Pierce opens a window for the Celtics

During my pain-staking write-ups during the NBA Finals, I constantly talked about how the Celtics are really Rajon Rondo's team now. Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and KG may not realize that, they may think they're still A-Level players, but reality played itself out on the 2010 playoff stage.

Tony Massarotti of the Boston Globe agrees with me, and he writes that Paul Pierce opting out of his contract may give Danny Ainge an opportunity to re-build around Rondo sooner than he might have otherwise. A blessing in disguise, kind of like not trading Pierce a couple years back.

First off, I'm a huge Pierce fan. Without him, the Celtics do not win the 2008 title and do not make it to the 2010 Finals. Yes, he sputtered in Game 7 against Ron Artest, but he did put up a 19/6/3 in the playoffs on 44/40/83 shooting. Despite declining skills, he's still a very good player.

But I think it's likely he will be a good player somewhere else in 2010-11. I think Ainge is going to take a chance on a free agent. According to Mazz, he's got $25 million to play with. Is he going to sign one of the big guys like LeBron or D-Wade? No, that's not going to happen. But what about Joe Johnson (I'm not a fan)? Or Amar'e? Carlos Boozer? David Lee? The Celtics need to get younger and more athletic. All of those guys would qualify.

Of course, I have no idea how this will turn out. Could Pierce return? Sure. He's mentioned in the past about being a lifelong Celtic, but would he pass up the opportunity to play along side Nash in Phoenix (not likely), Wade in Miami (a little more likely), or maybe be a veteran presence in a place like Oklahoma City? Only he could say for sure.

I will miss Pierce if he leaves, and will look forward to the day his No. 34 jersey joins the others in the rafters. But it's time for the Rondo era to begin.

The panicking Mets

What's with all the panic in NY surrounding the Mets? Do they really have to acquire Cliff Lee to secure a playoff spot?

The 2010 season thus far would say no. The Mets are 1.5 games behind Atlanta in the NL East and are the WC leader. Granted, the WC is very tight, with the Cardinals, Phillies, Dodgers and Giants all within 3 games, so lots of potential to blow it. And we know that the Mets have blown it in recent years, so the panic is warranted to some degree.

But do they need Lee? And at what cost? According to Fangraphs.com, the Mets have the 10th best offense in the NL. If you look at their team page at BaseballReference.com, they have some easy upgrades to the lineup: Franceour is not good, but the Mets have Carlos Beltran returning and if the Mets are smart (a big leap there) Angel Pagan will start over Franceour. The other hole is Luis Castillo as 2B. They should be able to better a 624 OPS (and he's below average in the field as well).

Back to Fangraphs, the Mets are similarly 10th in pitching. They have three plus starters (Santana, Pelfrey and Dickey), and a mish-mash group behind them (not that different from the
a lot of teams). The bullpen is actually an area of need as well.

So could the Mets use Cliff Lee? Absolutely, almost any contender could. But the Mariners are likely going to want top prospects, and the Mets might mortgage their future in a year when they could make the playoffs anyway. They have good internal options to upgrade the OF, and upgrading 2B would be cheaper. Can you say Dan Uggla?

So before the New York media pressure Omar Minaya into mortgaging the future for Lee (who would be a tremendous rental arm), the Mets have other areas where an impact upgrade could be made at a fraction of the cost.

Book Review: Percy Jackson and the Olympians Series

I first got interested in the Percy Jackson series when I saw ads for the movie. The concept intrigued me: the Olympian Gods were still alive, living in the US, and their demigod children were living among us mere mortals. Seemed like an interesting premise.

Then I never saw the movie. I heard about the changes from the novel, and my interest waned in the film. But I did read all five books over the past 6 months.

For whatever reason, this series frequently gets compared to the Harry Potter books. I understand why: teen fantasy novel written in a modern world for a modern teen audience. Other than that, here are the major differences:

• Percy Jackson author Rick Riordan writes nothing like J.K. Rowling. Unlike like Rowling 3rd person, limited narrator (from Harry's perspective), Riordan goes with the first person story telling technique, which is done in an irreverent, teenage tone (and is actually one of my favorite parts of his writing).
• Olympians and witches/warlocks is not the same thing. The worlds are very different from one another. I didn't feel like I was in similar world at all.
• Unlike the Harry Potter universe, which became incredibly complicated as time went on, Riordan keeps it relatively simple. This means less depth to his world, but easier reading.

So on with the review.

What works
A lot of things, so I will return to my lazy old bullet list.

• Characters. I love the characters. Percy is a believable, NYC teenager. His friends, fellow demigod Annabeth and Grover the Satyr (half man, half goat), were unique and interesting. The other main characters (including the Gods and villains) were fun, especially during the first 2-3 books when everyone is being introduced.
• Fast-moving plot. If I have one major issue with some fantasy is slow plot. Riordan keeps it rolling.
• Great battles. His battles are awesome, and I really had a hard time stopping during those tense moments.

This is a complete list at all, but these were my favorite elements.

What doesn't work
Again, back to the bullets.

• Cliche gods. Though some of the gods and monsters were really cool, a lot of them were cop outs, where Riordan went with cliches over depth.
• Swift conclusions. This wasn't true for books 4 and 5, but 2 and 3 ended a little abruptly for me. A little more denouement would have been appreciated.
• High brow teenager. Sometimes Percy knows a little too much about architecture and history for a kid who hated school. Obviously this is Riordan flexing his literary muscles a bit, but sometimes it made me pause.

Who would like this
Anyone who likes light fantasy. It's also a good match for the Harry Potter crowd, though I know some Potter fans have rejected the series (not sure why). It's also a pretty light read for those looking for a fun series to read during the series. Would be good for teens who like fantasy fiction.

Who wouldn't like this
Only people without a soul. Just kidding. It's pretty light fiction, and it does have violence and death (especially book 5). Also, if you're afraid your kid might turn into an Olympian god worshiper, I would avoid this. (Warning: Heavy doses of sarcasm have been know to be very contagious).

Final Chapter
As you can tell, I really liked these books. I've been reading a lot of deep nonfiction lately, and the Percy Jackson series has been a nice change of pace. If you're looking for a good, fun fantasy read, pick it up. Five books later you won't regret it.

The World Needs Replay

Sunday was not a good day for FIFA. Too phantom goals changed the course of two elimination games, the Argentine goal against Mexico being the most egregious. The Mexican team became deflated, and what had been 25 minutes of griping soccer with two very determined teams, turned into a circus. Argentina scored its bogus goal and Los Tres Colores was left arguing fruitlessly with the FIFA officials. Several minutes later, a careless turnover and Mexico is down 2-0.

