had just seen this before and knew they had to play their part to get the guys back on track. They kept cheering, and the Thunder, like all championship teams must at some point, simply weathered the storm. They didn't panic. Scott Brooks, to his credit, didn't send out new rotations trying to spark a comeback. He trusted his guys. If it had been the regular season, the game probably would have been a throwaway. Beaten by a better team that was on fire. But they came back. Durant played a game that was out of this world. The first three quarters were three of the best quarters of basketball I'd seen in five years. I was watching the two best teams in the NBA trade buckets with each other, each one more devastating than the last. Then the game slowed, and got a little uglier. With five minutes left, the Thunder were up by 2 and both teams were staring a trip to the Finals in the face. Sure, OKC was great at front running. They could build on leads like no other team in the league, especially when their jumpshooters were heating up. But how would they respond to grit and nails? It just impressed me so much that they were able to close that game out. Everyone kept saying, "The close out is the hardest game, the close out is the hardest game." True, it probably was. Based on competition and circumstance, the Thunder's performance in Game 5 and Game 6 were likely the two best games any team played this season (and likewise, Lebron James's Game 6 was maybe the best game any player played all season). OKC stared down the barrel of a series defeat, and they came down on top.

Of course, Kevin Durant hugged his mom.

For my taste, there was a little too much elation after their Game 6 victory. I understand the league schedules a trophy celebration, and they give out hats, and the confetti sprays. But really, the season is not over. Despite having trumped the Spurs, who were seen by many as the best team in the game (rightfully so), there's still another team to face, and no matter who it is, they're not going to be a slouch. The Thunder have almost no answer for Lebron James. Who can guard him one-on-one? I realize that's a silly question to ask even about any team, since there is no physical match for him. But I mean, who is it that will actually take the task? It couldn't possibly be Durant, who simply does not have the strength for it. Ibaka? I would assume he's too big, and doesn't have the required footwork. That leaves Sefolosha and Harden. Sefolosha might be a more natural fit for Wade, but I think circumstances require Lebron. Only, Brooks has gotten into the bad habit of not playing Sefolosha at the end of games, oddly going with his "veteran's choice" lineup of Fisher, Westbrook, Durant, Harden and either Perkins or Ibaka. I would hope that he'd have enough time over this small break to realize that he'll need Sefolosha out there for significant minutes, whether it's against Lebron and Miami or Pierce and the Celtics.

The interesting thing at this moment is that not very many people are raising these concerns. As is what usually happens with the surprising "too young, too early" teams (like Lebron's Cavs team that the Spurs swept), onlookers are ready to congratulate the team for their accomplishments before the season has even concluded. There are articles posted about "Thunder Dynasty?" when really they have yet to win even one game in the Finals, let alone four in one season. It's fun to think about, and Vegas will tell you they are the odds-on favorite no matter who the opponent, but their job is not over. The resolve this team showed in Games 5 and 6 against the Spurs speaks to a group of guys that is not satisfied with merely pleasing everyone. They might be the second-least criticized team in the league (I would argue only the Spurs are less, as the only complaint most people raise is that they're old), but winning your conference doesn't guarantee a championship. Look at Miami last year. They've got work to do. And I'm pretty damned excited to see the results.

#066 - NFL Season Recap

It's hard to believe that the NFL season has already come and gone. Sure, the playoffs are here and I'm as excited as anyone for the playoffs, but the regular season in the NFL is the most salient regular season in all of pro sports. There are so many opportunities for fan interaction with the game, and you can't pitch a stone without hitting someone who follows the game. I'm a prime example of this, as I take part in numerous activities that are closely linked with the NFL season. Here's a recap of how they went this year.

1) Weekly Confidence Pool

12 people, $45 entry

I had a relatively poor start to my weekly confidence pool, which involves picking the winners of every game each week and ranking them with a point value 1-16. I ended up winning the pool on two separate weeks, earning $30 each time, but fell short of the overall season championship. I came in second, 21 points behind the winner, my dear friend and personal hero, James Moran. Still, +$15 on the season isn't bad, especially for a $45 entry. There are a possible 2282 points in the game (17 weeks, 136 pts per week, less 30 for byes) and I scored a final total of 1658 (72.7%). Honestly, I don't know what this means. But I'm recapping the results, and that is a result, so there it is.

2) ESPN.com Fantasy Football

2 leagues, 10 teams each; one free, one $50 entry

I ended up with first overall pick in both of my leagues. Sure, I should have taken Rob Gronkowski or LeSean McCoy, but could you blame me for going with Adrian Peterson? Considering how the year went, it was not good news that both of my teams were built around Peterson and Philip Rivers. On draft day, I couldn't have been happier. Today, I'm a little disappointed. Still, I managed fairly solid seasons, making the playoffs in both leagues (though I honestly stopped paying attention to the free league, an unfortunate side effect of not having prize money to play for). In the pay league, I waded through debilitating injuries to Peterson, Fred Jackson, and Miles Austin (who played maybe two games as the Miles Austin I expected), while Beanie Wells was habitually questionable and Rivers simply stunk up the joint. I squeaked out a third-place finish, though, thanks to ridiculous performances by Matthew Stafford, Jordy Nelson, CJ Spiller, and Aaron Hernandez. This earned me my entry fee back, so the league was a wash.

3) ESPN.com Pigskin Pick'em (Against the Spread)

Free entry, no prizes

This is perhaps the best free, prizeless contest you can participate in, because it's simple to enter and gauges your performance against tens of thousands of other contestants. ESPN.com also always enters its spreads with half-point values to eliminated the possibility of pushes, which is nice and simplifies the results. However, this results in better-than-expected performance against the spread, as there is typically an extra half-point of value added in to the side you want. I bounced around the top 1% of entries for most of the year, and finished ranked #506 overall. I'd guess there are about 75,000 entries who picked all the games, with probably 75,000 more that gave up for portions of the season. The overall winner had 160 correct, for a record of 160-96 (62.5%), pretty remarkable for an entire season. To put that in perspective, this person would have won 19 cents for every dollar they bet, had they placed a bet on every game (assuming odds of -110). My final record was 146-110, 14 off the pace of the leader, good for a win percentage of 57.0%. If I had been able to bet on these spreads every game, I would have made 9 cents for every dollar I bet. If I had bet $20 per game on every game across the season, that would result in a $460 profit. Not bad, considering you need to start with at least $320 before Week 1 to do that. However, you normally can't

4) Hilton Supercontest (Against the Spread)

