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!

The Fall of Big Papi

Rumors are swirling around the world wide web that the very slow start of David Ortiz might force the Red Sox to release the formerly feared slugger and go find another DH. Bill Simmons recently discussed with Jonah Kerri on a podcast that the Red Sox really need a big-bopping left-handed bat to complement the three top hitters on the Sox, Youk (R), Pedroia (R), and Martinez (S).

Now I hate to speak of Big Papi as if he's already dead, but I'm going to. Here are my thoughts on hitters (inside the organization and out) who the Sox could add if Theo & Co. decide that the ship has sailed on his career.

Lars Anderson, 1B, Red Sox (AA)
Going into 2009, Anderson was the wunder-hitting prospect of the Red Sox system, a 20 year-old lefty bat destined for Fenway greatness. In 163 PAs at AA Portland, he hit 316/436/526. By 2010 or 2011, he would be with the big club, Youk moving over to 3B with Lars taking over 1B.

But then 2009 happened. Anderson spent the entire season in Portland, 522 PAs, with a bad 233/328/388. His patience remained, but everything else about his hitting seemed to disappear. But remember: He was 21. So he started 2010 in Portland again, and in 67 PAs he's hitting 328/388/672. He's unlikely to maintain that power level, but I'm hopeful this is a sign of progression. I really like Anderson, and I think he's the long-term solution at 1B/DH.

Adam's reco: Not sure he's ready, but if other options don't pan out, they should give him a shot.

Adam Dunn, 1B-OF, Washington Nationals
Check out his Fangraphs page. Dunn is in an incredibly consistent hitter. You will get a low batting average, high OBP and pop. And he sucks in the field. His UZR ratings in the OF are brutal, and if you buy his 2009 UZR at 1B, he's the worst first sacker in the history of the universe.

Of course, if he's replacing Ortiz, his positional deficiencies would be eliminated, except for occasional adventure-filled starts in the field. DH is Dunn's natural position, and the Nationals should leverage that and flip him to the AL for a couple of useful prospects.

Reco: Obviously I think this is good idea. And you could still use Lowell as the DH against particularly tough southpaws.

Paul Konerko, 1B-DH, Chicago White Sox
I don't think the White Sox will be interested in flipping Konerko anytime soon, but if the White Sox fall out of contention by midseason (which they will), the prospective free agent will become trade bait. Konerko does not hit the consistently level of Dunn, but he's been pretty consistent in his career. Decent batting average, decent OBP, decent to great pop. But he is a right-handed batter, and I'm not sure he's a better hitter than Lowell.

Reco: I would pass. Lowell or Anderson would be better options.

Derrek Lee, 1B, Chicago Cubs
On the North side of Chicago, there's another right-handed free-agent-to-be. Lee is an enigma; in 06 and 08, he was just OK, and he excelled in 07 and 09. He's off to a slow start this season, which fits with his recent even/odd trend. He's also a decent fielder, so that gives him value someone like Dunn wouldn't have.

Would the Cubs part with him? If they fall out of contention, they might. But their payroll in 2010 is $144 million (according to Cot's Contracts), so I think they will be reluctant to unload Lee unless they are way out of contention.

Reco: The Sox should keep an eye on this one, but I wouldn't count on him being available. But if he was, he would be a major upgrade over Ortiz and Lowell.

Grady Sizemore, OF, Cleveland
Now, I am not putting his name on to piss off Cleveland fans. As I was perusing rosters, his name intrigued me. He had a poor, injury-filled 2009. But from 05-08, this guy was was between 5-7.5 WAR a season. With the current injuries in the Boston outfield, Sizemore could fill in on a temporary basis at any OF position. And when everyone was healthy, they could rotate DH to keep everyone healthy and fresh.

Of course, Sizemore is under team control through 2012, so Cleveland would be very reluctant to move him (especially after unloading C.C. Sabathia, Cliff Lee and Victor Martinez in the past two years).

Reco: If I was Theo I would ask, but I think the answer would be no, and the cost would be too high.

Lance Berkman, 1B-OF, Houston Astros
This continues my theme of older firstbasemen. Berkman is a switch-hitter who, like Lee, has mixed good and very good season recently. He will likely give you a .400 OBP and some pop. Like some of the other options, he is much better against RHP than LHP, so Lowell could be kept for a platoon.

His contract has a club option for 2011. The Astros always believe they are in it, so unless they are way out of it, it's likely they won't be inclined to deal the face of the franchise.

Reco: I think Berkman would be a decent fit, but I think the changes of the Astros parting ways with him are close to zero.

Price Fielder, 1B, Milwaukee Brewers
After the ridiculous extension the Phillies just handed out to Ryan Howard, I think Prince Fielder is going to get a ton in arbitration in 2011. Would the Brewers think about moving him? Maybe, if they fall out of contention. He is not going to sign a discounted extension like Ryan Braun, especially if some team is going to overpay him like Philly did with Howard.

In four major league seasons, Fielder has sandwiched two very good seasons with two mediocre ones. Like Dunn, his natural position is probably DH, so a move to the AL is probably good for his long-term career prospects.

Reco: He will cost a lot if Milwaukee falls out of the race. I would ask, but quickly walk away if the price escalated above my comfort zone.

Adrian Gonzalez, 1B, San Diego Padres
I couldn't write a list like this without including Gonzalez. Now, we all know he's great hitter, though I think his greatness has been overblown a little bit. The Boston press corps has been selling him like the lefthanded Albert Pujols, which he is not. Still, he's very good.

Don't listen to what Padres management is saying in the press; they will trade him, it's just a matter of when.

Reco: It's obvious the Sox are flirting with a Gonzalez trade, and that would be great, but I think the price is going to be too high.

Final Recommendation
If Sox management decides to let Ortiz go, I think bringing up Lars Anderson and seeing what he's got at this point should be the first option. And if he doesn't hold up, I would pursue Gonzalez, Dunn or Berkman. And I do think, as sad as it makes me, that Big Papi's days in Boston are numbered.