Now, I am claiming no Nostradamus powers. If the play had been called correctly, I have no idea who would have won. According to the Soccer Power Index rankings on ESPN.com, Argentina is the second best team in the world; Mexico is No. 12. The true talent level is probably greater, but certainly Mexico is capable of playing a good enough game to beat the blue and white on a given day.

I have stopped reading articles that argue against instant replay. It's just stupid. The job of the officials is to get the call correct, period. If we can fix that, we should. Here are my thoughts, by sport:

• Football. This one is so easy, so of course the NFL has missed it. It is not the responsibility of the coach to officiate a game; no more coach challenges. Just put another ref in the booth who makes the call. No more looking under the hood. He stops the game, he quickly reviews and makes a call.
• Basketball. Anything around scoring (two or three points) and out of bounds plays should be reviewable. Again, a separate replay official who does it on his own.
• Baseball. This is where replay should go to a new level. All balls and strikes should be called electronically, no more 'human factor.' All base calls should be reviewable, as well as home runs and foul balls. Separate replay official.
• Soccer. I already mentioned that FIFA needs another official (or two) on the field. They also need a replay official. It would be very limited, just to replay goals.

This isn't perfect, but it's closer to perfection, and isn't that the point? Don't we want to get as close as we can to the 'true' outcome? The less 'human' factor the better as far as I'm concerned.

Revisiting Star Wars: Episode I

I love Star Wars. I am a Star Wars nerd. I have seen all six movies more times than I can count. I have read almost all Star Wars novels and comics. I have pondered serious questions like: Who are Yoda's parents, and what do they look like? Would Luke in his prime beat Obi-Wan in his? What exactly did Padme see in Anakin?

So I decided to start a journey of re-watching the six movies in order over the next several weeks/months. I would do it quicker, but I have a family and a job, and I would like to keep both.

To kick off 'Episode I: The Phantom Menace', I'm not sure why there's so much bad talk about the newer prequel trilogy. Were these movies as good as the first three? No, but the first three were three of the best movies ever made, so that's asking a lot. But all three movies were commercial successes. Phantom Menace, when adjusted for inflation, is the 20th all-time grossing movie, ahead of movies like 'The Godfather', 'The Lion King', and 'The Dark Knight.'

If you didn't like the movie, fine, but the Star Wars movies are not about awesome stories or compelling dialogue. The Star Wars formula is simple: fun adventure story + cool characters you care about + visually excitement + just plain coolness. Phantom Menace worked in the formula. Am I a Lucas apologist? Absolutely. But this is a very, very good movie. I even ranked it as the No. 5 movie of the 90s.

That being said, Lucas & Co. missed the opportunity to make this a transcendent film (like the first three), so in that way it was a slight disappointment. Here are some of the misses:

• Jar-Jar Binks. What a waste of screen time. I realize that this character was an attempt to engage younger viewers, but that's a crock to me. With young Anakin playing a central role, and R2-D2 and C3PO involved, he was completely superfluous and completely annoying. And he turned the Gungans from a warrior race into a joke.
• Anakin. Young actor Jake Lloyd just didn't get it done. Child acting can ruin movies, and he didn't do that poorly, but either Lucas was too impatient to get young Jake to the right point, or Jake just didn't have it in him. It was likely a little of both. Regardless, this detracted from the film.
• Medachlorians. Reducing the Force to some symbiotic creature was dumb, and Lucas never mentioned it again. Neither will I.
• Virgin birth. Anakin was conceived by the Force? Oh good golly. Again, we will never mention this again. I would have preferred that Palpatine had an affair with his mother, or it was Jango Fett. Anything but a virgin birth.
• More Darth Maul. He needed to blow out who Darth Maul was a little. His appearance in the series was too brief. What a cool character who only barely touches the surface of what he could have been.

Without further desecration of my Star Wars fandom, here's my not-so-random thoughts regarding Phantom Menace.

The Worlds of Naboo and Coruscant
The movie takes place on three planets: Naboo, Coruscant and Tatooine. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the third one. It's a desert planet visited in three of the other five films. Naboo is only briefly featured again, and Coruscant is introduced to us.

Naboo, both the beautiful countryside and the spectacular capital city of Theed, gave Lucas and a his team their first chance to create a world with the new technology that was available at the time. It's a vibrant world, with two divided nations, the Gungans and the humans, who live in a tense peace. And we also get to see the beautiful Gungan underwater city. (By the way, how do the Jedi swim underwater with all those robes? That's got to be tough.)

Coruscant is a planet that is one entire city. Awesome visually, with ships and speeders criss-crossing everywhere. Coruscant is featured more in the later films, so I won't waste too many pixels here, but it was great to see the capital planet in all its glory.

The Jedi
In the first three films, there are a couple of old Jedi (Obi-Wan and Yoda), a young Jedi in training (Luke), a potential Jedi (Leia) and a Jedi-turned bad (Darth Vader). But we see very little of the Jedi, and know very little about them.

The movie begins with Qui-Gon Jinn, Jedi Knight, taking his padowan apprentice Obi-Wan on a diplomatic mission that ends up with them in some minor skirmishes. We finally get to see Jedi in action as a team, and it's pretty cool, knocking down droid soldiers and running through different terrains. Awesome.

We also get to see the Jedi Council, are re-introduced to a younger Yoda and meet other major players, including the very serious Mace Windu. We also find out that the wise Obi-Wan was trained by a somewhat rebellious mentor, someone who frequently defied the council's best wishes.

This movie left me with some questions about the Jedi Council, some of which were answered in the other movies, some of which weren't:

• What did they know about Anakin? We'll get into this later, but if Mace Windu and Yoda were do nervous, why didn't they take him as a padowan?
• Why was Mace Windu so arrogant about the Sith? Why did he believe they couldn't rise again without the Jedi knowing?
• If the Republic was already corrupt, why weren't the Jedi already becoming more proactive? Was Palpatine's power over them that complete?

The Sith
Darth Sidious (aka Palpatine) quickly becomes the central evil mastermind of this drama. He's pulling all the strings, attempting to manipulate the Republic, the Jedi, the Trade Federation, basically playing everyone off each other, all with the goal of consolidating power underneath him, ruling the galaxy under the hand of the Sith.

The question is how much of what happens in this movie was his plan or what was an accident he used to his advantage. Hard to say. I think he misjudged Amidala and her abilities, but it accelerated his opportunity to become Supreme Chancellor. I think he also greatly underestimated Obi-Wan, which he would do again decades later. He thought Darth Maul would earn his stripes against Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan, and instead, he inadvertently launched the career of the Jedi Knight who would ultimately lead to his downfall (by watching over and training Luke).

