The Greatness of Ubaldo Jiminez

If you're not a diehard baseball fan or fantasy baseball player, you probably don't know who Ubaldo Jiminez is. Well, you should. He's very likely the best best pitcher on the planet. And he pitches for the Colorado Rockies.

After shutting out the San Francisco Giants at AT&T Park today, he improved to 10-1 with a hardly believable 0.78 ERA. He's given up 1 home run in more than 70 innings. He's been unhittable this year.

I tuned into the Giants-Rockies game today for two reasons: 1) the Red Sox weren't playing; 2) I wanted to see the match-up of Tim Lincecum and Jiminez. If you didn't know that Lincecum was the two-time reigning Cy Young award winner, you wouldn't have thought Lincecum was considered the better pitcher coming into the season.

But on May 31, 2010 (and for the 2010 season thus far), Jiminez was the best. He was absolutely wicked. His 26 outs: 9 Ks, 9 GBs, 8 FBs. He gave up only 4 hits, and walked 2 batters. He was awesome.

And yes, I realize he was dominating a below-average offense, who's best hitter might be a player recently promoted from AAA (Buster Posey), but he's dominating every lineup he's facing.

Will he finish the season with an ERA under 1.00? No. Will he only give up 3-4 homers all year? Not likely. But he's is pitching in a special zone right now, and it was really fun to watch on this Memorial Day.

The Career of Tom Cruise

I just watched 'Valkyrie' staring Tom Cruise. Cruise is easily one of my favorite actors of all time, right up there with Harrison Ford. I don't care about his Scientology, I don't care that he's a little weird. I love most of his movies.

So that got me thinking about which were his best. So here are my top 10 Tom Cruise movies:

1. 'A Few Good Men' (1992)
2. 'The Last Samurai' (2003)
3. 'Top Gun' (1986)
4. 'Mission: Impossible' (1996)
5. 'Jerry Maguire' (1996)
6. 'Rain Man' (1988)
7. 'Mission: Impossible III' (2006)
8. 'The Firm' (1993)
9. 'Valkyrie' (2008)
10. 'The Outsiders' (1983)

What a fascinating list, spanning 25 years, and crossing roles from a Nazi rebel to a spy to a military lawyer. Cruise brings his trademark intensity to every single one of these roles.

Now, my least favorite, starting with the worst:

1. 'Days of Thunder' (1990)
2. 'Risky Business' (1983)
3. 'The Color of Money' (1986)
4. 'Minority Report' (2002)

Don't like any of these movies, all of which I've only seen once (though I've seen parts of 'Risky Business' many times).

'Valkyrie' just confirmed Cruise as one of my favorites and made me want to break out some of the other Cruise top ten. It was a very watchable movie, based in reality with good acting and a compelling story.

I'm always up for a good Cruise flick.

Papelbon is losing it

Red Sox Nation is an unforgiving bunch. I used to give some of my Philadelphia Phillies fan friends grief for the fact that Mike Schmidt was booed when he played for the there. But now I've heard the Fenway 'Faithful' boo David Ortiz, one of the heroes of two championship teams, an easy winner for best Red Sox DH of all-time. I may have suggested earlier this season benching Ortiz, but I would never boo the man. Actually, I'm against booing your own team unless someone does something like attack an ump or go into the crowd and start throwing haymakers.

Now the Nation is turning on Jonathan Papelbon, the all-time Red Sox saves leader and the man who dominated in 2007 on the way to Boston's second title of the past decade.

But 2009 and 2010 have been a different story. Last season Paps had a stellar 1.85 ERA, but it was a mirage. His walk rate was a high 3.18/9 while his K rate remained around 10. And his fastball went from a massively effective pitch to only a very good one. And if you watched most of his appearances (which I did in 2009) he was missing his old dominance.

(All the stats for today's discussion comes from Papelbon's player page at Fangraphs.)

This season has been worse, encapsulated by his two appearances this week against the Yanks. On Monday he gave up two homers, the first time he's done that since he was converted full-time to a reliever, including one to Marcus Thames for heaven's sake. And then Tuesday he walked a tight-rope again. He looks even shakier than he did last year, bring back bad flashes of Bob Stanley.