Free; just tracked picks

I didn't actually ENTER the Hilton Supercontest (contest explained here) because it costs $1500 and requires contestants to turn in their picks IN PERSON to the Las Vegas Hilton (or what was the Las Vegas Hilton) every Saturday, but I did follow along, using the pool provided spreads and making my own picks. You need to pick 5 games every week from the list provided by the casino, and the eventual winner took home over $300,000 this year. The winner, a group by the handle Sans Souci, went 58-22-5 (72.5%), for a sick 60.5 points (pushes are worth 1/2). Using the comparison from above, they would have won 36 cents for each dollar they bet over the course of the season. If they had taken the $1500 they needed for the entry and bet it on 5 games a week, $300 per game, they would have profited $9180 for the season. Instead, they entered the pool and walked home with $300,000. They are smart (and lucky) dudes. My picks were not as good. For the season, I finished 48-36-1 (57.1%) for 48.5 pool points, good enough for 56th place had I entered the pool. Only the top 20 places get paid. Again, this would have netted me 9 cents for every dollar bet. So if I had just used the $1500 entry fee and put it towards 5 games a week at $300 per game, I would have made $2295, instead of losing the entire fee by not finishing in the top 20. Food for thought. Considering I started off the year 5-10-0, I'll take that finish, as I went 43-26-1 the rest of the way (62.3%).

5) Cash Money

Lots of cash in; lots of cash out

It's kind of sad. I went back and looked at my performance in past years in the "put your money where your mouth is" department, and it was pretty awful. I know the cliche is 99% of sports bettors lose money (which is funny because you never meet anyone who has ever lost money) but I will fully admit I was one of those 99% for the last three years. As well as I could do in the contests, I just made bad decisions when it came to real money, and would often wager on things I had no real knowledge of, like college football and Italian soccer. I firmly believe you can't be successful by passively following something, which is how I deal with college football. I like it, I can talk it, but in the past, I felt like the money I was making with NFL bets I was throwing away on college. So I decided to scrap it. The NFL is my primary interest, and that's what I wanted to focus on. So this year, I went for that. And the results were much better.

5a) Preseason Bets (from here)

Losses: 144, Wins: 180.99, Net: +36.99

Losses
-Cincinnati Under 5.5 Wins; 50 for 40
Yikes. This was nowhere close. But, they had an offense full of rookies and a defense that let go of its top cornerback. How was I to know they'd do so well? Oh, maybe because their schedule was very easy.
-Detroit Under 7.5 Wins; 25 for 28.75
Well, I was taking a chance. I knew everyone was all over the Detroit bandwagon. But Stafford and Calvin Johnson played every game, which was the first time in basically ever. And they had those three crazy comebacks early in the year. Without those, where do they finish?
-Pittsburgh Under 10.5 Wins; 25 for 25
It was even odds, their defense is sliding over the hill, and I expected something of a Super Bowl losing hangover. None of it happened. Also, their finishing schedule was insanely easy. That hurt.
-St. Louis Over 7.5 Wins; 25 for 25
I thought either San Francisco or St. Louis was going to win the West this year. I bet on the wrong one.
-Jamaal Charles Rush Title; 4 for 40
10-to-1 odds on Charles didn't seem bad, since he was going to have a bigger role in the offense this year. Of course, that bigger role led to his season ending injury. Oh well.
-Philip Rivers MVP; 15 for 150
Damn him. I mean, given how Rodgers and Brees played, I'm not sure Rivers would have won MVP even if he played safety and returned kicks. But he played poorly most of the year, primarily early on and during a crushing loss at Detroit to end their playoff hopes. I think he might have been injured.

Wins
-Indianapolis Under 9.5 Wins; 50 for 52.50
What a charm. Had this wrapped up in Week 9. The only regret I have is not going stronger on it.
-Green Bay Over 11.5 Wins; 25 for 28.75
Given the better-than-even odds for this, I'm disappointed I didn't bet it more heavily.
-New England Over 11.5 Wins; 25 for 21.74
They had to lose to the Giants to momentarily put this bet in doubt. But an easy finishing schedule brought it home, no problem
-Philadelphia Under 10.5 Wins; 25 for 30
Insanely good odds on this. It was part emotional hedge, part smart play. I'm an Eagles fan. I know we don't do well with immense expectations, and I also know we don't do well with a quarterback writhing on the ground. Both played a factor this year.
-Maurice Jones Drew Rush Title; 4 for 48
12-to-1 odds on MJD. Seemed like a decent call. His only real competition was McCoy, but the factors supporting MJD are easy: he's durable, and he's about the only good thing on that offense.

5b) Weekly Bets

I went ahead and logged all of my weekly bets this year, something that I think will be good as I move forward next year. I started the year off quite rough, skipping Week 1 altogether and then only winning ONE bet during Week 2. From there, though, things went well. Between Week 6 and Week 17, I had 8 winning weeks and only 4 losing weeks, culminating with a monster 96% return during Week 17.

Overall, ATS picks were okay. I was 92-81-9 ATS which turned out to a -6.00 loss. However, starting with Week 6, when I switched sports books, I was 68-56-6 for +202.00. THAT'S what I need to keep going with heading into next year.

I only placed a few ML bets during the year, but they were the best of what I did. I was 4-1 for +124.85.

Totals were pretty pointless. I was 7-7, and lost -2.00.

Parlays were my worst enemy for the year. And I gave up on them after Week 10. I placed 13 parlays during the year, won 2, and lost -171.94 on them. Yikes.

Turns out that teasers were my favorite utility that I had--but instead of betting atrocious 3-team, 10-point teasers like I have in years past, I stuck primarily to 3-team, 6.5-point teasers this year. The payouts are much better, and if you pick selectively, you can turn quite a profit. I was 27-26 on all teasers, which is not the greatest percentage, but it turned a +563.00 profit. That's the advantage of betting something that has better-than-even odds. You can go .500 and still win. The 3-team, 10-pointers are -110, which means if you bet 4 and win 2, you're losing money. Maybe teasers are still a sucker's bet, but I'm focusing on doing them properly--which is to move numbers across as many key values as possible. Instead of teasing something from -14 to -7, look for more opportunities to turn +2.5 into +9.5. (Ending on a half-number with teasers are important. A push is a loss, so having +10 is no better than having +9.5. It's the same result.)