Speaking of Darth Maul, I'm not exactly sure what Palpatine had in mind for him. Was he eventually to become the enforcer Darth Vader would become? Seems to make sense. Was he more of an apprentice experiment? That's the problem with the Sith; they don't want an apprentice that's too powerful, and maybe Palpatine recruited and trained Maul to be too weak, and this bit him. And that's what drew him to the more powerful Anakin.

And the end of the movie, Palpatine makes a passing comment to Anakin about watching his career. It's clear he saw him as someone to manipulate, as an emotionally vulnerable child who would have a set of weaknesses unlike most Jedis. I don't believe Palpatine knew how he would use Anakin yet, he just knew that, unlike Obi-Wan or Yoda, he was someone he could steer.

The Seeds of a Villain
Was Anakin destined to become Darth Vader? Qui-Gon obviously believed something different, unless he believed bringing balance to the Force was killing almost all Jedis and eventually killing Palpatine. But that seems like a stretch.

I think Yoda said the most important things about Anakin: his path was unclear and dangerous. And because no one, at that point, seemed to realize that a Sith Lord would be trying to manipulate Anakin in order to destroy the Jedi Order, he was allowed to be trained by Obi-Wan in the traditional fashion, instead of being kept in the temple in a more special arrangement. But certainly, as Obi-Wan pointed out to Qui-Gon, the Jedi Council viewed Anakin as a dangerous person to train. But they also probably thought of him as a dangerous kid to leave untrained.

Obviously his attachment to his mother is the problem, worsened by his slavery and the hatred he felt toward the evil authorities on his home planet. Combine that with the chilly initial reception he received from the Jedi Council, and the seeds were planted for his rebellion.

The Mother of Luke and Leia
Amidala is a vexing figure. One of the things viewers forget is that Padme Amidala is a democratically elected, 13 year-old queen, who 5 months into her reign was faced with the aggressive blockcade of the Trade Federation. How inconceivable that may seem to us, she was put into political training at age 8, and the culture of the planet was to groom young politicians before they became corrupt.

She shows a tremendous amount of courage, similar to the courage her daughter Leia Organa would show decades later in opposing the oppressive rule of Emperor Palpatine. Her alliance with Palpatine is one of the great ironies of the story, as is the trust she places in him. This trust would dissolve in the future as his truer nature began to be revealed.

Closing Thoughts
I really could go on forever, but I won't, mainly because, as I mentioned above, I have a job and a family. But Phantom Menace does a beautiful job of setting up the next two films and establishing the three most important characters of the prequel trilogy: Anakin, Padme Amidala, and Obi-Wan. And anytime Yoda is shown on screen is awesome.

When I saw Phantom Menace on screen in 1999, it was a sublime moment, a fulfillment of boyhood dreams for a 23 year-old. Yes, I realize some of you probably find that pathetic. Others of you remember the feeling all to well. Was I slightly disappointed by some elements of this film? Yes, but I was overwhelmingly pleased with what came out.

So hopefully soon I can watch 'Attack of the Clones' and continue this little series. It's been fun to get back into the Star Wars galaxy.

Why I Was Wrong About the Red Sox

A little more than a month ago, I wrote that the Rays and the Yankees couldn't be beat. Apparently I'm an idiot. You can look at the May 18, 2010, standings here. The Red Sox were 8.5 games behind the division-leading Rays, and 5 games behind the Yanks. Before games are played on June 22, Boston is tied with Tampa Bay, both teams half a game behind New York. How did this happen?

In there last 30 games, the Sox have been scorching hot, winning 22. The Yanks have been very good, winning 18, and the Rays have been poor, winning just 14. But we can dig deeper.

As of today, the most prolific offense in the American League, measured by the most runs scored. How is that possible? Going by games played, this is the most frequent lineup OF lineup with OPS+ in parentheses: Jeremy Hermida in LF (70), Darnell McDonald in CF (86), JD Drew in RF (116). Keep in mind that Hermida is an fielder at best, and McDonald is not a CF at all. Bill Hall has played a lot in the OF, including CF (though the numbers say he's been an average fielder, maybe even better than that). How can the offense be this good with this OF?

On offense it comes down to five key players, all of whom I will briefly discuss:

• Kevin Youkilis. He's awesome. He leads the team in most meaningful statistics. According to Fangraphs, he's the second best hitter in baseball this year. He runs the bases well, hits for power, takes his walks, fields his position well. It really irks me sometimes when I hear some Sox fans say that our lineup isn't what it used to be. Youk may not be Manny in his prime, but he's far superior to Jason Bay, and he's having an all-time awesome season. Open your eyes people.
• Adrian Beltre. All of you who thought that by mid-June Beltre would be a Top 15 hitter in the AL, raise your hands? Yeah, me neither. I think his BA with come down and so will his value at the plate (his BABIP is too high at .373), but I also think his fielding will get better. Either way, the signing has been a success (except for him breaking ribs).
• David Ortiz. Two months ago, I discussed trading for a Big Papi replacement. That would have been dumb. The guy is hitting 260/366/555. He's got 15 HRs, the most he's ever had by this point in a season. There's nothing fluky about his numbers. I am sorry Big Papi; can you forgive me?
• Dustin Pedroia. Another very good season from Pedroia, including his usual stellar glove work. Solid.
• Victor Martinez. He started off slow, but he's rebounded nicely. He's pounding LHP, and struggling a bit vs. RHP (which I think is an anomaly). I think he'll come back to earth against LHPs, and will improve against RHPs.

To sum up on the lineup, this is the best lineup in baseball (at least it has been thus far). It may not be the flashiest, but it has been the best.

Pitching has been a two-sided story. Again referencing Fangraphs, Boston has the 3rd best starting rotation in the league, thanks to awesome pitching by Clay Buchholz and Jon Lester. Dice-K and Lackey have been average, Wakefield has been OK, and Beckett has been awful.

Unfortunately, the bullpen is the other side of that coin. They have been awful, 2nd worst in the league, only bettering Baltimore. Do you know who's been above-average in the pen this year? Daniel Bard. That's it. Papelbon has been shaky, and the rest of the bullpen is very questionable.

But here we sit on June 22, and the Sox are in it. The Rays lineup looks average, and the young pitching is regressing a little. And the Yankees don't look so unbeatable. So forget everything I wrote a month ago about the Sox being done and go back to my AL preview. The Sox are going to make the playoffs.