The numbers bear this out. Besides currently being a below-replacement reliever this season(yikes!), his fastball is not just not dominant anymore. His slider and splitter have been very effective, but seeing as though he's a dominant fastball pitcher (over his career he's thrown it 78% of the time), getting his splitter to be effective is great, but an average fastball will end his days as an effective closer.

Many Sox fans thought Papelbon was Boston's answer to Mariano Rivera, but unless he figures it out and makes the right adjustments, he's more likely to be Boston's version of Francisco Rodriguez: a few dominant seasons, but best to let him go before he gets too expensive.

Exciting Survivor Finale

This is going up late because my wife and I were on vacation and DVRed the Surivor finale and just watched in last night. A few quick thoughts:

• Sandra deserved to win, though I would have been OK with Parvati winning as well. Sandra survived to the Final 3 without an alliance for a good part of the game. That's amazing. Plus she burned Russell's hat, which was awesome.
• Parvati played an awesome game, but her undoing was not keeping Russell in check and not getting rid of him when she had the chance. Yes, he was easy to beat in the Final 3, but he got rid of her biggest ally, someone who would have been as easy for her to beat.
• Russell has proved out over two seasons an important life lesson: you can't treat everyone like crap and assume it won't come back to you. He treated everyone sub-human, and the entire jury saw it that way. Jerri was his one chance at a vote, and he screwed that up.
• Speaking of screwing up the jury, someone explain this to mean: for 30-whatever days the guy lied about everything, but then Russell chooses the jury time to be honest. How does that make sense? I don't think he would have won, but he should have tried lying one more time, acting contrite, apologizing to Jerri, concentrating on smooth-talking the open votes. Instead he insulted everyone and was honest for the first time in the entire game. What a tool.
• Coach is awesome. His little speech was high comedy. I hope they bring the Dragon Slayer back for another all-star gig. I can't get enough of Coach.
• Though my wife and I agreed with Parvati and Sandra that Rupert looked like a serial killer sitting on the jury, his speech was moving. His disdain for Russell was palpable, even watching on TV. I got goose bumps.

What an awesome season. I don't know how many more seasons Survivor has left in it, but I think I'm back on the wagon. Haven't watched the reunion show; I might post more thoughts after that.

Rays and Yanks can't be beat

A month ago I wrote about how the Red Sox still had a chance. Am I completely writing them off? Certainly not. One year ago today the Yankees were 4.5 games behind first-place Toronto. The Blue Jays imploded, and the Yanks went on to win the title. So in theory, the Sox could come back.

Except for two minor problems: The Rays and the Yankees. When I previewed the American League, I underestimated the Rays for one reason: their pitching. According to Fangraphs, they have the second best pitching staff in the American League. Their lineup is just OK, but that pitching is phenomenal, with young starters David Price and Jeff Niemann making the leap.

And the Yanks? That lineup is unreal so far. Even with Texeira struggling, Baseball Prospectus has the Yanks as, by far, the best offensive team in baseball. There's not weakness, especially hwne you have you back-up catcher hitting like .800.

What has foiled the Sox? I know that I and others have hounded the offense, particularly Big Papi and Victor Martinez. But the offense has been the fourth best in the league; the pitching has failed them. Beckett and Lackey have been average. Papelbon and most of the rest of the bullpen (with the exception of Bard) has been shaky.

Add to that an average defense, and you have a team that will have a very hard time catching the Rays and Yankees, as much as I hate typing that. I really hope I'm wrong, but I think Tampa and New York are the two best teams in baseball, and that the Red Sox will be watching the 2010 postseason from home.

Dear American Idol (Again)

Dear American Idol,

A few months ago I wrote you a letter saying that we were done. And for most of the season I stayed true to what I told you back then, that I was tired of our relationship and I was walking away.

But you've drawn me back in. Not sure why; the talent you've offered this season is not as good as seasons past. You also offer annoying judges, with only Kara saying coherent things. Yes, Ellen has been better, but this just isn't her gig. And Seacrest is aging faster than the 'Desperate Housewives.'