Some of the things I need to be careful with next year are forcing things where they don't belong. That is, if it's Sunday night and I want to run one more bet before the end of the week, I'll sometimes pick a 3-team tease for the Sunday and Monday night game and throw in a total on one of them. This is not a good strategy. Good strategy is to find value in the market, not to bet just for the sake of betting (even though it's fun to do and hard to stop). Another problem I ran into a couple times was having too much dependent upon one team. If you make three or four bets and include the Falcons in every one of them, well, you better hope the Falcons pull through. I was pretty good about this all year, but fell into the trap this past weekend during the playoffs, when I was heavy on the Saints/Lions Under. Look how that turned out.

#065 - My Father's Day

"And I just tell people, 'Well, Bob's his best friend.'" -- my mom, about my relationship with my dad, some number of years ago.

I can't really deny that claim. And I have no desire to, either. And it's not for the reason of wanting to be particularly sentimental or cheesy, not to appeal to some unidentified subset of readers who will admire me more if I say that I love my dad. And it's also not because I didn't have friends when I was 12 years old. I had plenty of friends. I'm sure I had more friends then than I do now, and they were great friends. But while the quote above captures a moment in my life that has passed, the emotion associated with has not.

I am quite blessed. I have never looked at anyone else's parents and thought to myself, "Darn, I wish I had that." And even if I did, I can assure you, it was a fleeting thought and at the time I was likely angry and stupid. The motto of the classical American parent is, "Give my children something better than I had." I was lucky enough to have parents who embraced that concept. I wanted plenty of things (I was a kid in the 90s) but I was never in need. And while I'm sure at the time I was heavily focused on material possessions, I know now that the most valuable gift I received as a kid was time. My parents loved me, and they loved my sisters, and I'm not embarrassed to admit it now just as they weren't embarrassed to show it then.

My parents are no longer together, and they haven't been for ten years, but I don't consider that to be any sort of misfortune to me. Rather, I was fortunate enough to have two sane, capable, caring parents who wanted to be a part of my life and wanted me to be happy. When they went separate ways, all I wanted for them was to be happy. And I think that they've found it. I couldn't be happier for them. I'm well aware that writing a piece dedicated to my dad might come off as being ignorant towards my mother, but I certainly hope that's not the case. She's an incredibly important part of my life and I would never go back and change a thing about her. I was proud to walk her down the aisle recently when she was re-married, just as I hope she was proud to have me by her side.

I just feel that, in evaluating my life, I don't give enough credit to the influence that my dad has had over me. I firmly believe that people have the ability to choose what they ultimately want in life--that coming from a rough childhood, while certainly difficult, does not necessarily resign you to having a rough adulthood. That having conservative parents doesn't necessarily mean that you will (or won't) be conservative yourself. I know that it's not my dad's fault or his lone doing that I am who I am now, but as I grew older and became more aware of how I was affecting those around me, I'm very thankful that I had a wonderful example in front of me to work off of.

When I was a kid, I had two dominant areas of recreation: my bedroom with my ninja turtles, and my back yard. I'm something of a universal sports fan and won't immediately reject any game. I played soccer, baseball, basketball, tennis, enjoyed throwing the football around (though never strapped on a helmet), and riding bikes. The one constant throughout all of this? My dad. He was my teammate, my coach, my competitor. He never steered me away from anything or pushed me towards anything else. If I wanted to play a sport, that was great. If I didn't want to, that was great also. People look at my height and might think, "Wow, you're so tall, how come your parents didn't get you into basketball?" It's not like it wasn't an option; the bottom line is, and my dad will tell you this, at the time I just wasn't that into it. I loved shooting in the driveway, but that was the extent of it. Soccer was more fun for me. Baseball was more fun for me. And no matter how many times he had to drive me to the field and pitch me batting practice, no matter how many gloves I lost, no matter how much I beat the crap out of our siding playing wiffle ball, no matter how many times I kicked a soccer ball straight at his brand new prescription sunglasses, he never turned me down. He's a pretty athletic guy himself, and always has been, but playing sports with kids doesn't require just athletic ability. The primary requirement is patience. I was fickle and easily frustrated. I wanted to be good by just walking out there and being good, and when it didn't work out, I'd get pissy. I didn't really have that extra work ethic. But rather than stand there and berate me about what it takes to be a champion, my dad just gave it to me straight: "Hey, if you want to be better, you're going to have to work. And if you want me to help you, I will." How awesome is that? Trust me, a lot of times when I was frustrated, my first answer was, "No, I DON'T want you to help me." And sure enough, two days later, I'd peek my head into the office, "So, you want to toss me some BP?" I never apologized to him for being a brat about it, which is certainly something I regret now, but he never left me hanging. It's just not in him.

It wasn't just that he looked out for me in all of this. My dad was almost always involved. Soccer coach? Baseball coach? Almost every year, whether it be head coach or helping out. And he didn't just do it so that he could get me playing time. He was fair about it. And incredibly encouraging for the other kids. He was definitely not the guy you'd see chewing kids out on the sidelines. Never. I think he had a great sense of perspective when it came to that. When you're 10, 11, 12 years old, you want to feel good about the things you're doing right. He would always do that. Even for the kids who were struggling. And it wasn't just to save face in front of other parents. Sure, he had to deal with so-and-so's dad complaining about his son's playing time. It's the downside of the job--you know, the unpaid job he's volunteering his free time for. He just liked to be a part of it. He didn't care if kids were slow or uncoordinated. It was a very common thing for me to hear on the way home: "Man, that kid is always out of position and is going to give me a heart attack one day," he'd say, running his hand through his hair and shaking his head, "but I love that kid. He's a little fireball, isn't he?" Nobody likes to lose, but even more than that, I think the last thing my dad would have wanted is to be coaching a team of jerks. Don't be dirty. Don't be a dick. It's something that I carry with me today. We're out here to have fun, to enjoy the game. Nobody's getting paid.

Alongside of this, my dad was a big contributor in Scouting. I was a Boy Scout throughout middle school and high school, even though it was something I viewed as uncool and didn't want to admit it to people. But the experiences I had in it, I wouldn't replace. And more often than not, my dad was a factor in that. When I started out with the troop I was in, he would come along and help out as needed. After a couple of years, he took over as scoutmaster, lovingly called "Koach" by my friends. And he devoted himself to it. Even with all of the other things he was doing--taking care of the house, preparing for his three children to go to college, doing numerous bike rides, regularly giving blood, helping out his parents at the drop of a hat, attending all of my and my sisters' activities--he put forth a ton of time dedicated to Scouting. It's not just showing up to the meetings and going on trips. Planning the trips, board meetings, leadership meetings, e-mails, phone calls, district council meetings, fundraising, the list goes on and on. But the most important thing he did throughout all of it was to get to know the kids. And this might be a recurring theme, but, especially the ones who were struggling. I was a teenager then, I knew what it was like to look at other kids and think they were weird and not want to talk to them. But my dad didn't believe in that. Sure, he knew just as well as I did that some kids were just assholes and wanted to be a pain. But the kids who were a little bit awkward, a little bit slow, the ones who not many other people paid attention to, those were the kids he gave the most encouragement to. I feel ashamed of myself now for not appreciating that more. But in a lot of ways I think that comes out in how I view people today. I'm not saying I'm a saint and I know for sure I don't have the patience that he does, but I do think that everyone needs at least a chance. And I don't think it's a coincidence that it's a character trait that I admire in him.

