I was reading Bill Simmons 'Book of Basketball' and I've stolen his theory and applied it to the LPGA tour. The story goes something like this. Six girls walk into a bar and there all varying degrees of hot. The hottest one leaves and then the next hottest etc etc. By the time you get down to the last few girls the options aren't as good so you hitch your wagon onto what's left. I'm applying the same theory to the LPGA tour.
First, I really like Cristie Kerr. I get the feeling she's the only American who has the work ethic to be number one in the world. She just wants it when you watch her play. Nineteen under and winning by twelve really is crazy. I'm just afraid that Cristie is one of the last girls at the bar. The LPGA tour is going thru a period it would like to forget right now. Two of your biggest stars retired in the past few years. These players were the clear number ones when they played. Your young stars like Creamer and Wie haven't quite figured out how to win just yet. Natalie Gulbis is great from a marketing aspect on tour but she's not a star. Some of the young Asian players are very good but they aren't quite ready to win multiple majors just yet. Cristie just happens to be the last one left. Lorena stopped taking the game serious long before she retired and Sorenstam went thru the same. But Kerr is taking advantage of this period and she has to be given credit for it. I like Cristie a lot, but I wish the competition around her was a little better.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
A lost year
I'm a big fan of players going out and winning golf tournaments. I'm not a fan of carnage and the last player standing is just the guy who didn't have another tough hole to play. Let us look back on some great shots over the years that won the U.S. Open. Corey Pavin hit his famous 4-wood to six feet on the 72nd hole to seal his first and only major in '95. Steve Jones almost holes his 7-iron on the 72nd hole on the fly in holding off Tom Lehman in a great duel in '96. Ernie Els hits a brilliant 4-iron on the 71st hole at Congressional to help win second U.S. Open in '97. My point is that usually the winner of our great national championship plays a great final round and proudly hoists that trophy as having outplayed the field. Now don't get me wrong about one thing. Graeme Mcdowell played very well on the weekend to win the U.S. Open. But he didn't have a great round or a signature shot that will define this Open. Unfortunately, this Open will be defined by the course which is not always a good thing.
I've never seen a par 5 in which tour pros would gladly take par without any hesitation. The 14th hole was an outright embarrassment. Ernie Els hit a shot that landed one step short of pin high but on the wrong section of the green and it ended up thirty yards off the front of green. The USGA eff'd up but they'll never admit it. They also had the audacity to trick up the seventeenth hole to the point that par played like a birdie. My point is that good shots were not rewarded on 14 and 17 today and that is not fun for the player or the fan. Graeme McDowell didn't win this tournament any more than a handful of players lost it. Yes, McDowell will go down as the U.S. Open champion. But this tournament wasn't won in major fashion and Mike Davis and the USGA are to blame.
I've never seen a par 5 in which tour pros would gladly take par without any hesitation. The 14th hole was an outright embarrassment. Ernie Els hit a shot that landed one step short of pin high but on the wrong section of the green and it ended up thirty yards off the front of green. The USGA eff'd up but they'll never admit it. They also had the audacity to trick up the seventeenth hole to the point that par played like a birdie. My point is that good shots were not rewarded on 14 and 17 today and that is not fun for the player or the fan. Graeme McDowell didn't win this tournament any more than a handful of players lost it. Yes, McDowell will go down as the U.S. Open champion. But this tournament wasn't won in major fashion and Mike Davis and the USGA are to blame.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Why I'm just not a fan of Pebble....
I get really giddy during this week. For once, I like seeing tour pros actually struggle. How many times have you chipped a ball and seen it come right back to your feet? Seeing a tour pro do that makes the game so much more enjoyable when I'm out duffing around. But enough about the U.S. Open test. This is why I don't like Pebble for an Open.
In my book, the U.S. Open should test every facet of your game on the course and between your ears. Under normal conditions, the guy who plays and thinks the best wins this golf tournament. I'm a big fan of certain golf courses hosting the Open. Shinnecock, Oakmont, and Winged Foot are a few that come to mind. But I just don't think Pebble should be considered a great Open venue. The greens are small and rarely in good condition. It's often cold and windy and scores can get way out of hand so damn fast. It almost resembles a British Open to some degree. And here's my biggest beef. It's not a driver golf course. These players can get around this place with two iron all day if they had to and still put up a score. The point is that this is the U.S. Open and not the British. I like my Opens to have hot and humid weather with driver in your hand the majority of the round. It's the ultimate test of golf and Pebble just doesn't render that test unless the USGA tricks it up.