Why did I come back? As is usually the case with people in denial, I blame my wife. She continued watching, usually when I wasn't home. But sometimes she watched while I was home, and I would keep one eye on the show. Like an accident on a lonely stretch of highway, I slowed down and couldn't look away.

So here I am, locked in as the finale approaches, participating where I said I would not, watching what I once disavowed. But don't think this as a sign of new devotion. I'm likely to ditch you again next season. Of course, I'm also likely to watch quite a bit next year. Because apparently I can't stay away.

Adam

Fake teams of the NBA

There are several pretender teams in the NBA; I call them 'fake' teams. They hum during the regular season and wilt in the playoffs due to a combination of several factors:

• Chemistry. I don't mean whether they go out to dinner together, but whether they play well together in tight, close situations on defense and offense.
• Alpha dogs. They need 2-3 players that can take a game over, that have the Michael Jordan competitive gene. If you don't have a couple of alphas, you are a pretender.
• Bad coaches. Coaches who don't get playoff basketball and can't make series adjustments can turn a 'real' team into a 'fake' team very quickly.

The poster team for this is the Dallas Mavericks, who consistently win a lot of regular season games, but besides a run to the Finals in 2006, have delivered some of the greatest playoff stinkers of my lifetime.

There were two fake teams in this year's Eastern Conference playoffs. Let's discuss.

Cleveland
First off, it's impossible to develop chemistry when you're only offensive play in a tight game is a clear-out for LeBron. Mike Brown coaches good defense, but I think Naismith himself had more inventive offensive schemes.

This is going to come as a shock, but I'm not sure LeBron has the Jordan competitive gene. I've seen glimpses, but can you imagine even young Jordan going out like that? But LeBron's performance is almost besides the point. Hurt or tentative, no one else on Cleveland's current roster is a No. 2 or No. 3 for a championship caliber team. Actually, I don't think it's even close. That roster was fool's gold all year, and I even bought into that they were LeBron's best team. (Like that's even an accomplishment of any sort.)

Finally, coaching. I already picked on Brown in the first paragraph. He is not an awful coach, because he does something very well: coach defense. He helped turn LeBron from a poor defender into an above-average one, and has installed a very good team defense system. But he is in love with size, can't exploit match-ups, and lacks offensive creativity. Swap him out for Jerry Sloan, and the Cavs do not lose to the Celtics.

Orlando
I know, you think I'm overreacting to one loss. The Magic cruised through the first two rounds without a scratch. But they beat Charlotte and Atlanta, two terrible teams. No one should have been handing them a trophy yet.

How is their chemistry? On defense, I think it's very good. They center everything around Dwight Howard, and his presence helps them play good team defense. On offense, not so much. They run the offense through Howard, which is not really a great playoff option, especially when Howard might be the third or fourth best offensive option on his team. And Jameer Nelson is a PG who doesn't really get what a PG should do: make his teammates better.

Related to that is the alpha dog thing. Howard is absolutely an alpha on defense -- one of the best players in the league at changing the game on the defensive side of the floor. But he is offensively limited. Yes, there have been dominant offensive players who stayed within the paint. But they were dominant in that area. It's not that Howard is awful, but he's not dominant.

So that leaves the rest of Orlando's roster. Can you really win a championship with Vince Carter and Rashard Lewis as Howard's sidekicks? Man, I would not want to put my faith in the continual playoff under-performer Carter and Lewis, a guy who's shot less than 44% from the field for two straight seasons. Would I be comfortable with one of those guys as No. 3? Yes. But they need someone else. The perfect compliment to Howard would be Dwayne Wade, but that's not going to happen.

I think the Orlando brass was fooled by last season's run to the Finals, and thought the Vince trade would put them over the top. 'Hey, we made it to the NBA Finals with Hedo Tukoglu as our third best player. Get Vince and we're golden!' The problem is Vince is only an upgrade over Hedo 08-09 in name only. And Vince can't guard Paul Pierce to save his life.

As far as coaching goes, I like Stan Van Gundy. I think he's doing a good job with hand he's been dealt, and he made adjustments in the second half of Game 1 that almost created a monumental comeback. But I hope he's not too stubborn and doesn't continue to run his offense through Dwight. The offense should start on the perimeter with Howard as a second option. Actually, check that. I hope he is that stubborn.