He gave and gave and gave to that organization, long after he stepped down, long after I left and moved on, and I think that's symbolic of his attitude in general. They thanked him in a number of ways, but I'm not sure that there's enough thanks around for what he did. And that's okay with him. I think he appreciates being thanked, just as anyone would, but I know that he looks back on his time with scouting and he looks at the kids who came through the program under him, and knowing that they succeeded is the one thing he really wants out of it. That's wonderful. And that's selfless. He does a lot of things for others--much more so than I could ever conceive of doing--and often times without batting an eyelash. I'm pretty sure that my sister would agree that he's been quite indispensable in helping her with her first home. And my grandfather might be buried in an overgrown jungle if it wasn't for my dad always checking in on him. And I'd probably be stuck on the side of the road in the middle of the night, as I have been a few times, helpless and hopeless if it wasn't for him. He's generous more than anything. But he's also funny, has a sense of humor about himself, and appreciates a good time. He's incredibly respectful towards women, which is a trait that I can't thank him enough for teaching me. And he's a smart dude. In fact, if you're reading this and know of a position available for a trustworthy guy with decades of experience in engineering sales, let me know, as I couldn't think of a person more qualified or worthy of a job opportunity.

Just this past summer, a close friend of mine who was part of scouting with me, and whose opinion I greatly respect, told me something that made me kind of emotional. He basically told me that, even though his dad is a great guy and has always been there for him, he thought he always viewed my dad as a secondary father figure. Not a replacement, just someone else he could look up to and respect in the same way. It was kind of mind-blowing to me, not that it surprised me, but it was just kind of touching. That someone who had a great pair of parents himself could turn to me and tell me how much he appreciated everything that my dad did for him was just a sign to me that I don't think I give him enough credit for what he does. I may not see him every day or every week like I used to, and I know for sure I don't answer his messages as frequently as he would like me to (I'm still a work in progress), but he's still the most important part of who I am as a person. He's still the first person I call when I do something I'm excited about, or I'm nervous about, or if I need directions no matter where I am (seriously, he's a human GPS). He's the strongest man I know, even if he isn't the world's most stereotypical "manly man tough guy". But I'm okay with that. I like how I turned out. And maybe if it had been different, I wouldn't have been able to take this time to tell him how much I love him.

Happy Birthday, Dad. I'm glad to have you as my best friend.

#064 - Singin' the Bronco Blues

Let's cut to the chase: I'm a fan of the Boise State football team. And like many of their fans nationally, I can pinpoint the moment I became one as the Fiesta Bowl game against Oklahoma in 2007. Already an undefeated team NOT playing for the national championship, Boise was a significant underdog against the perennial power Sooners, thus cementing the "people think we're frauds" stigma. They proceeded to work the Sooners, using their undersized players to execute their exciting offense to a T. Then, of course, the Sooners stormed back late and everyone turned to look at the clock on Cinderella. Only, they weren't done. And the last 2 minutes of regulation and the overtime session were the most exciting minutes of college football I had seen. 3 touchdowns in regulation (including what appeared to be a back breaking pick six for Oklahoma), and 2 more in the 2 overtime drives. The Broncos pulled out all the stops. Hook n Ladders, Statue of Liberty, marriage proposals... it was a thing of beauty.

Only it seems people have been constantly debating their legitimacy ever since.

Look, I'll be the first to tell you, they didn't deserve to be in the national championship game last season. Why? Because they lost. It's that simple. Oregon and Auburn were undefeated. It was an easy decision. Do I think Boise would have given those teams a run for their money on any field at any point? Yes. But, they lost. There's no debate anymore. Now, do I find it ridiculous that critics are pointing at their loss to Nevada as a reason why they are no longer deserving of being in the discussion? Yes. It's absolutely insane. Nevada was a hell of a team last year. 13-1 (with their only loss coming in Hawaii, consistently a difficult game for them) with wins over Cal, BYU, and Boston College. Sure, not the greatest teams. But high profile. Their offense was chock full of seniors jacked up to play in the biggest game of their lives, including stud quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who was drafted in the second round this year (you know, like well ahead of Alabama's QB or Ohio State's QB). Nevada played a great second half to come back from a big deficit and, unfortunately, all time Boise great Kyle Brotzman missed two gimme field goals in the waning minutes that sealed (but were not the sole causes for) the defeat.

They lost a game. It happens. Just not very often. In their last 41 games, Boise State has lost precisely 2 times. And dating back to 2006, the same year it eventually beat Oklahoma in the BCS, Boise is 62-5. That's an insane record. And critics will argue it's easy to do when your schedule is chock full of creampuffs (oh, is that so, Michigan?), but at the very least, Boise hasn't in that stretch lost to a team that wasn't damned good on its own. Let's take a look at the notable games, including listing all the power conference teams that weren't too scared to play them.

2011 (1-0 so far):

Game 1: Opened at Georgia (SEC). Whoops, I mean, VERSUS Georgia on a neutral field (that just happened to be in Atlanta, GA, you know, equidistant from Athens, GA and Idaho). Georgia was ranked #19. Boise was ranked #5. Boise worked them. Like, badly. They rebounded from a 80 yard touchdown run by a Georgia cornerback and took a 28-7 lead. It was over. They won 35-21. After the game, Kellen Moore said he was confused at why so many people were there to watch him play in 7-on-7 drills. It remains to be seen how good Georgia will be the rest of the year, but just remember how everyone was talking about how good Georgia QB Aaron Murray is going into this game.