The only thing Pebble has is three very historic wins and one they try to dramatize by showing Tom Kite's chip-in (that goes off the green if it doesn't SLAM into the pin). The Nicklaus two iron to an inch, Watson's brilliant chip, and Tiger actually reenacting his video game on the course are part of U.S. Open lore. But lets not keep going back to Pebble just because is has breathtaking views. Put this course in Nebraska and you're walking up paying $40 on Saturday morning.
In my book, the U.S. Open should test every facet of your game on the course and between your ears. Under normal conditions, the guy who plays and thinks the best wins this golf tournament. I'm a big fan of certain golf courses hosting the Open. Shinnecock, Oakmont, and Winged Foot are a few that come to mind. But I just don't think Pebble should be considered a great Open venue. The greens are small and rarely in good condition. It's often cold and windy and scores can get way out of hand so damn fast. It almost resembles a British Open to some degree. And here's my biggest beef. It's not a driver golf course. These players can get around this place with two iron all day if they had to and still put up a score. The point is that this is the U.S. Open and not the British. I like my Opens to have hot and humid weather with driver in your hand the majority of the round. It's the ultimate test of golf and Pebble just doesn't render that test unless the USGA tricks it up.
The only thing Pebble has is three very historic wins and one they try to dramatize by showing Tom Kite's chip-in (that goes off the green if it doesn't SLAM into the pin). The Nicklaus two iron to an inch, Watson's brilliant chip, and Tiger actually reenacting his video game on the course are part of U.S. Open lore. But lets not keep going back to Pebble just because is has breathtaking views. Put this course in Nebraska and you're walking up paying $40 on Saturday morning.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
The Lebron dilemma
It dawned on me watching the Cavs that Lebron has the same problem as Dirk. He can't do it alone but he gets criticized as tho he should. Paul Pierce was having a very average game six but KG and Rondo found ways to make up for it. Pierce won't get criticized because he buried a few late buckets but he was afforded a horrible first half by his teammates. It just reinforces the theory that you have to have two superstars on your team in order to win a championship.
Jordan was a superstar on a good Bulls team but wasn't close to championship level until Pippen came along. Yes, great players make other players around them better but he can't make them a superstar. Just look at every championship team and you'll find players who would still be great on their own but collectively they make a championship team. Lebron did not have a championship cast around him. Shaq is still a decent center but he gets in foul trouble and can't be counted on. Jamison is a shell of the guy who was so crafty around the basket a few years ago. Jamison has never ever been able to play any defense but his defense against the Celtics hit an all time low. He can't stay in front of anyone and doesn't have the size to guard down low. Now the question. Where does Lebron go?
I find it hard to believe that Lebron will stay in Cleveland if they can't bring in another superstar. Cleveland is just not a place that people want to be. Bosh and Wade are the names out there that people assume Lebron wants to hook up with. If he somehow ends up in Miami then you can bet that will be followed by Pat Riley saying he has the desire to coach again. I think the best bet is meeting up with Bosh in New York. I mean, why not? You play in the most famous arena in the world with another top ten player in Bosh. I don't think Chicago is the right move. You want to be compared to Jordan but you'll never live it down if you don't win multiple championships. Let me give you my sleeper pick.
No one but me reads this so I can say this. I really think the Mavericks have a decent chance at landing him. They have the cap room and they wouldn't have to give up Dirk so you're playing with another superstar. You're in Dallas and not Cleveland. You have one of the best owners in sports who will do anything to make you happy. You'll have a suite at Cowboys stadium with the chance of playing games there on occasion. Plus, you're out of the eastern conference. You're going to have to deal with Dwight Howard for the remainder of your career in the east. Kobe is in the twilight of his career. Duncan is no longer on a championship team. Yes, Kevin Durant and Carmelo Anthony are still young and on the rise but I don't find them nearly as intimidating as Howard. I just think that if Lebron wants a chance to win a title next year then the Mavs are his best option.