Why the Celtics Could Win a Championship
That sentence seemed so improbable a month ago, that I would have laughed at anyone for uttering it. But it feels very probably now. What has happened?

First off, this is now Rajon Rondo's team. The offense and defense really begin and end with him. He is blossoming into a superstar, and is now in the discussion for best PG in the league honors, with such luminaries as Nash, Williams and Paul.

KG is back, not all the way, but to the point that he's a factor on both ends of the floor and is hitting key shots. Ray Allen is rejuvenated to the point that you feel like he's a better version of the old clutch Reggie Miller. And Paul Pierce is playing a complete game, not the vintage Pierce who outdueled LeBron in 2008, but a strong player who is fitting nicely into his role as sometime crunchtime scorer and boxscore filler.

Do I think they will win another title? No. I think they beat Orlando in 6, but then are beat by the Lakers-Suns winner. But this is a veteran team that on given night might have the best player on the floor (Rondo), so it would be foolish at this point to rule them out.

The best 'Survivor' ever!

My wife and I began to watch Survivor in 2002 with 'Survivor: Marquesas' (Season 4). This was mainly due to my older brother's enthusiastic endorsement. I watched every season from then until a year ago with 'Survivor: Tocantins' (Season 18). That's a lot of commitment.


But then, like I recently did with American Idol, I parted ways with one of my favorite shows as I was getting bored by the concept, and Tocantins had been a sub-par season for me. So my wife soldiered on, but I backed out.


Then I saw the ads for Season 20: 'Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains.' Some of my favorite players of all-time: Stephanie, Cirie, Tom the fireman, J.T., Courtney. Some of my least favorite, but entertaining, were back: Coach, Randy, Tyson. And of course, my TV man-crush: Boston Rob. As soon as I saw the roster, I knew that I was back on the Survivor train.


The season has not disappointed. There have been so many awesome moments, that it's impossible to count them all, but this season has been memorable and is possibly my favorite season of all time, up there with All-Stars, Pearl Islands, Palau, Cook Islands, and China.


A list of some of the craziest moments of Heroes vs. Villains:

• This list has to start with utter stupidity of J.T. giving a hidden immunity idol away because he was 'certain' that the uber-villain Russell was in danger due to a powerful women's alliance. Now in all fairness to J.T., Russell had the advantage that HvV started before Russell's season (Samoa) was aired. Based on the fact that both seasons happened in Samoa, Russell may have done these seasons back-to-back.
• Only slightly farther down on the stupidity scale is Tyson. In the strongest alliance he had the opportunity to get out the dangerous Russell -- but he called an audible going into Tribal Council. So instead of dispatching with Russell, Tyson was voted out. This damaged Boston Rob's alliance, and led to his departure, which changed the entire face of the game. With Russell gone, J.T. doesn't demonstrate his complete idiocy, and I think you see a Heroes alliance dominate to the end.
• Candice switching over to the Villains after the merge. What a tool. She had to know that move would mark her as someone the remaining Heroes would try and eliminate, and she was at the bottom of the Villains pile. There are times to switch -- that wasn't one of them. She was likely sticking around anyway, since eliminating Amanda, Colby and Rupert would have been priority.
• The fact that Boston Rob turned into the hero of the Villains. Though he was strategically still brilliant, he lost some of his villain edge and turned into a good guy. Even so, he was still my favorite.
• Rupert is annoying. Seems like a nice guy, but I think if I was stranded with him for 30 days on a deserted island, I think I would try and vote him off quickly. Or push him of a cliff.
• The fall of two of my favorite contestants, Tom and Colby. Neither was their usual, physical self for this season, and it was disappointing. Tom was such a monster on Palau. Just doesn't seem like he was really into it.

So who's going to win it on Sunday's big finale? Well, I hope it's Sandra. I like the way she plays, lying in the grass waiting for her turn. And aligning with Boston Rob was smart, even if he didn't even make it to the jury.

Who do I think will win? Parvati. She's played a brilliant game, and I think she's likely to gain more jury votes than just about anyone left. The most interesting match-up would be between her and Sandra, but I don't think Sandra makes it to the final three.