2010 (12-1):

Game 1: Opened at Virginia Tech (ACC). Whoops, I mean, VERSUS Virginia Tech on a neutral field (that just happened to be in Washington, DC/Landover, MD, you know, equidistant from Virginia and Idaho). Va Tech was ranked #6. Boise was ranked #5. Boise won 33-30, including an icy cold touchdown drive by Moore in the last two minutes. The next week, Va Tech pooped the bed against James Madison and completely deflated Boise's sails. But what could they do? They scheduled a team that everyone thought was going to be awesome. It's not their fault VT had another game in only 5 days. VT stepped it up from there on, winning every remaining game and taking the ACC Championship and invitation to the BCS. So not only did they lose to Boise, but they lost to an FCS school and STILL made it to the BCS instead of the Broncos.

Game 3: Home vs Oregon State (PAC-10). They're common opponents, and unfortunately for Oregon State, Boise is the common victor. Like in this game, 37-24. Oregon State was largely unimpressive for the rest of the season, but they did beat Arizona and smoked USC.

Game 11: At Nevada (WAC). I covered this game above. Nevada was ranked #19 at the time, Boise #3. Nevada won, 34-31 in OT.

Bowl: In Las Vegas against Utah (MWC, now PAC-12). They smoked Utah, a team that was 10-2 at the time and opened the season with a victory over Pittsburgh. Utah was ranked #19. Utah was previously one of the teams that was always in the discussion for mid-major football, having gone undefeated in 2008 (including a win over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl). They've had a few losses each of the past two seasons though, so, this win gets less credit from onlookers. Note that Boise doesn't get matched up with a BCS conference opponent in this game, despite an 11-1 record and #10 ranking.

2009 (14-0):

Game 1: Opened at home vs Oregon (PAC-10). Oregon was ranked #14 in the country, Boise was #16. Despite being a traditionally offensive team, Boise showed defensive prowess in this game, winning 19-8 and holding LeGarrette Blount, at the time considered one of the better running backs in football, to -5 yards rushing. He was infamously suspended after the game for punching a Boise player, and then disappeared until halfway through last season, when he emerged as a threat on the Buccaneers' offense. The Ducks finished 10-3 including wins over USC, California, Purdue, Utah, and Oregon State. They scored over 30 points in all but 2 of their remaining games, never lower than 17.

Bowl: In Phoenix against TCU (MWC, soon Big East). TCU was ranked #3, Boise was ranked #6. Again, the BCS didn't match either team against BCS conference schools, instead pairing them up with each other. Boise got the better of TCU in a very defensive game, 17-10. TCU had an impressive season up to that point, with wins over Virginia, Utah, and BYU and an undefeated 12-0 record. But they clashed in a rematch of the previous year's bowl game, and Boise won. Boise finished the season undefeated at 14-0.

2008 (12-1):

Game 3: At Oregon (PAC-10). Oregon was ranked #12 at the time, but Boise jumped on them 37-13 before a bit of a comeback in the 4th by the Ducks. Final score: 37-32. Oregon went on to finish the year 10-3, only losing to USC and Cal otherwise, and defeated #13 Oklahoma State in the Holiday Bowl.

Bowl: In San Diego against TCU (MWC, soon Big East). TCU was ranked #11 at the time, Boise was #9. TCU was 10-2, having lost at #2 Oklahoma and at #10 Utah that year, with wins over Stanford and #8 BYU. TCU ended up getting the better of Boise in a defensive battle, 17-16. This was the second in a series of four straight bowl games for Boise against mid-major competition after their victory against Oklahoma.

---

Will they ever get a shot at the championship? Who knows. It would require the right amount of things to fall into place, first being that they finish the regular season undefeated. Unlike a Florida or Alabama, they will never have enough prestige wins to overcome a 1 in the loss column. If they don't win them all, they only have themselves to blame. But these are consistent efforts over multiple seasons. Not just a fluke one season run with a lot of seniors and then a return to mediocrity. The program is one of the best. Whether or not they punch their own ticket to the BCS Championship, I'm just tired of hearing that they don't deserve to be in the conversation.

#063 - 2011 NFL Season Futures

In anticipation of the 2011 NFL season--which for various reasons has become one of the MOST anticipated seasons I can remember, at least for me--I have naturally been browsing the posted Team Props for season-long bets. And, naturally, I wasted no time making some moves on them.

Here's what I've gone with, so far.

CIN BENGALS U 5.5 (-125) -- 50 units. It is not only my estimation, but many others' estimations, that the Bengals are poised to be the worst team in football this year. Their quarterback situation is a huge question mark, Cedric Benson is tumbling down the other side of the hill, they let Johnathan Joseph leave in free agency, and it's becoming a possibility that the players will simply quit on the franchise (based on the feelings of Ochocinco and Palmer). WITH those guys last year, they won 4 games, albeit against a pretty brutal schedule. But I just don't think they did anything to get better. I like Bruce Gradkowski (yeah, you can laugh at me if you want) but that doesn't mean I think he's a good fit for this team, especially not when you consider he's coming in without the benefit of minicamp and offseason workouts. And the other option, Andy Dalton, is a smooth operator who is a timing/precision guy. He's going to take a licking before he gets his feet under him. They have winNABLE games, but does that mean they're going to come through? In my mind, no. But there have been bigger surprises.

DET LIONS U 7.5 (+115) -- 25 units. It's mostly a contrarian play. Everyone is so high on the Lions right now. And yeah, they've got Megatron and they've got Suh and a pretty sick defensive line. But they were 2-10 last year before putting it together down the stretch (wins over Packers with concussed Rodgers and the Dolphins and Vikings mid-disintegration). What's the ceiling on this team? 10-6? Is that really possible? I think people in Detroit would consider this year a win if Stafford and Megatron stayed healthy and the team got to 8-8. But that's the worst they could do to still cover 7.5 wins. If they're going to pay me to take the under, I'll take it. And hope they finish 7-9.

PIT STEELERS U 10.5 (EVEN) -- 25 units. We've been here before, I know. And after watching the Steelers dismantle the Eagles in the preseason, I'm not sure I feel very confident with this. But 11-5 is a damned good season. Can they do it? Yes. Can they do it against this schedule, which now that I'm really examining it, is remarkably easy? Yes. Am I feeling like a fool for betting this? Yeah, a little. Let's move on.

GB PACKERS O 11.5 (+115) -- 25 units. I think they're the best team in football. And yes, I know that's a ridiculous statement since they just won the Super Bowl. But even more than that. Their defense is sick. Their offense is sick. They never trailed by more than 7 points at ANY MOMENT last season. That's disgusting. They're getting Ryan Grant and Jermichael Finley back. I just honestly look down their schedule, and maybe outside of a road game at San Diego, I don't think there's a game there that I wouldn't feel comfortable picking them to win. They can play in a dome (hello, Atlanta) and they can play in the cold slop (hello, Lambeau and Soldier Field). I know it takes a great year to finish 12-4, but at better than even odds, I'll take it.