Jordan was a superstar on a good Bulls team but wasn't close to championship level until Pippen came along. Yes, great players make other players around them better but he can't make them a superstar. Just look at every championship team and you'll find players who would still be great on their own but collectively they make a championship team. Lebron did not have a championship cast around him. Shaq is still a decent center but he gets in foul trouble and can't be counted on. Jamison is a shell of the guy who was so crafty around the basket a few years ago. Jamison has never ever been able to play any defense but his defense against the Celtics hit an all time low. He can't stay in front of anyone and doesn't have the size to guard down low. Now the question. Where does Lebron go?
I find it hard to believe that Lebron will stay in Cleveland if they can't bring in another superstar. Cleveland is just not a place that people want to be. Bosh and Wade are the names out there that people assume Lebron wants to hook up with. If he somehow ends up in Miami then you can bet that will be followed by Pat Riley saying he has the desire to coach again. I think the best bet is meeting up with Bosh in New York. I mean, why not? You play in the most famous arena in the world with another top ten player in Bosh. I don't think Chicago is the right move. You want to be compared to Jordan but you'll never live it down if you don't win multiple championships. Let me give you my sleeper pick.
No one but me reads this so I can say this. I really think the Mavericks have a decent chance at landing him. They have the cap room and they wouldn't have to give up Dirk so you're playing with another superstar. You're in Dallas and not Cleveland. You have one of the best owners in sports who will do anything to make you happy. You'll have a suite at Cowboys stadium with the chance of playing games there on occasion. Plus, you're out of the eastern conference. You're going to have to deal with Dwight Howard for the remainder of your career in the east. Kobe is in the twilight of his career. Duncan is no longer on a championship team. Yes, Kevin Durant and Carmelo Anthony are still young and on the rise but I don't find them nearly as intimidating as Howard. I just think that if Lebron wants a chance to win a title next year then the Mavs are his best option.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
The new Tiger needs his old swing back
SportsbyBrooks.com is reporting that Tiger Woods is parting ways with Hank Haney after six years. I think this is a good move for Woods. Tiger has struggled with his game off the tee since he left Butch Harmon in the summer of '02. He has rarely had stretches where he drove the ball like he did for a lot of 2000-2001. But why did Tiger leave Harmon in the first place?
When Tiger rebuilt his swing after the '97 Masters, he undertook a process that didn't fully come together for almost two years. Tiger's game at that time was built on power and timing. If his timing was on then he was unbeatable. But he didn't want to rely solely on his timing because he knew that it wouldn't consistently hold-up under pressure. The changes that Harmon suggested were tailored to Tiger. After all, no one in the world knew how Tiger's swing worked better than Butch Harmon. Harmon knew that Woods had incredibly fast hips thru the hitting area so designed an address position to to combat "getting stuck" on the downswing. "Getting stuck" is a term players use when their arms are not out ahead of their body but instead behind your hip on your downswing. Harmon had Tiger's hands farther away from his body at the address position. This caused Woods to bend more from his hips at address. His address position now dictated that he become a two-plane swinger of the club. This worked brilliantly for Tiger for a few years. Tiger eventually got to the point where he no longer needed to see Harmon on a consistent basis. His swing was essentially on autopilot. But somewhere around 2002, Tiger's swing started to have some inconsistency.
Tiger won the 2002 Masters with one of the most boring finals rounds in recent memory. I'll always remember that round as the day when absolutely no one played well in the final round. He then went on to win the U.S. Open at Bethpage. Tiger played awesome on Sunday to win by a couple of shots. If it wasn't for his third round 81 at The Open, Tiger could have been staring at a grandslam at the PGA in August. But a few weeks before the PGA, Woods informed Harmon that he no longer needed his services. Why? There could be several reasons. Maybe Woods didn't like Harmon taking on so many other students. Some say he didn't like how much Harmon was profiting from being associated with Woods' success. My theory is that Tiger kept wanting to change his swing. He kept wanting to find ways to get better. But as Harmon saw it, how much better can he really get? He won four majors in a row and five of six at one point. Harmon thought he just needed to stick with was he was doing and he would find all the success he wanted. But Tiger saw it a different way and thus the exit of the teacher that led Woods to six USGA amateur titles and eight majors. Tiger thought his main swing problem was his swing-plane. He thought that he was too far under-plane going into the ball. He went all of 2003 without a formal teacher. Then in 2004 he asked Hank Haney what he thought.