So I'm looking forward to the finale as much as any finale in my history with the show. And they've probably hooked me into the next season, even if there's no Boston Rob.

Avoiding history

In 2004, the Boston Red Sox came back from down 3 games to none to beat the New York Yankees and win the American League Championship Series. It was a historic comeback, and the Red Sox would go on to sweep the Colorado Rockies and win their first World Series in 86 years.

Now another Boston team stands at the precipice of history, but this time on the other end. After going up 3-0 to the Philadelphia Flyers in the second round of the NHL playoffs, the Boston Bruins have dropped three straight. Now the series comes down to a game 7 in Boston on Friday night, with the Bruins attempting to being the answer to a trivia question.

This is my first post on hockey on this blog. I didn't get into the sport until I was 12 or 13, and really became a Bruins fan first, a hockey fan second. And since moving out of the Boston area, I mainly just follow the NHL playoffs and Olympic hockey.

A big reason is that the Bruins stunk since losing to the Pittsburgh Penguins in the 1992 Wales Conference Finals, two years after losing to the Edmonton Oilers in the Stanley Cup Finals. Since then, it's been failure after failure.

That was until last season, when the Bruins won the Northeast Division and were a popular pick to win the Stanley Cup. The season ended in a minor disappointment with a conference semifinals seven-game loss to the Carolina Hurricanes.

This season was kind of a disappointment until the playoffs began. The potential of the Bruins finally broke through in a 6-game open series victory over the higher seeded Buffalo Sabres, and then a quick three games over the lower-seeded Flyers.

Since then, it's been a disaster. The Bruins lost Game 4 in OT, and since have been outscored 6-1. All of the momentum sits squarely in Philadelphia's camp.

A week ago I was hoping the Bruins could make a Stanley Cup run. Now I hope they don't end up as a historical footnote.

Thoughts before Game 6

After Boston's Game 3 loss to Cleveland, I thought the Celtics were done. The Cavs had the best player on the planet, and enough of a supporting cast to counter a limited, aging Celtics team. It's not that I had lost all faith, but I thought the Celtics had blown a big chance after stealing Game 2 in Cleveland.

And then LeBron laid one of the biggest eggs in playoff history. 15-7-6 is a good line for a complimentary player, but not for a super-duper star in a key playoff contest. The game's significance in LeBron's career has been covered ad-nauseum in other places, so I will leave it alone. But I will say this: the dude is only 25, so let's not get too carried away calling this a defining moment in LeBron's career. The series isn't even done yet.

What does this mean for the Celtics? It seems like KG has been rejuvenated to a certain extent, playing a role using the considerable skills he still has (even if it's not what he used to be).

One thing is clear: this is Rondo's team now. He is the best Celtics player on both ends of the floor, disrupting on defense and fueling the offense. Even when the Celtics were clicking in the first half of Game 5 without Rondo playing a major role, you knew he would have to get involved to get the Celtics past the Cavs. And he did in the second half, making Mo Williams looks foolish, and exposing some of LeBron's defensive weaknesses.

And on top of that, Glen Perkins showed again why he's good to have around: he's a good clutch scorer who provides a ton of energy. Kind of like the anti-Rasheed, who sucks energy out of the Celtics almost every time he steps on the floor. Oh how I despise Rasheed.

If the Celtics finish off the Cavs in Game 6, I'm not sure what it means. It will be tragic for Cleveland sports fans, and it may not mean much to Boston if the Celtics get thumped by the Magic in the Eastern Conference Finals. It feels like Cleveland has everything to lose over the next couple of days, while the Celtics are trying to over-achieve.

And I think the Celtics will win tonight on Boston. I think Rondo will light it up, and Pierce will have his best games of the playoffs. I think the Cavs have played to the strengths of the Celtics, and that the LeBron era in Cleveland very well may end in complete disappointment.

Much Ado About Bill Simmons

A couple of months ago I read The Book of Basketball: The NBA According to the Sports Guy by Bill Simmons. I considered writing a review about it, but since it was released in October 2009, that didn't seem timely.