World Cup: Weekend of soccer

First off, I am not a diehard soccer fan. I follow the Word Cup every four years, and I occasionally catch an MLS match or a FIFA friendly (usually involving the USA). So everything written after this needs to be read in that light. But I love the World Cup. I love the passion of the fans, the incredible ability of the players, and the rhythm of the game, which to me is a combination of hockey and baseball. It is a strategic, slow-paced sport, combined with frenetic, physical combat around the goals. Great stuff.

There are some things though that FIFA needs to address:

• More officials. The NBA has three officials on the field, the NFL more. MLB has three-man crews, and adds additional umps for the postseason. And FIFA thinks one guy roaming that huge pitch is sufficient (with a couple of linesmen)? Come one. The foul on the US was symptomatic of this. FIFA needs an official closer to the goal who can see the physicality on corners and free kicks and let offensive players make a play. The physical nature of soccer is one of its charms, but mugging a player at the goal (and missing obvious calls) is just plain annoying and detracts from an otherwise terrific sport. Even increasing to two officials would make a huge difference.
• Stop the flop. Now before the more dedicated footballers tell me to get back to writing about baseball, let me say that I don't find the flooping in soccer any more offensive than I find in the NBA or than WRs falling over and trying to draw interference calls in American football. I get that it's part of the game. I also know that soccer is a very physical sport, and injuries are common. But please stop holding your face when you were whacked in the shoulder. And please stop grabbing your knee, and then popping up when a yellow card is issued. I'm not saying replay should be used in game (though I'm not against it), but I think FIFA should think long and hard about handing out very stiff penalties against obvious cheaters. I know they do it sometimes, but they should do it more.

This past weekend I watched 4 matches, and here are my thoughts on each.

USA 2, Slovenia 2 (Friday)
Alexi Lalas in the postgame basically said that the Americans shouldn't blame the officials, that they played liked crap for the first 45 minutes, and that if they had turned in a decent first half, that the awful call wouldn't have mattered. That's a load of crap.

All teams have bad sections of a game. Soccer, because of it's low scoring, is hyper-sensitive to these bad periods. But the US did come back and scored two goals, and made the play to score another. They were robbed. Yes, going forward, they can't dwell on it. But make no mistake: that ref made a huge mistake, and seeing him act as a back-up on Sunday was weird. Even if FIFA doesn't feel like the mistake wasn't worth taking action, from a PR standpoint, I would keep the dude as far away from a pitch as possible for the remainder of the Cup.

All of that being said, what that game proved is that when the US is clicking, they can move the ball and create very quick scoring opportunities. Assuming they make it to the next round (which is certainly still a big if), they could surprise, especially against weaker defensive squads. It would be great to watch the Yanks make a run.

Netherlands 1, Japan 0 (Saturday)
'There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.' A great quote from a lousy movie (Austin Powers) that actually has nothing to do with this game. But it kept running through my mind the entire time. My actual age: 14.

The Dutch showed something: their usual flashy style isn't necessary, as they scored early in the second half and put the clamps down on Japan, pretty much putting a stamp on the next round.

Italy 1, New Zealand 1 (Sunday)
So, what's up with these big-time European powers like France and Italy playing themselves out of potentially playing in the second round? Now, Italy is still in the driver's seat, and can get into the second round with a convincing win over Slovakia, but man, this match was winnable. They had the most talent, but the Kiwis wanted it and made plays on both sides of the pitch. Fun match.

Brazil 3, Ivory Coast 1 (Sunday)
Besides the US comeback on Friday, my favorite match of the Cup so far. Watching Brazil is like watching the Phoenix Suns in basketball: it's just more fun. Now the last 20 minutes turned into an ugly slugfest, with Kaka getting a second yellow card for standing on the field and having a guy run into him. Regardless, Brazil and Portugal are in the next round after Portugal's 7-0 dismantling of Korea this morning.

I just love watching Brazil. People keep asking me who my second team is after the US. Usually I route for England for whatever reason, not sure why. I'm part British, but I'm also part French and German, so that doesn't really make sense. I like watching Mexico, but they're our rivals, so I can't route for them. So for me it's come down to Brazil or Argentina, but I've stayed away from Brazil because how can your second team be the No. 1 team in the world? Isn't that the pansy pick?

Screw it. They are my second team. I don't really care if they win the whole thing or not, but I want them in the Final because that team is the most fun to watch.

So go USA, and if it can't be USA, then let it be Brazil. And anytime I can say Kaka in a sentence, I will take that opportunity. Remember my true age: 14.

Celtics-Lakers: Boston falls short

As I wrote after Game 6, I thought Artest and Odom were the keys for the Lakers. Well, Odom was largely invisible, but Artest shined with his best overall game of the series. With Kobe being double-teamed and forcing shots, and Gasol struggling at time on the offensive end, Artest delivered 20 points. He also added 5 steals, and played the best defense against Paul Pierce he'd played in the seven games. He played like the Artest of old.

Gasol, though sometimes shaky on the offensive end and playing a little matador defense on KG, rebounded like a man possessed. Eighteen boards, including 9 offensive.

Kobe played poorly. If the Celtics had won this game, he should have shouldered much of the blame. While getting double-teamed, he forced up too many bad shots. He did rebound well (15), but this was not his game.

KG is a shadow of the old KG monster. In a game without Kendrick Perkins, he had three rebounds. Three? This guy average double digit rebounds for ten straight seasons. He couldn't manage a big rebounding game for an NBA title?

Ray Allen didn't lose the game (it's more complicated than that), but 3-14 shooting is unbelievable. His defense on Kobe was very good in this series, but after game 2, his shooting touch disappeared, and that will haunt this team for a long time.

Rajon Rondo is awesome. His playoff line: 16-6-9. His Finals line: 13-6-8. When the Celtics run, they are nearly unstoppable. I think, with the right cast, Boston could be a contender for a long time with Rondo at the helm.

Doc Rivers is a good coach, but not a great one. Jeff Van Gundy had it right: Artest had proved during this series that Pierce could not go iso, but Rivers let Pierce do that too often. They needed more pick and rolls, more movement for Pierce off screens to get open looks from Artest's suffocating D. Artest was too good.

The officiating did not lose the Celtics this series, but it did get frustrating that Pierce shot 8 free throws in the final three games, while Kobe shot 31. The discrepancy is too much. Pierce drives a little less, but I've never seen anyone get so many calls on three point shots since Reggie Miller, and not one but Dwyane Wade gets as many calls going to the hoop.