NE PATRIOTS O 11.5 (-115) -- 25 units. Very similar to the Packers above. The Patriots are going to score a lot of points. It's just science. Maybe they don't have the meanest, toughest team in the league, and maybe they don't have a stellar defense. But they went 14-2 last year with that same unstellar defense. They finish the year with Washington, Denver, Miami, and Buffalo. Can they be 8-4 or better going into that stretch? You're damned right.

STL RAMS O 7.5 (EVEN) -- 25 units. Based on the fact that I think the Rams are poised to be the best team in the NFC West. The best team in any division should be over .500, simple. The start of their season is brutal: Eagles, Ravens, Giants, Cowboys, Saints and Packers in the first 8 weeks. But then things flip completely, and they finish with a bunch of NFC West games, as well as the Bengals and Browns. I'm getting less confident about this as I write, but, I'd like to see this pull through.

PHI EAGLES U 10.5 (+120) -- 25 units. What? Yes, you read that correctly. Eagles under. It's a bit of a hedge bet against a disastrous season, also a bit of a reality check. Michael Vick played out of his mind last year. Can he play that well again? I'm not sure. Can he stay healthy for a full season? Who knows. Do I think Vince Young and Mike Kafka are awful? No, not at all, but I don't think they're the QBs to lead this team storming into the playoffs. We looked downright poor against the Steelers, starters v starters. In addition to 6 NFC East games, there's the Pats, Jets, and Falcons on the schedule, as well as your customary hiccup that has no explanation (2008 Bengals, 2009 Raiders, 2010 Vikings).

IND COLTS U 9.5 (+105) -- 50 units. The Colts have been kings for ages. Pencil them in at the top of the AFC South, it's pretty much set in stone. But now, their rock, he of the laser, rocket arm, is in dire straits and may not make the start of the season. Even with him, how good can this team be? They didn't beat anybody that good last year (Texans once, Giants, Chiefs?) and lost to everyone else legitimate (Eagles, Patriots, Chargers, Cowboys, Texans). To make it worse, they didn't go out and get that much better in the offseason. Not when you compare it with the moves the Texans made. The Colts don't really sign free agents. It's worked for them so far, but teams have been loading up (Eagles, Jets, etc.) by addressing key weaknesses. The Colts have been poor on run offense and run defense for a while, but haven't seemed to address it at all. Even with Manning, what is the ceiling for this team, 11-5? Without him, where do they drop to, 5-11? It's a percentage play, for me. It just seems like this team is teetering on the edge right now, and I wouldn't be THAT surprised to see them topple over.

#061 - Pay to Stay?

Look, we've all heard the arguments on both sides. Should NCAA athletes get paid to play, should they not, should we scrap this discussion completely, should the government go completely communist and then it doesn't matter? All the options are out there on the board. I'm not interested in rehashing all of them and picking which is the best. That's not appealing in any way. Frankly, the analysts like Jay Bilas who are on the side of "Pay" have sounded very thick-skulled to me, just rah-rahing for the players without having a real contingency plan to set it into motion. (Like, only pay college football and basketball athletes, because they make money. Oh, brilliant.) Likewise, those on the side of "Don't Pay" are equally if not MORE obtuse, as they ignore all the realities of the current sporting world in the name of amateurism. Why is amateurism even important any more? The Olympics host professionals. The only reason to maintain amateurism is to maintain NCAA eligibility. Seriously.

So instead of go over the old arguments, I wanted to focus on something that really stood out to me when I sat down to think about what has been going on--notably Reggie Bush, Terrelle Pryor, and Cam Newton. Yes, all of these guys have suffered from their missteps as college athletes, and have left a firestorm of issues in their wake. Now everyone and their grandmother is jumping on the radio shouting about why they should be paid or why they shouldn't be paid or whether or not the professional leagues should come down hard on them. The NCAA has wound itself into this situation where it's unlike any other organization in the world. Really. What can you compare it to? It's not like a union, it's not like a corporation, it's not even like the corresponding professional leagues. And that's why nobody has any answers. They can spin things the way they want, because they're the only ones who have any control over it. They're constantly in investigations, and come out on the other side saying things like, "They paid a national recruiter for information about college recruits." (This is a bad thing in the NCAA, even though it sounds like good business sense.) And then they say more ridiculous things like, "Cecil Newton asked for money for his son to play at Mississippi State, but Auburn and Cam Newton knew nothing about it." (Talk about opening Pandora's Box.)

Understandably, college coaches and athletes and staff members are scratching their heads trying to decide how to continue succeeding in their profession that seems to be overrun with violations (similar to MLB's "Keeping up with the Bondses") while attempting to AVOID those violations. I can imagine that it's very difficult. Nobody likes being left behind, and this is true on both sides of the relationship--schools want to have the best players, and the players want to have what other players have. If Reggie Bush is driving around town in a new Mercedes, why isn't Offensive Lineman Tom driving around in a new car as well? Hell, he's the one who blocks for Bush, opening up massive holes so he can pad his 9.5 yards per carry number.

So I have a proposal. And as much as I am sick of Bilas yapping about paying players every time he opens his mouth, part of my idea comes from something he said. He made reference to the fact that other students at the school are able to profit off of their abilities. They can get internships that pay (and I'm sure even he knows it's pennies compared to a professional athlete) for the skills that they've received from the school. So why can't athletes get that same deal?

Well, it's not that simple. Athletes are playing for the school, which means you're talking about expecting the schools to pay the players. Then you're thinking, "Well, how do they do it? Do they pay every single player $10K a year, and that's that? Or do they pay the quarterbacks more? Or is it an open marketplace where teams will bid on a player the same as the job market?" It's just insane. It opens up so many questions that would likely end college athletics as we know it. There are two main reasons why I think the "pay the players" mission is getting so popular right now.

1) Schools are profiting off the players and the players are getting none of it.

2) Players are ditching school at the first sniff of money, which is bad for the education system, and (more importantly to them) bad for the competition level of college sports.

So here's what I think.

Why not let the players profit off of their abilities while they're in school playing for the team--in every way EXCEPT getting paid to play. Professional athletes make money in lots of different ways, not just from their contract to play with their organization. They appear in commercials, they sign autographs, they hold instructional camps, they make appearances on television shows, they promote items. Why not make this true for a college athlete as well? College is about giving students opportunities and teaching them how to utilize their skills in the real world. There's not a more perfect example than this. A big time program signs a new recruit and he helps them win games and sell tickets. The college benefits. As a result of his newfound celebrity, the local car dealership wants to have him pitch Fords in a commercial. They pay him $2,000 for his appearance, and he benefits. Why would this not make sense?