I won't spend too much time on the book specifically except to say this: if you like the Sports Guy, you'll like the book. It also had amazing amounts of information about the NBA, and you could tell Simmons did a copious amount of research. It was informative, entertaining, thoughtful, sometimes disgusting, and a little too long. Basically it was everything I like and dislike about his writing.


So that's what I'm going to write about: the sometimes painful relationship I have with a sports columnist who has no idea who I am. I am going to write a Bill Simmons-ike column about none other than Bill Simmons.

History
I started reading Bill Simmons shortly before he moved over to ESPN.com from his old website. I am an avid Boston sports fan, and a friend of mine from home sent me an email saying how hilarious the guy was. So I started reading, and I've been hooked since. I've read almost everything he's ever written, and in the last six months, I've also started listening to his podcasts.

But as much as I love his stuff, sometimes he annoys the crap out of me. So here's how I lay it out.

What I Like
He is the voice of Boston sports fans, for better or worse. His stuff after the 2004 World Series was awesome, and his sports relationship with his father is much like how I interact with my father for the Sox and the Celtics.

He is extremely witty, one of the funniest writers working today. He's also incredibly insightful, especially when it comes to basketball. He talks about becoming an GM of an NBA team; if I became incredibly weathly and purchased an NBA team (both unlikely scenarios), I would hire him. No kidding. His expertise is that good in basketball; he is very good at evaluating players, game situations, and he's probably thought more about the salary cap and played with more scenarios than half the GMs in the league. Not sure if he'd be good at managing people, negotiating with agents and such, but I could hire an assistant GM to do that. Someone like Kevin McHale.


Sports Guy is also very skilled with football. He's not an expert like in basketball (and specifically the NBA), but he understands the game and analyzes it well.


As for baseball, he's typically been an old-school fan. His love of the Red Sox is unquestionable, and he has a very good history with the team and makes references only long-time Sox fans and/or hard-core MLB fans can appreciate. And luckily he's recently embraced the statistical revolution in baseball (though it took far too long).

Though he's older than me, Sports Guy and I share some similar pop culture background, movies like 'Karate Kid', the Rocky films, etc., and we watch some similar TV shows today, including 'Survivor.'


Basically, outside of Peter Gammons, Simmons is probably my favorite sports columnist of all time. I have spent more hours than I can count reading his stuff, and for the most part don't regret a minute of it. I look forward to almost every column, and usually devour it within hours of it being posted. I can't think of a better endorsement than that.

As far as his podcasts are concerned, I avoided them for a long time because I thought he would make a bad radio host. I was partially right (see below), but for the most part, he's very good. He gets good guests, and instead of boring one-sided interviews, it's a real Sports Guy conversation. If I like the topic, there's a 97.8% chance I'm going to like the podcast. Sorry Dave Matthews; I will have to listen to you tomorrow.


What I Don't Like
First and foremost, his references to porn and female anatomy. I thought this would improve after he had a daughter of his own, but that was naive. I am a conservative Mormon who avoids that crap, and I have skipped entire columns because of it. I just wish he would ditch it entirely. It's offensive, tired and as he gets older, makes him sound a little creepy. (The sound you hear is me stepping off my soapbox.)


Until a recent column and podcast, I couldn't stand some of his analysis of baseball. He had ignored the statistical evolution of the sport (even though he partially embraced it in basketball and football), and even playfully mocked the stat geeks. I am a stat geek. I read Bill James, I love Baseball Prospectus, and like Bill is with basketball, baseball is my first sports love and passion. It bothered me that he was ignoring something that would make him understand the game better, especially since he was following a team that employs...(wait for it)...Bill James! (Wow, this soapbox is going to get worn out.)

Sometimes his stuff is too long. Not that his longest pieces are too long (because some of them aren't), but his genesis (his own website) and his meteoric rise have imbued him with a few bad writing habits, and he could edit a little more at times. This is more of a quibble than a complaint.

As I mentioned in the 'like' section, his podcasts are mostly good, but there are a few holes. He sometimes talks over his guests, which is annoying, especially if he has a less aggressive verbal participant. His voice is also kind of annoying, though you get used to it.