I'm tired of floppers and whiners, and both teams provided shining moments of this annoying behavior. Just stop it, Rasheed, Pau, Fisher, Duncan, everyone! You occasionally do commit fouls and you sometimes tip the ball out of bounds. Shut it!

Finally, I would say congrats to the Lakers, but I wouln't mean it, so I won't.

The Career of Han Solo

Several of weeks ago I looked back at my favorite all-time movies of Tom Cruise. Today I look at my favorite movies of Harrison Ford.

As a young guy, Harrison Ford was my movie hero. His two most iconic characters, Han Solo and Indiana Jones, were the kind of heroes I acted out being as a kid. And truth be told, they're the kind of heroes I still want to be. They had swagger, they were cool, and they were heroic. He has parlayed those two roles into a 30-year career that has taken him from being a space smuggler to the president of the United States. And I've watched almost all of it.

Now this top ten is not representative of these movies on their own, but more my favorite Harrison Ford performances. So here's the Harrison Ford top ten.

1. Raider of the Lost Ark (1981)
2. The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
3. Star Wars (1977)
4. Patriot Games (1992)
5. The Fugitive (1993)
6. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
7. Blade Runner (1982)
8. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
9. Air Force One (1997)
10. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

There really is only one Harrison Ford movie I hate: 'Six Days Seven Nights' (1998), a forgettable action film with Anne Heche when she was still with Ellen. I've at least found something to like in everything else (even 'Mosquito Coast' (1986).

Now why isn't Harrison Ford's career as prolific as Tom Cruise's? A couple of reasons. First, his big break came with 'American Graffiti' in 1973; he was 31. He wasn't an icon until he was 35 with 'Star Wars' and didn't have his own franchise until 1981. Second, he just didn't make as many movies as Cruise.

Still, look at that list. What an awesome career. He's still one of my movie heroes. And since I just turned 34, he shows you can still have quite a career even if you don't get a big break until you're mid-30s.

On DVD: New Moon

When this is posted many of my male readers (all four of you) will ask for my man card, but I have a few things to say to you:

• I'm married. My wife is a Twilight-nerd and wanted me to watch it
• The movie has vampires and werewolves
• Who's to say I didn't lose my man card the day I uttered the phrase, "I think I really like 'Sleepless in Seattle.'"

So, take your shots, you mocking horde. I will go on with my movie review.

What worked
It's almost impossible for me to not compare this to the first Twilight movie, which I reviewed last year. So I'm breaking it down, and saying why this was better in this movie:

• Better special effects. The effects were very cheesy in the first one. And though they weren't top notch in this one, they weren't distracting.
• Vampires fight werewolves. The first film suffered from having too little action. This one still didn't have enough, but it ramped it up.
• Less Edward. Robert Pattinson stinks. He plays Edward as this pouty, whiny, annoying guy, that I hope gets his head ripped off. Unfortunately he survives.
• The story works for the most part. It's not a great story, but it's interesting enough.

What didn't work
Still too much cheese and teen love angst for my taste. I would have also liked more action, more chasing vampires by werewolves, and more backstory about what the werewolves and vampires can and can't do. My wife said it's in the book, and maybe they left it out because all the Twilight nerds would already know. But I wanted to know more about the fantasy behind the world.

Who would like this
I'm guessing most Twilight fans or people who enjoyed the first movie would like it, though I don't know how far they strayed from the book (because I haven't read it). Also, if you like romantic action movies (a small genre to be sure), this fits.

Who wouldn't like this
If you hated the first one, this one might be worth a rental, but probably not. Also, if you loved the book and you're the type where movies ruin your favorite books, I'd stay away. It's also dark fantasy with vampires and werewolves, and some might be creeped out by that.

Closing Credits
It was a decent movie that kept me entertained. I'm not likely to watch another Twilight movie in the theater, mainly because I have a tendency to laugh during the extra cheesy sections, which may get me killed by a crazy mob of 14 year-olds and cougars. Still, it's not a bad movie, and I like fantasy, I like vampires and werewolves, and I was emotionally invested in the outcome. That's sufficient for me.

Celtics-Lakers: One Game to Bind Them

Game 6 of this series stunk as a Celtics fan. The Lakers defense was very good, but there were opportunities. The second half opened with a series of missed layups and missed chances. So what will the deciding factors be for Game 7? What will decide the fate of the 2010 NBA Championship and the latest bragging rights in the historic Boston-LA feud? Glad you asked.

Odom and Artest. Neither player was spectacular in Game 6, but the key was they both contributed positively. The Lakers don't need either player to carry the team (Kobe and Gasol will do that), but they can't suck. The Celtics (on most nights) are two good for Kobe and Gasol to do it alone.

Injured big men. In the last two games Andrew Bynum has played largely ineffective minutes. It really hurt the Lakers in Game 5, but didn't make much of a difference in Game 6. Why? Because Kendrick Perkins left the game early, and Gasol was such a monster (17-13-9-3), that he filled the holes. But Bynum is the glue when Gasol is struggling, and he's the one post player the Celtics struggle to defend (when he's on). Perkins' injury could be devastating for the Celtics. He's one of only two plus post defenders (Rasheed being the other, and he's a nut job), with KG showing flashes of his old defensive brilliance only occasionally. Sheldon Williams, in 14 rust-filled minutes, showed why he's on the bench.

Where for art thou Rondo? After starting the playoffs brilliantly and staking his claim to best PG in the land, Rondo is slowing disappearing from the Finals stage. Yes, he threw up a decent line (10-5-6-2), but he was 5-15 shooting, including half a dozen missed layups (though the degree of difficulty was high). I know I keep harping on this, but something is off with Rondo. The Celtics need a monster Game 7 from him to get it done.

So those are the keys. Celtics in 7.

One more thing: Sasha Vujacic and Tony Allen are two of the most frustrating players alive. Yes, they both have their uses, but they both make 2-3 dumb plays a game that makes you wonder if this is there first pro game. Let me illustrate.

Sasha, toward the end of the 1st half, was trailing on a break. Kobe was being guarded on mismatch by Rondo (which happened a lot last night) and Odom was being guarded by Ray Allen. Two mismatches on the secondary break. So what does Sasha do? He jacks up a contested three. If I was a Lakers fan I would have been throwing my Jack sunglasses at the TV.

But Tony didn't want to be outdone. Later in the game he called for the ball and posted up. The only time Tony Allen should call for the ball in a post up situation is if one of his kids is guarding him at a family picnic. Even then, he'll stick brick the layup.

So I'm pretty sure if those two ever end up on the same team, the universe may explode.