It became official in early 2004 that Hank Haney was Tiger's new teacher. Hank Haney's main focus of his teaching was the one-plane theory. Haney believed the correct way to swing the club was to swing on a plane that was parallel to the shaft angle at address throughout the entire swing. This was drastically different from how Woods swung the club from the previous few years. Woods had to change his address position to where he stood much taller than he had with Harmon. This also brought his hands in closer to his body at address. The changes in his swing started to come together in late 2004. By 2005, he started playing better than he had in a few years. He won the Masters in a playoff and placed 2,1,4 in the majors the rest of the year. Tiger looked to be back. Some started to note that although he won two of four majors, he seemed to struggle off the tee with his driver. This continued into 2006. His swing looked great except when he had the driver in his hands. He only hit his driver once during the 2006 British Open. He missed the fairway badly and the never came close to hitting his driver again. There were patches where Tiger did drive the ball well. There was even a stretch where he won 9 of 12 tournaments he played in. But at the 2007 Masters, Tiger briefly held the lead in the final round only to give up that lead. Tiger played very poorly that day and finished a few shots back of Zach Johnson. It was odd to see Tiger struggle with his swing so much on the final day of a major. The 2007 U.S. Open also finished a similar way on Sunday. Tiger just didn't have his swing when he needed it finishing second to Cabrera. Tiger managed to win the PGA that year and in 2008 he won his third U.S. Open title. Then came the knee surgery. Tiger came back to the game ready to dominate because he felt his knee could now withstand the rigors of hard practice. But the major season didn't go the way Tiger thought it would. He even lost his first 54-hole lead at the PGA. Then came the scandal and Tiger was away from the game until The Masters. Even though Tiger finished fourth, he hit some of the worst shots off the tee that anyone can recall. I guess that was when Tiger knew he couldn't make it work. But, why?
I've read and seen just about every Hank Haney teaching guide out there. I think Hank Haney's knows the golf swing very well. Haney is a disciple of Jim Hardy and Hardy believed that your body determined if you were a one or two-plane swinger of the club. I just simply believe Tiger was built to swing the club on two planes. I also think Tiger didn't fully buy into everything Haney said. I think Haney gave his input and if Tiger didn't like it he would disregard it. Woods didn't fully buy into his theory the way O'meara did twenty years earlier. That was a disadvantage to Haney. I also think Haney shares Woods' desire to try to constantly improve and he wasn't afraid to suggest changes to Woods' game. Tiger and Hank knew this day would be coming if he couldn't turn his game around. Tiger is at the point in his career when players usually peak and not go the other way. It was time for him to make this change. So who will now take over?
Unless he has someone in mind, I think Tiger will take his time in selecting a new teacher. For starters, I think Butch Harmon is not a candidate because I don't think he wants to be. Dale Lynch, Geoff Ogilvy's teacher, was a rumor that was going around last year when some thought Haney was on the way out. Tiger, incidentally, does not pay his teacher a crazy amount of money as some think he would. Harmon was on salary for $50,000 a year. Woods also had a rule that Harmon could not work with any other players at a tournament if Woods was still on site. He could only work with other players after Woods left the course. There are several great teachers out there to choose from. I think Peter Kostis would be a great choice. He threw out a couple of theories as to why Woods is struggling with his game and they make the most sense. But with his CBS schedule, he may not be able to be at Tiger's beck and call. Whoever it is will realize how thankless that job is soon enough.
When Tiger rebuilt his swing after the '97 Masters, he undertook a process that didn't fully come together for almost two years. Tiger's game at that time was built on power and timing. If his timing was on then he was unbeatable. But he didn't want to rely solely on his timing because he knew that it wouldn't consistently hold-up under pressure. The changes that Harmon suggested were tailored to Tiger. After all, no one in the world knew how Tiger's swing worked better than Butch Harmon. Harmon knew that Woods had incredibly fast hips thru the hitting area so designed an address position to to combat "getting stuck" on the downswing. "Getting stuck" is a term players use when their arms are not out ahead of their body but instead behind your hip on your downswing. Harmon had Tiger's hands farther away from his body at the address position. This caused Woods to bend more from his hips at address. His address position now dictated that he become a two-plane swinger of the club. This worked brilliantly for Tiger for a few years. Tiger eventually got to the point where he no longer needed to see Harmon on a consistent basis. His swing was essentially on autopilot. But somewhere around 2002, Tiger's swing started to have some inconsistency.