If I was attending NYU for Acting and Steven Spielberg called me up and said, "Hey kid, you're the guy I want for the sidekick in my next movie," I would not only take the role, I'd be paid for it, AND I'd return to school when it was done. I know this is not exactly the same thing, because that's like saying a player could go play in a professional league over the summer and then come back and play for his team in the winter. It's a little different, but I think the premise is the same. Let the students profit off of their skills. It would teach them something about the real world. A lot more than coddling them in some uber-protected environment would.

College athletics are only as popular as they are because it's a two-way street. It's simple economics--even though people tense up and scream when they think of money and college athletes. An athlete will choose to attend a university on an athletic scholarship because he believes the value of what he is receiving is greater than what he is giving up to go there. And in turn, the school will hand out a scholarship because it believes that it will receive greater value than it is giving up out of the deal. You have to keep up your grades, stay out of trouble, and go to practice if you want to play on the team. If you have a job outside of school, so be it. Good for you, making money off of the hard work you put in. Hopefully you'll get something more out of school than just playing basketball, but if you don't, hey, it's not like you're the first.

I'm not sure that this is the best solution, or if there even IS a best solution. Maybe schools should just completely separate athletics into a minor league system. You don't attend the school, you just play for the Ohio State Buckeyes minor league football team. I don't know. All the possibilities are out there. But it seems to me that if you can provide someone else with a service that they are willing to pay you for, your college shouldn't prevent you from profiting from the transaction (well, unless it's illegal, I suppose).

Maybe then you'd stick around school and actually learn a little something for a change.

#060 - The Tree of Life (2011)

Director: Terrence Malick

Writer: Terrence Malick

Runtime: 138 mins.

What can be said about The Tree of Life that wasn't already said in the two years prior to its release?

I'm kidding, but... not really. It's everything you heard it was going to be. It's a sprawling drama that takes on the biggest, yet most simple, themes; it confuses you greatly; it will evoke probably every emotion you have; and yes, there are dinosaurs.

Probably the most frustrating thing about this film (and this is the type of movie that will force people to refer to it as a 'film') is that all the pomp and all the hype completely overshadowed what was a terrifically written and directed story. It's one powerful, genuinely moving narrative film set alongside a separate powerful, genuinely moving abstract film, yet despite what the creators would love for you to believe, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.

Let's start with what we can see plainly: Brad Pitt is the Father, a straight laced American head of household who works hard and has grown a very rough exterior. Jessica Chastain is the Mother, his perfect foil, a loving, devoted wife and mother who wants nothing more than to see all the boys in her life succeed. Their sons are Jack (the protagonist of the film), RL (the blond who is really a spitting image of Brad Pitt, perhaps even more of a young Ricky Schroder), and Steve (the one who almost never says or does anything). Jack is tormented by his father's iron fist, his desire to be free, and his lack of faith in his mother's God. RL on the other hand, embodies innocence. He has a gentle spirit and shares a musical bond with his father, which presumably frustrates Jack further.

Sadly, we know from the opening minutes that RL dies at a young age, sending Father, Mother, and Jack all spiraling into deep depression. A well-meaning but ill-spoken neighbor offers, "You still have the other two," in a botched attempt to comfort the Mother. There is a lot of crying and a lot of pleading with God, as the story begins its path down the Book of Job.

Then we meet Sean Penn, who is 50-year old Jack, who, in just ten seconds, we can tell is in a loveless marriage with a beautiful, devoted wife, and who is clearly still distraught over the death of his brother. (Presumably, the events of modern-day Jack occur on the anniversary of his death.) And yes, this is about all that Sean Penn brings to this movie. I'm not even totally sure why he's there.

Then we meet the cosmos, and some single-celled organisms, and some dinosaurs. I'm not totally sure what perspective we're seeing these from, perhaps from Jack, as he is the only character who would hold the evolutionary viewpoint. There is truly beautiful imagery, done by fusing landscape shots with small bits of CGI and a lot of naturally created effects (i.e. blown up shots of microscopic chemical reactions). In this way I felt it was very similar to Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain, which used the same techniques and actually featured a Tree of Life--and was similarly delayed for years during production.

The problem I found with this whole interlude is that it was trying so hard to be evocative, to tell us something greater about the world and about God and about humanity. But it didn't measure up to the rest of the film. Jack's story (his story as a child) is fantastic; it was--and deserved to be--the focal point of the film. But it was complicated by these other things. Flashbacks, flash forwards, dream sequences, imagined afterlife scenes on a beach. I think Malick wants you to believe that this is something revolutionary, something that's never been done before. I'm not claiming to be an expert on this movie, but I've seen plenty of other movies in my life, and this was not unlike anything else. At some point you can say to yourself, "Well, but it's not WRONG if the point they're trying to make is overt." And you'd be right. It isn't necessarily wrong, but what I felt is that there was this really great developing story with Jack as a child, as he says, "wrestling with his father inside his head," and I wanted more anecdotes, I wanted more 'show me, not tell me.'

I enjoyed it. I think it was effective, and beautiful. And kudos to Hunter McCracken, who played young Jack, as he did a marvelous job. And Brad Pitt was good, as well, which is saying something because I don't have the highest opinion of him as an actor. But I think it was his best role since Tyler Durden and Mickey the Gypsy. My complaint would be that it overshadowed itself. Too much abstract, not enough tangible. The interplay between brother-brother and father-son is compelling enough to not bring religion and creation theories into things. But Malick clearly had a specific story he wanted to tell, so tell it he did. And let's hope it brings him some joy, so that he does not lead the same frozen existence as older Jack.

#059 - Oscars 2011

So, though in the past I've done nothing but horribly in Oscar predictions, I figured I'd give it another run down this year. Of course, things that you think ARE going to win aren't necessarily the ones you'd LIKE to win.

So, here we go:

--

Original Screenplay

Nominees: Another Year; The Fighter; Inception; The Kids are All Right; The King's Speech

I'd prefer: Inception. Simply put, it was my favorite movie, and I think the story it's based on is fantastic. It's incredibly complex, but it works. I know lots of people couldn't get a grip on the dream switching and the layers, but I got it without issue. Here's a movie that juggles four and five layers of action with characters playing themselves and other characters and more than anything the tension of the story leaps out at you. Unfortunately, it's handicapped by being labeled "the dream movie" just as The Dark Knight was labeled "the Batman movie". It's much more than "the dream movie". The dreams are the premise, the real story is about the deepest human fears and emotions.