Celtics-Lakers: A crazy 4th quarter

As I was discussing this series Saturday night with a friend, he said he thought Game 5 was the game of the series. I completely agreed, and the game did not disappoint. But instead of my usual 'thoughts' piece, here are my thoughts on the key plays of our crazy 4th quarter.

• 3:56 Rondo makes an amazing tip shot, Celtics 87-75. He leaps above two bigger Lakers to make this happen. I mention to my wife that if we were having a boy his name would need to be Rondo. She closes her eyes and forces herself to sleep.
• 2:55 Kobe makes two free throws, Celtics 87-78. Why is this important? Because Artest and the other Lakers forgot how to make free throws in this game.
• 2:06 Ray Allen misses a three. This was a really bad call. Ray missed the rim by inches, but the refs said it hit the rim, so Perkins' offensive rebound stood instead of a 24-second violation. The Celtics took time off the clock, but did not score.
• 1:30 Kobe makes three free throws, Celtics 87-82. R. Allen has fouled Kobe a couple of times shooting threes in this series. It looked pretty mild on the replay, but I don't play the officials for calling it.
• 0:46 KG loses a jumpball to Derek Fisher. Yeah, you read that right. I think it's safe to say that KG has lost a little explosiveness.
• 0:40 Pierce gets a defensive rebound off of missed Artest free throw. Really, Kobe came from the three point line and made a great play for the rebound, then Pierce swept in and stole it out of his hands. Kobe got pissed about this, but the replay showed it was a good physical play. Artest was 1-4 shooting free throws, all in the 4th quarter.
• 0:38 Boston calls timeout. After the rebound, Pierce was having trouble getting the ball up the court and wisely called timeout.
• 0:35 Rondo makes two point shot. That what's ESPN's play-by-play says, but let's break down the most important and amazing play of the playoffs. KG is inbounding (not sure why, maybe because of his height). He's having trouble getting it in. Pierce releases toward the hoop. KG lets lose a baseball pass that Pierce catches over his shoulder off balance, falling out of bounds. Rondo cuts to the basket and Pierce throws a perfect pass. Rondo layup. My description is lame compared to the actual play. My wife was asleep, and I had been quite most of the quarter, but I let out a 'yelp' of some sort after Rondo's layup, which woke her up. She thought a seagull had hit our window.
• 0:18 Fisher personal foul on Ray Allen. This was the icing. Rondo even got the ball on this play, but he was too fast for Artest and was able to give it up before anyone touched him. Of course, Allen drains the freebies.

Other thoughts:

• I've mentioned this before, and I might again: Artest is a shadow of his former shelf. He is doing a decent on Pierce in this series, but he can't guard any other key Boston player. He's too slow for Rondo, and Phil Jackson made the tactical error of putting Artest on Rondo in the closing minutes, which led to a layup and missed opportunity to foul a poor free throw shooter. And he can't guard small bigs anymore. Farmar or Brown should have been guarding Rondo in the final minutes.
• The officiating continues to stink. After three quarters of decent officiating, the zebras decided to put their fingerprints on the 4th quarter. Again, it's stinking both ways, so I'm claiming no conspiracy here, but man Stern needs to do something.

Celtics in 6.

Celtics-Lakers: Game 4 Thoughts

One thought is probably haunting the Lakers and their fans this morning: The Lakers were ultimately beat by the lineup of Rasheed-Big Baby-Tony Allen-Ray Allen-Little Nate. Read that again. That lineup played most of the 4th quarter. Rasheed and Nate even got T'd up. Didn't matter. By the time the rest of the starters returned, they were acting like a closer in baseball, not like a basketball assassin. A few thoughts about this lineup:

• I love the effort of Glen Davis. Even in the games where he gets blocked 837 times, he never gives up. Last night the effort was there, and so was the offense (18 points).
• Tony Allen is an awful offensive basketball player. He is once of the worst layup shooters in NBA history (though he can dunk), and he could not beat me in a shooting drill. But man can he play defense. He made Kobe work in the 4th quarter, and single-handedly disrupted the Lakers offense.
• I love Nate Robinson. The energy he brought to the court was amazing, and he delivered the offense. When the Celtics traded for him, this is what they wanted.
• I can't stand Rasheed Wallace. A tremendously skilled basketball player for sure, but his mental game is a disaster. Keep a lid on it dude.

Now, finally, some things the announcers aren't talking about, but should be:

• Last night Jeff Van Gundy criticized Rondo for gambling too much. Usually I think Van Gundy is spot on, but I think he's off on this one. If Rondo is 100%, Derek Fisher beats him off the dribble 1 out of 100 times. Right now he's doing it 4 out of 10 times. Rondo is gambling because his body is betraying him. They keep talking about how Bynum is playing through the pain (and he should be lauded for it, he's been a warrior), but I believe strongly Rondo is less than 80% physically.
• Many commentators, including the esteemed Bill Simmons, are hammering the officiating, which, much like Van Gundy and Mike Breen, I think is unfair to a certain extent. I think the rules stink, and are hard to call. Van Gundy talks about that a little with post play, but the list includes charges and a myriad of other things. Oh, and the officiating stinks.
• How come Nate Robinson gets T'd up for taunting Lamar Odom (which I thought was a little too quick of a whistle, but a fair call), but Artest makes a 'and-1' and starts walking toward Robinson shouting at him, but that's nothing. Is it proximity? That's stupid. They had set the precedent. Be consistent.
• They have talked about his offense a little, but Artest just seems off as well. I'm waiting for a monster 20-7-5 game from him. Not sure if we'll see it.
• Phil Jackson is a great coach (which they are talking about), but overrated (which they wouldn't dare talk about). But I am coming around. He won his first 9 NBA championships with two top tier Hall of Famers leading the pack, Jordan-Pippen in Chicago and Shaq-Kobe in LA. Last year's title was his first with one super-duper star, and some other very good players like Gasol. That elevated him in my eyes. If every player from the last 30 years were available and we were picking 10 teams, and then I had first choice of coaches, I would still pick Poppovich or Jerry Sloan. But for the first time ever I would think about Jackson. (And yes, I realize many of you, especially Lakers and Bulls fans, think this last paragraph was the dumbest thing I've ever written.)

Conference expansion and other craziness

The University of Colorado is joining the Pac 10. Nebraska soon might join them. The Big 12 might dissolve. The SEC might sweep in and grab Oklahoma. Texas might flee to the Pac 10 or the SEC, or another conference could arise out of the ashes.