Tiger won the 2002 Masters with one of the most boring finals rounds in recent memory. I'll always remember that round as the day when absolutely no one played well in the final round. He then went on to win the U.S. Open at Bethpage. Tiger played awesome on Sunday to win by a couple of shots. If it wasn't for his third round 81 at The Open, Tiger could have been staring at a grandslam at the PGA in August. But a few weeks before the PGA, Woods informed Harmon that he no longer needed his services. Why? There could be several reasons. Maybe Woods didn't like Harmon taking on so many other students. Some say he didn't like how much Harmon was profiting from being associated with Woods' success. My theory is that Tiger kept wanting to change his swing. He kept wanting to find ways to get better. But as Harmon saw it, how much better can he really get? He won four majors in a row and five of six at one point. Harmon thought he just needed to stick with was he was doing and he would find all the success he wanted. But Tiger saw it a different way and thus the exit of the teacher that led Woods to six USGA amateur titles and eight majors. Tiger thought his main swing problem was his swing-plane. He thought that he was too far under-plane going into the ball. He went all of 2003 without a formal teacher. Then in 2004 he asked Hank Haney what he thought.
It became official in early 2004 that Hank Haney was Tiger's new teacher. Hank Haney's main focus of his teaching was the one-plane theory. Haney believed the correct way to swing the club was to swing on a plane that was parallel to the shaft angle at address throughout the entire swing. This was drastically different from how Woods swung the club from the previous few years. Woods had to change his address position to where he stood much taller than he had with Harmon. This also brought his hands in closer to his body at address. The changes in his swing started to come together in late 2004. By 2005, he started playing better than he had in a few years. He won the Masters in a playoff and placed 2,1,4 in the majors the rest of the year. Tiger looked to be back. Some started to note that although he won two of four majors, he seemed to struggle off the tee with his driver. This continued into 2006. His swing looked great except when he had the driver in his hands. He only hit his driver once during the 2006 British Open. He missed the fairway badly and the never came close to hitting his driver again. There were patches where Tiger did drive the ball well. There was even a stretch where he won 9 of 12 tournaments he played in. But at the 2007 Masters, Tiger briefly held the lead in the final round only to give up that lead. Tiger played very poorly that day and finished a few shots back of Zach Johnson. It was odd to see Tiger struggle with his swing so much on the final day of a major. The 2007 U.S. Open also finished a similar way on Sunday. Tiger just didn't have his swing when he needed it finishing second to Cabrera. Tiger managed to win the PGA that year and in 2008 he won his third U.S. Open title. Then came the knee surgery. Tiger came back to the game ready to dominate because he felt his knee could now withstand the rigors of hard practice. But the major season didn't go the way Tiger thought it would. He even lost his first 54-hole lead at the PGA. Then came the scandal and Tiger was away from the game until The Masters. Even though Tiger finished fourth, he hit some of the worst shots off the tee that anyone can recall. I guess that was when Tiger knew he couldn't make it work. But, why?
I've read and seen just about every Hank Haney teaching guide out there. I think Hank Haney's knows the golf swing very well. Haney is a disciple of Jim Hardy and Hardy believed that your body determined if you were a one or two-plane swinger of the club. I just simply believe Tiger was built to swing the club on two planes. I also think Tiger didn't fully buy into everything Haney said. I think Haney gave his input and if Tiger didn't like it he would disregard it. Woods didn't fully buy into his theory the way O'meara did twenty years earlier. That was a disadvantage to Haney. I also think Haney shares Woods' desire to try to constantly improve and he wasn't afraid to suggest changes to Woods' game. Tiger and Hank knew this day would be coming if he couldn't turn his game around. Tiger is at the point in his career when players usually peak and not go the other way. It was time for him to make this change. So who will now take over?
Unless he has someone in mind, I think Tiger will take his time in selecting a new teacher. For starters, I think Butch Harmon is not a candidate because I don't think he wants to be. Dale Lynch, Geoff Ogilvy's teacher, was a rumor that was going around last year when some thought Haney was on the way out. Tiger, incidentally, does not pay his teacher a crazy amount of money as some think he would. Harmon was on salary for $50,000 a year. Woods also had a rule that Harmon could not work with any other players at a tournament if Woods was still on site. He could only work with other players after Woods left the course. There are several great teachers out there to choose from. I think Peter Kostis would be a great choice. He threw out a couple of theories as to why Woods is struggling with his game and they make the most sense. But with his CBS schedule, he may not be able to be at Tiger's beck and call. Whoever it is will realize how thankless that job is soon enough.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Don't get fooled into this when you see Iron Man 2
A few years ago I was very excited to see that my local IMAX theater was showing 'Batman Begins'. It was a movie that had already been out for a few years but I never had the chance to see it in the IMAX setting. I was so eager to see this movie. What I left with was disappointment and a curiousity of IMAX features.