I think: The Kids are All Right. I liked this movie a lot. I thought it was really clever and funny. And after reading some lofty issues about the historical accuracy of The King's Speech (which I feel will win it's fair share of awards), I think the Academy will end up defaulting to the one movie that nobody can really lodge a complaint with.

--

Adapted Screenplay

Nominees: 127 Hours; The Social Network; Toy Story 3; True Grit; Winter's Bone

I'd prefer: The Social Network. Yes, Sorkin was very Sorkin with his dialogue. But it was an endless barrage, there was talking, there was talking on top of talking, and this movie owed more to its script than any other movie this year.

I think: The Social Network. This one almost seems TOO easy.

--

Animated Feature

Nominees: How to Train Your Dragon; The Illusionist; Toy Story 3

I'd prefer: Toy Story 3. Come on.

I think: Toy Story 3. I don't know why I even bothered writing this out.

--

Supporting Actress

Nominees: Amy Adams; Helena Bonham Carter; Melissa Leo; Hailee Steinfeld; Jacki Weaver

I'd prefer: Hailee Steinfeld. She gets the benefit of being young in the Oscars. She really was the LEAD actress in her film, she was in almost every scene. But as they usually do, they peg younger actors into the "Supporting" category to both celebrate them and give them a chance at winning. She was terrific. It's almost hard to believe she's NOT the hard-nosed, razor sharp lady she portrayed in the movie--which is again the benefit of being young and unknown. You don't already have her pegged as "Oh that's Amy Adams--I know her."

I think: Melissa Leo. She's very deserving. Adams I think got more pub initially, but slowly Leo has gotten the recognition she warranted with her performance. She just disappeared into the character, it was both fantastic and ridiculous, the early 90s Boston outfits and accents. She needs to thank her costume director and makeup artist if she wins.

--

Supporting Actor

Nominees: Christian Bale; John Hawkes; Jeremy Renner; Mark Ruffalo; Geoffrey Rush

I'd prefer: Christian Bale. I think big name actors are all fighting with themselves to be declared the "most dedicated" in the field, but how could you argue with Bale. I mean look at him in this movie. His mannerisms are insanely idiosyncratic. And when you see the post-feature snippet with the real life characters, you can tell he studied Dicky Ecklund's every move until he got it perfect. I'm quite sure Geoffrey Rush was fantastic in The King's Speech (I have it queued up to watch soon), but I doubt anyone could be as superb as Bale.

I think: Toss up. This is almost pegged to the Lead Actor winner. I think if Firth wins lead, there's a better chance for Bale. If he doesn't, I feel like they have to give it to Rush, since ONE of the two main actors in that movie has to win. But my gut is telling me Bale. And he deserves it.

--

Lead Actress

Nominees: Annette Bening; Nicole Kidman; Jennifer Lawrence; Natalie Portman; Michelle Williams

I'd prefer: Hard to say. Haven't seen Rabbit Hole or Winter's Bone, and while I feel like Jennifer Lawrence is a good story and kind of an underdog here, I think I'd have to say Portman. Unlike most people, I wasn't absolutely blown away by her role in Black Swan, but it was an INTENSE movie and she brought it to almost every scene. And you can forgive her for overacting because of the nature of ballet competition--she nearly killed herself just to get to the top, it takes a lot out of you.

I think: Portman. Good for her. I think Michelle Williams did a really fantastic job, but Ryan Gosling really carried that movie for me. Portman was the backbone of Black Swan.

--

Lead Actor

Nominees: Javier Bardem; Jeff Bridges; Jesse Eisenberg; Colin Firth; James Franco

I'd prefer: Holy crap. What a selection. It's kind of sad that Jesse Eisenberg, as key as he was, has basically 0% chance of winning. And I just saw Biutiful and Javier Bardem was GREAT, yet I think he has absolutely 0% chance of winning as well. I loved Franco, and how could you argue against someone who occupied the screen the whole film, yet still turned in a truly fantastic movie. I know from all the pub that Colin Firth was great, but I haven't seen it quite yet. I think the one actor I want to win this award MOST is actually not even nominated--Ryan Gosling from Blue Valentine. I think he was dynamic and disappeared more into his character than some of the other actors, whose characters had quirks they could always default to. Gosling was just a complete person, with strengths and faults and ups and downs. It's really a shame he's not even nominated. Gosling, Franco, Bardem, in that order.

I think: Firth. Would be weird to see Franco win since he's hosting, and the unending parade of "best actor" props for Firth suggests it's going to be his year.

--

Director

Nominees: Darren Aronofsky; David O. Russell; Tom Hooper; David Fincher; Joel and Ethan Coen

I'd prefer: Christopher Nolan, of course. Oh wait, he's not even nominated. It just makes me feel awful to see that. He got overlooked for The Prestige, for The Dark Knight--both of which were absolutely mind-blowing movies for me--and now he doesn't even get a NOMINATION for Inception. It's his baby. He's been working on it for 15 years, and even admitted that one of the reasons he took the job of Batman was to gain enough experience on a mega-concept movie to get Inception right. And get it right he did. I don't think any director had as much influence over his final product than Nolan. He's the best in the business. And yes, that includes the Hall of Fame worthy Coen Brothers.

I think: Aronofsky. Good for him, too. I don't think this was his strongest film, really. In fact, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, and The Wrestler were all better, in my opinion. But sometimes you put in your time making terrific movies and eventually the Oscars recognize you for something even if it's not your best work (see Joel and Ethan Coen, Denzel Washington).

--

Picture

Nominees: Black Swan; The Fighter; Inception; The Kids are All Right; The King's Speech; 127 Hours; The Social Network; Toy Story 3; True Grit; Winter's Bone

I'd prefer: Inception. End of story. The best movie that I saw this year. However, there's as much of a chance that anyone actually reads this post as there is of Inception winning.

I think: The Social Network. Though the Academy does like British movies, The Social Network has the buzz and the "now" factor to get the job done this year. Unfortunately I think that's part of the reason why it's not going to last with people. I just feel like, more and more often, we look back a few years later and say, "Mmm, they just missed it. The right movie was there, but they picked the movie that had more buzz." Don't get me wrong. The Social Network was really good. But I just didn't think it was THAT good.

Good luck to all the nominees.