What does this mean for college football? Anyone who tells you that they know is a total liar. This could be fairly small (Colorado leaves the Big 12, Nebraska declines, Utah accepts, and BYU fills in the hole), or it could be so big that college football in 2011 looks nothing like it does now. As of today, we just don't know.

That being said, I wanted to tackle a couple of topics.

Will the Pac 10 become the Pac 16? And what does that mean?
One ESPN report has the Pac 10 becoming the Pac 16, dividing into two 8-team divisions, playing no championship, and asking for two automatic bids into the BCS. Say what?

First off, if this report is true, the arrogance of these people astounds me. Two automatic bids? This is a conference that has only one national power a year (USC)? And that team is likely going on a bowl ban? Please. The MWC has been as good of a conference in many ways (in football) over the past couple of years.

What is means to other sports is total chaos. I was a sports writer when BYU and many of the traditional WAC teams ditched the WAC and formed the MWC. It was great for football, pretty good for basketball, but not great for other sports. Maybe most fans don't care, but for many athletes, their level of competition changes, and their 'rivals' change.

The destruction of the Big 12
I don't really care about this. It's not like this is a historical conference, formed in 1994 out of the Big 8 and the Southwest. What it really means is destruction of some regional rivalries, both traditional and some relatively new.

For example, what if the Pac 10 takes Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Colorado. What about the UT rivalry with A&m? Will UT only go if A&M is included? And what about Nebraska's rivalries with Missouri and Kansas? Not as traditional or as deep, but they mean something.

Are fans going to have to pay more money to watch their teams play?
If you're still reading this (which is not likely), you should know that my friend Christy actually prompted this blog post. She's an OU grad who lives in Lincoln who is wondering if she's going to have to pay through the nose to watch her beloved Sooners play in whichever conference they end up in. The answer is: maybe.

This is all about money. College football is a greed sport. The Pac 10, SEC and others have seen the financial success of the Big Ten Network, and they want that. Even the lowly MWC has its own network.

And these conference channels have more benefits than major financial windfalls. The conferences build the conference and school brands, promoting other sports besides football and basketball, and better promoting the two premier sports. For example, do you want to watch a show about the best Big Ten basketball players of the 80s? In HD? You can, on the Big Ten Network at 8pm on Friday. I will not be tuning in.

As a BYU fan, the whole Mtn Network thing has been a pain, but it's pretty awesome now. I can sit in my house in Wisconsin and watch every BYU football and basketball game. But I do have to pay more. I have to purchase a premium DirectTV package, and then I have to pay more for the Sports Pack, which includes the Mtn Network.

That being said, it's worth it to me (though my wife may disagree). I get to watch the Cougars for heaven's sake! And I don't have to watch them at weird times or nights, but on Saturdays like they should be. But once most conferences switch to the network model, if you don't live in the geography of your team's conference, you may have to pay extra to see your team.

What does this mean for BYU?
The MWC and BYU are at a the mercy of the other conferences. If the Pac 10 only gets Colorado, then they probably come poach Utah or BYU (most likely the evil U 0f U). Then the Big 12 would need another team, likely BYU or TCU. BYU has some negatives against it, the biggest being not playing sports on Sundays. Being one of the big fishes in the MWC, the conference happily accommodates us. Would the Big 12? Do they honestly want a conservative Mormon school in the ranks? And if Utah and TCU leave, where does that leave the Cougars? No where good.

What does this mean for the BCS?
Again, chaos. If several super-conferences are created (the Pac 10 becomes the Pac 16, the Big Ten becomes the Big 14), they may demand multiple bids. This could squeeze out MWC and WAC teams that have wreaked havoc against the big boys recently. It may also create more a rallying cry for a playoff, but I wouldn't count on that.

How could they fix all this?
The NCAA could fix all this be disbanding all the conferences and going to a region system. Now I don't believe the NCAA has the power to do this, and even if they did, it would be extremely complicated. But imagine a world where small, nimble geographic regions were created. This would make non-revenue sports less expensive, as most schools would rarely travel more than several hundred miles for regional play. It would also make most playoffs clean and rational.

Of course this won't happen. Way too much money is at stake for big boy schools and conferences to let rational thought, small sports, and academics cloud their greed. In the next couple of weeks I will blog about what this would look like. Why? Because this is my blog, read by several.

Closing thoughts
The two big NCAA sports, football and basketball, are greedy enterprises, that cover themselves in a shroud of amateurism but rake in profits like professionals, at least at the enterprise level. The swirling rumors of the last few days clearly show that. I don't know how all of this will land, but I do know that the richer will likely get richer no matter were the various schools land.

Making adjustments: The making of a great pitcher

I don't know if we'll ever see another reliever like Mariano Rivera. He is a wonder. Look at some of these career numbers: 16 seasons, 2.24 ERA, 529 saves, 203 ERA+, 2.79 FIP, 50.6 WAR (according to baseball-reference). Some other fascinating facts.

• Since 2002, Mariano has only had one season with an ERA over 2.00 (2007). The same is true of his FIP.
• The dude is 40.
• Until 2005, he had only one season with more than 9/K per 9. Since then, he's had five. And remember: this started when he was 35.
• Over the course of his career, he's struck out almost 4 times as many batters as he's walked.
• He's pitched at least 61 innings every year except for 2002. Now, he's not Rollie Fingers in the innings department, but actually, I'd take Mariano over Fingers any day.
• Did I mention the guy got better with age? And that he's having a similarly brilliant season at the age of 40?

Of course, only three things can explain the above amazingness:

• Performance enhancing drugs
• Dark magic
• He learned a pitch from Bugs Bunny

Yankees fans can send me hate mail yankeessuck@jeterisapansy.com.

Now you might be asking why a Red Sox fan would be singing the praises of the reliever of Satan's Minions. For lots of reasons. He's awesome. I'm not longer terrified by him after 2004. And he exemplifies how great pitchers make adjustments over time.

If you listen to announcers, you might get the impression that Rivera has been the same reliever since he began setting up for John Wetteland in mid-90s. But the numbers do not bear this out.

He's throwing different pitches. Since 2002, he's switched how he's thrown the ball, changing his pitch-mix assortment, and seeing some drop in velocity. Yet his performance has not suffered, and his pitches continue to be just as valuable. How is that possible? Adjustments. Grip, arm angle, every tool he has, Rivera has used to his advantage to be one of the most dominant relievers of all time.

I recently wrote about how Papelbon is losing his dominant stuff. He has also made adjustments, but the results are not there. actually the opposite. And that's the difference between the great and the very good. Between Rivera and Papelbon. Between Clemens and Beckett. Greatness as a pitcher is making adjustments over time, and maintaing great, consistent performance.