I love watching IMAX features. The sheer size of the screen and the detail it provided always made for a good time when I went. So why did 'Batman Begins' look absolutely terrible when I went to see it? The answer I found out was in the camera they used to film the feature. Most movies of today are shot using 35mm cameras or the new hi-def cameras that are available. These pictures are meant to be displayed in one of two aspect ratios at your local theater. These two aspect ratios are either 2.35 to 1 or 1.85 to 1. What this means is that the feature is shown on a screen that is 2.35 times wider than it is tall or 1.85 times wider than it is tall. A hi-def television is of the aspect ratio of 1.78 to 1. When you play a movie that is 2.35 to 1 on your hi-def tv you will get an image that has black bars on the top and bottom of your screen. These aspect ratios have been used for movies for over fifty years. But what is the difference in an IMAX feature?
A true IMAX feature is shot with a 65mm camera on 65mm film. The images are massive and the detail is second to none. But very few feature length movies have ever been shot with 65mm film. Only parts of movies have been shot with this technology. There were a few scenes in 'The Dark Knight' as well as 'Transformers 2' that were shot with 65mm cameras. If you saw those movies in a real IMAX theater then you saw the screen change from a normal picture to one that takes up the entire screen during scenes that were shot with 65mm cameras. The shots are awesome and make the price of the ticket worth it. The success of 'The Dark Knight' made seeing movies on an IMAX screen the choice for movie-goers. Last year, 'Star Trek' was shown on IMAX screens but fans were disappointed in what they saw. Why was that? It's because not one scene in 'Star Trek' was shot using an 65mm camera. They took a movie shot on 35mm and basically zoomed it in so it would be large enough to take up the entire screen. Now that is not exactly what they did but the technique they used distorts the picture and the actual resolution of the picture suffers. One way to avoid seeing movies that are not shot with 65mm cameras on IMAX screens is to check the aspect ratio on IMDB. Movies shot with scenes in 65mm will show an aspect ration of 1.44 to 1. This represents the resolution when the scene switches to 65mm and the picture expands to take up the entire screen. If you look on IMDB for the aspect ratio for 'Iron Man 2', you will see it as 2.35 to 1. This means that if you see this on an IMAX screen you will not be seeing a true IMAX movie. My advice is to stick with seeing it the way it was shot. 'Iron Man 2' was shot using 35mm cameras. Try to find a 35mm showing in your area with the largest screen in the aspect ratio of 2.35 to 1. I think that will be more than pleasing for 'Iron Man' fans.
On another note, Christopher Nolan has stated the he is seeking a way to shoot the third installment of the Batman series completely in 65mm. This will be the first feature length movie to be completely shot in 65mm if he can pull it off. My guess is that he will shoot it in a similar style as 'The Dark Knight'. He may just use the 65mm camera in more scenes. Shooting in 65mm is extremely expensive but my guess is that Nolan will have an open budget considering the success of 'The Dark Knight'.
On another note, Christopher Nolan has stated the he is seeking a way to shoot the third installment of the Batman series completely in 65mm. This will be the first feature length movie to be completely shot in 65mm if he can pull it off. My guess is that he will shoot it in a similar style as 'The Dark Knight'. He may just use the 65mm camera in more scenes. Shooting in 65mm is extremely expensive but my guess is that Nolan will have an open budget considering the success of 'The Dark Knight'.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Another one bites the dust...
Well another year of promising Mavericks basketball has come to an end before the 1st of May. Remember how spoiled we got for a few years? Now it feels like the end of an era. The only problem is that this era never paid off they way we thought it would. As heartbreaking as 2006 was, I think we all thought that we would eventually get back and win it all. And it looked like we might during the '06-'07 season. But that came to a pitiful end and they really haven't stopped since.
