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.