So that's why even a Red Sox fan can enjoy the great Mariano.

Celtics-Lakers: Thoughts before Game 3

Similar to what I said after Game 1, Lakers fan need not to panic. The biggest factor in game 2 besides Rondo was Kobe's foul trouble. Two of his five fouls were a joke. As much as it advantaged the Celtics, it sucks for basketball. The Celtics suffered from this in game 1 with cheap fouls on frontliners (and this continued in game 2), so you have to sit the players that affect the game the most because of foul trouble. Lame.

I hate the foul-out rule. I think it's antiquated and ridiculous. Fouls count double against your team: once against the player, and once against your team fouls total. But why? Why do players foul out with usual infractions? This doesn't happen in football or hockey, team sports with player flow and stoppage. Why in basketball?

Here is my half-baked foul proposal for the NBA. Something similar could be adopted for NCAA basketball:

• There would be no limit to the individual number of fouls
• Once a player reaches 6 fouls, for each foul beginning with the 7th foul, the other team gets a shot and the ball.
• In OT, the +1 and the ball would start on the 9th individual foul
• Regarding technicals, on the first one, the other team gets a free throw (like now) and the offending player has to sit out for 5 minutes of game time (like a penalty box). On the second technical, the other team gets a shot, and the offending player gets a personal foul and gets 10 mins of penalty box time. The third technical would be an ejection and an automatic one-game suspension. Flagrant fouls would act the same, but would start at Technical Level II.
• Before a technical would becomes official, it must be ratified by another official on the floor.

This would keep star players on the floor, but still punish lots of fouls. One other possibility: only team fouls, and eliminate penalties for individual fouls all together.

Now, on to thoughts on the series:

• Rondo does not look very healthy to me. I know injuries have been mentioned, but he's not as explosive, and his defense is not as sharp as it has been.
• Speaking of Rondo, I love it, as Celtics fan, when Kobe guards him. While I wouldn't guard him tight at the 3-point line, I wouldn't sag into key either. It allows Rondo to set up Ray Allen easily. I think Jordan Farmar and Shannon Brown are doing the best job defensively on Rondo.
• Does anyone on the Celtics besides Rondo want to rebound? He had 12 rebounds, and Glen Davis and Rasheed Wallace combined off the bench for 14 more. Where are Perkins and KG? Grab a rebound please.
• Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol humiliated the Celtics interior players. They combined for 46 points and 13 blocks. I think if Kobe avoids foul trouble the Lakers win with those performances.
• Where is Ron Artest? And what did this impostor do with him?
• Lamar Odom has cemented his legacy: very good player who disappears against really good teams.

Celtics in 6.

The befuddling Dice-K experiment

This is Daisuke Matsuzaka's line this season for the Red Sox: 41 IP, 32 K, 21 BB, 3 HR, 5.49 ERA. If you want to get a little more analytical, he's got a 4.17 FIP, which means he's been a little unlucky. Regardless, he's been average at best this season, with rates of 7.0 K/9 and 4.6 BB/9.

This is Dice-K's fourth season in Boston, and according to his Fangraph's page, he's been worth 8.3 wins above replacement during this period, most of it during his 'rookie' campaign of 2007, and his bizarre 18-3 2008 season. Last season was brutal (only 60 ineffective innings) and the results this year have not been good.

Dice-K was a legend in Japan, his exploits well documented. Very few major leaguers can boast a Wikipedia page as detailed and impressive as his. You can read about his amazing 250-pitch, 17-inning performance in the Japanese high school baseball championships. Or maybe you remember his 2006 and 2009 World Baseball Classic performances, playing a key role in Japan winning both championships.

The question, though, is not what Dice-K did in high school or the WBC, but what value he's been to the Sox. Yes, 2007 and 2008 were good seasons, and his rookie season helped Boston win championship (though he only pitched once in that post-season).

The Sox paid $51 million for the rights to negotiate with Dice-K, and then another $52 million to sign him through 2012. He's currently being paid $8.3 million, and he will make $10.3 million in 2011 and 2012, before becoming a free agent.

At this point, it is too early to tell, but tying up this much money in a pitcher who's averaging less than 3 WAR a season is not good. Yes, easy to look back and say that now (I did support the signing at the time), but I'm not sure the Dice-K experiment has been a success.

Besides a night when Wakefield's knuckler is off, Dice-K is by far the most frustrating pitcher on the Sox to watch. He can dominate for 2-3 innings, looking like some king of combination between Greg Maddux and Tim Lincecum, and then struggle the next, looking more like a combo between Mike Maddux and Tim Leary.

Nothing that has happened over the past four years diminishes Dice-K's Japanese legend. But his MLB career is becoming much less than that: slightly overpaid average MLB starter.

Celtics-Lakers: Game 1 Thoughts

Nothing much to take away from game one except the following: the Lakers played better than the Celtics. It does not mean the Lakers will win the series (though it makes it easier). It does not mean the Celtics are in trouble (though it makes it harder). The Lakers played a really good game, and the Celtics played poorly.

Some other thoughts.

Kobe is the best (right now)
It pains me to write that. But if I to go back in time and did a school-yard pick 'em at the beginning of the playoffs and picked the best player, it would be Kobe. For years I've been saying LeBron is actually Kobe's superior because of the rebounding and physical presence, but not in the 2010 playoffs.

But let's not anoint him Jordan from a career prospective. During a portion of his prime, Kobe was an awful team player and led three teams (04-05, 05-06, 06-07) that weren't very good. Yes, his supporting cast was putrid, but LeBron has had a similar problem in Cleveland, and has had better seasons. So yes, Kobe is one of the best 20 players ever, but cool it on 'the' best ever talk. Not even close. Tim Duncan was even his superior as a contemporary.

Rondo's team
Most commentators think Rondo is now the best player on the Celtics. I completely agree, even though he has two major flaws in his game: he's a career 63% FT shooter (not good for a PG) and he's a below average outside shooter (likely related difficulties). I think both are solvable. He's only 23.

But the biggest problem for Rondo is his current team. He needs a bunch of runners, a Suns-style team, to best utilize his talents and also to minimize his weaknesses. The problem is only one current player really fits: Ray Allen. Kevin Garnett in his prime would have been a great fit, but he's not that player anymore. Paul Pierce slows the game down. Glen Davis isn't too bad, Tony Allen can't make a layup to save his mother, and Perkins is too slow. Rasheed Wallace is an idiot.

Win or lose in 2010, Danny Ainge needs to start looking for players to compliment Rondo. The current roster limits what he can do.