Tonight was such a microcosm of the entire season. Slow first half (October thru February), an impressive rally (13 game win streak), and a flat finish to once again bounce this team way too early during one of the last few years of Dirk's prime. There were several reasons why we lost this series but I think you have to look back to the entire season to find out why. Why did such a talented team struggle so much on its home floor? Why did they often start slow and have to rally late in the 4th quarter to such inferior teams? Why did Carlisle say time and again that this team didn't have the energy it needed? I'm sure there are many answers to these questions. Let me make my observations on this position by position.
PG-Without a doubt, Jason Kidd is one of the greatest point-guards in the history of the game. Jason Kidd is 37 years old. His game is not built around scoring. He needed to become a scorer in order for this team to become successful. He went and made himself into a very respectable 3-point shooter and this team benefited from it a great deal. The problem with his 3-point shooting is that it relied on him being wide-open for him to hit these shots. Jason is not at the point of his career where he can create a shot on his own. His drives to the baskets rarely result in points and he often turns the ball over in those situations. Jason Kidd is not a scorer. Look at the great point-guards in the league like Williams, Paul, Billups, and Parker. They are all very good scorers and good defenders. Jason Kidd is still a good defender but not the scorer the Mavs need from that position. Poppovich essentially took Kidd out of the series by not leaving him at the three-point line. Roddy B is the point-guard of the future for the Mavs. He is exactly what Devin Harris was a few years ago. Roddy can get his shot off when he needs to and can drive to the basket. He will be the backup point-guard for this team in the coming year and will eventually take the starting job away from Kidd. JJ Barea is one of the gutsiest players the Mavs have had in some time and I can see why Carlisle stuck with him. At 5'10", he was more fearless in going to the basket than almost anyone on this team. I don't think Barea is back for the '10-'11 season but will definitely find a job in the NBA.
SG-It's tough to write about this position since the Mavs haven't had a true off-guard since Michael Finley left several years ago. Caron Butler is the closest player we have to that position. Caron is a player that this team can use for the next few years. His toughness is something that this team sorely needs. But Caron can't be this team second option if it wants to find success in the next few years. If he is your second best option then you don't have the team that you want to have. I see Caron sliding over and playing his natural small-forward position next year. Jason Terry might be my second favorite Maverick. Jet has given us all some great memories over the years and no one appreciates a crowd like Jason Terry. There have been plenty of times in Jet's career when he took over games. Game seven in San Antonio in 2006 comes to mind. Jet came out in that game and hit his first six or seven shots and helped Dallas win that game. But I think Jet's time here is up. Jet is not the players he was a few years ago. He had less and less games where he would take over and dominate. His defensive lapses were killer to this team. If Jet is to stay with this team I think he can no longer be this teams first option of the bench. I can only see Jet as this teams seventh or eighth option going forward.
SF-Shawn Marion came to this team with great potential. The Matrix was a scorer in Phoenix who never needed a play called for him but still managed to score 18 points a nite. The pairing with him and Jason Kidd seemed like it was exactly what this team needed, if only it was 2004. But this is 2010 and The Matrix can no longer jump and be a threat around the basket that he could in the Phoenix days. Marion had several shots blocked at the basket and that was a sign that he has lost a step or two. His three-point shooting was gone and his overall offensive game lacked what we thought it had. He was still this teams best on the ball defender. But he often had lapses and showed a lack of interest at times. Marion's contract makes him a tough player to trade but some team might see some use out of him. I just don't think Marion is a starter on a team that contends for a title. Now Marion can be a useful weapon off the bench. If he was to accept a role similar to Bruce Bowen then I think this team can use him. I just don't see Marion as the answer at the small-forward going forward and I hope that Caron Butler holds this position starting next year.
PF-Undoubtedly, there will be several who point out Dirk's foul trouble in game six and that he lost control of him emotions. It really bugs me to hear Dirk get criticized. Dirk has never had superstar play along side him in his career. Look at every team that was won an NBA title and tell me that that team didn't have two of the twenty best players in the NBA on their roster. Dirk has never had a player like that on his team. Dirk has done more with less than any player in the NBA. Dwayne Wade gets bounced in the first round and people say he doesn't have enough help. Kobe loses in the first round without Shaq a few years ago and people say Kobe can't do it all alone. Kevin Garnett couldn't get out of the first round for years because he didn't have help around him. For some reason tho, Dirk can have very little help but he will take more criticism than any superstar in this league. The guy has been as tough as any player in the league for the better part of a decade. No one plays thru more pain and no one has done more with less than Dirk Nowitzki. His prime is nearly up. He turns 32 in June. He might have one or two more years of a very high level of play before he starts to go south. Eventually, those injuries are going to catch up with him. He won't be able to return from a severe high ankle sprain in a few days. I really want to see Dirk Nowitzki win a title. If not here then somewhere else. If Mark Cuban can't bring in the proper help then he owes it to Dirk to give him that chance elsewhere. I don't see Dirk as someone who plays well into his late 30's. I think Dirk plays until 36 or maybe 37 and then calls it quits, title or not.