The biggest annoyance about the podcats is some of his friends. Jack-O has nothing interesting to add, besides being an annoying fan. I'm sure he's a nice guy, and maybe a lot of Sports Guy fans like the interaction. But I wish he would save some of these guys for brief references in his column.

The Final Word
So what does this column mean? I have no idea. I know I will keep reading his columns, keep selectively listening to his podcasts, and likely purchase and read any books he writes. But I can't help think that he could be better if he left some of the garbage out. He's a fun writer, a very good analytical mind, and he writes about the teams I love.

Though I will never make the end of one of his famous maibags, this much is true Bill Simmons: I, too, am one of your readers.

Celtics miss a big chance

Last night was a depressing sports night. The Yanks came into town and demolished the Sox, the Bruins lost in OT to the Flyers with a chance to sweep the series and get some much-needed rest, and the Celtics were routed by Cavs at home with a chance to go up 2-1 and put all the pressure on Cleveland. Instead the pressure shifts back to the boys in green.

The Celtics debacle was particularly depressing. The defense was atrocious. Yes, LeBron James was unbelievable, even when the defense was good. He had one of those nights where it probably didn't matter.

But look at the other Cleveland players from last night: Atwan went wild (20-12), Shaq was effective, and basically each player got the shots he wanted. Look at the Cleveland shot chart. It was like a lay-up line.

I was cautiously optimistic after game 2. Looked like LeBron was hurt, the Celtics D was humming, and Rondo was playing on a different level than everyone else on the court. Now I'm hoping the Celtics can just win tomorrow and not face the edge of elimination.

Iron Man 2 delivers tons of action

A few things to keep in mind as you read this:

• I attended a midnight showing. This is my first midnight showing of a movie since 1995, when I watched the first three Indiana Jones movies back-to-back-to-back. That's a long time ago.
• Iron Man was one of my favorite movies of the last decade, ranking No. 9 in my recent rankings.
• I was a comic book geek growing up.

So with those things out of the way, let me tell you why Iron Man 2 was worth paying money for and staying up to 3am on a work day.

What Worked
This movie (like the first one) begins and ends with Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Tony Stark/Iron Man. He infuses the character with such energy and passion, and makes him seem like a real flamboyant character. The action sequences are mesmerizing, especially the final fight scene. The effects are great, and the overall cinematography adds to the action.

But Downey is not the only great performance in this movie. Mickey Rourke is tremendous as deranged genius Ivan Vanko. Really, having two performances like this in an action movie is unfair, especially to the action movies that will follow this summer. It was also supported by solid performances by Don Cheadle, Gwyneth Paltrow (better in this movie than the first) and Scarlett Johansen.

The story was also very entertaining. Will it win screenplay of the year? Certainly not, but it was above average for this kind of movie.

What Didn't Work
This is a short but important list. What scares me, as a major fan of Marvel Comics Avengers (scheduled for a movie release in 2012) is Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. Downey acted circles around him. And I know Jackson is supposed to personify bad-a cool, but he's almost become a laughable parody of himself.

And I feel like director Jon Favreau (who did a great job) was a little self-indulgent with his part in the film and some of the short cuts he took with the story. Overall, minor quibbles.

Who Would Like This
I don't think this is as good as the first one, but if you liked the first one, this is a good encore. It's also just a good action romp, so likely would be enjoyed by action movie junkies like myself.

Who Wouldn't Like This
If you didn't like the first one, well, I can't understand why you would like this one instead. The action sequences were a little better. Also, if you just don't like this superhero genre, this is not your movie.

Closing Credits
This film shows that the superhero genre is alive and kicking. This was a fun, action-filled film. As good as the first one? No, but that was a high bar to get over. Great movie that I will see many more times in my life.

Avenger thoughts
As I mentioned earlier, Marvel is planning on an Avengers movie for the summer of 2012, which will be proceeded by Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor, both due in 2011. I can't really say how excited I am by this; I was an Avengers reader as a kid (it was my favorite comic book), and I was also a huge fan of Captain America.

But I am a little worried. Joss Whedon is directing, which is good. But ensemble movies are difficult. He's going to be combining a bunch of disparate movies into one. Tough work.

That being said, I am very excited about the next couple of movie years. Avengers Assemble!