C-Every team who wins the NBA title has had a guy who can play with his back to the basket. Shaq, Duncan, Garnett are just a few that come to mind. Some might say the Bulls teams never had a great post player but Jordon and Pippen could post up almost anyone up and find success. The Mavericks don't have a player like that. Erick Dampier came here with a lot of promise. For a few years Dampier had the reputation of a good defender with the ability to set picks on the offensive end to free up the shooters. But the reality of Dampier has set in. His defensive skills have diminished and he never had a great offensive package to begin with. His hands are awful as he finds difficulty in catching easy passes. He can't finish around the basket and and he gets into foul trouble easily. Dampier should not be a Maverick next year. His contract makes him a valuable trade piece and he is someone Mav fans will not miss. Brendan Heywood may be the best center this team has to offer. His offensive skills are a upgrade from Dampier and he is extremely active on the defensive end. He is someone who the Mavs can feed inside. He usually has a high fieldgoal percentage and can almost be counted on for a double-double if given the minutes. Brendan Heywood is a center that this team can work around for the next few years.
Coach-Rick Carlisle came here after the 2008 season and promised to give this team back to the players. He was a players coach. But many questions loom over Rick Carlisle as Poppovich got the better of him in these playoffs. Why didn't Heywood keep the starting role after Dampier got back? Why did this team lack energy on so many nights? Why wasn't Roddy B given more minutes that Barea seemed to get? Why did Butler and Marion sit out almost the entire second half of game 3? Calisle seemed to preach all the right things but he rarely got his team to do them. This team never played the consistent defense that it needed to play despite having some decent on the ball defenders. I'm really wondering if Rick Carlisle lost this team. This team just did not look ready to play on too many nights. You can't have the biggest game of the year and score eight points in the first quarter without looking at the coach and wondering what's going on. I think Carlisle needs to look at himself and maybe take the blame for how this season ended. I think he had the talent to make a run in the west, maybe not win the west, but at least scare some teams. This team did not respond the way it needed in crucial situations and the coach needs to take some blame for that.
So where does that leave us? The summer of 2010 has officially begun for the Mavs. What does this team need to do to become successful? Lets look at the 2006 team and try to find out why they were the best Mavs team in history.
PG-Jason Terry and Devin Harris held this spot during 2006. What you notice here is two guards who can shoot the ball well as well as penetrate to the basket. The point-guard of today is a superior passer but does not have the ability to create his own shot. I think this position is crucial going forward. The Mavs have to have a point-guard who can breakdown a defense off the dribble.
SG-This position consisted of Adrian Griffin and Jerry Stackhouse. These are two tough minded guards who play physical defense but are not heavily relied on for their scoring. This has always been a position of need for the Mavs since Michael Finley left. I know Joe Johnson will be someone the Mavs will look at if he is available this offseason. Caron Butler filled this position after the trade but I believe he suits this team better as the starting small-forward.
SF-Josh Howard was a very serviceable small-forward before the injuries to his ankles. Since then he has become a shell of his former self. Caron Butler can fill the need for this position nicely. I don't think Shawn Marion is this teams starter at this position next season. He would be great coming off the bench as his days of being an effective starter appear to be coming to an end.
PF-Dirk entered the best patch of his career starting in 2006. He has since played to that level and beyond but those days may be coming to an end. Most players peak years end at about 32-33 years of age. Dirk has to have superstar help or this team will continue to flounder around the first or second round.
C-Damp and Diop occupied this role in 2006 and things weren't much better for this team until the trade this year that brought Heywood in. I think that Heywood is this teams starter next year or is at least involved in a trade to bring in the starter (Bosh). Either way I think this position is improved over the previous few years.
So another pathetic end to a season that looked so promising just a few months ago. It's hard to watch the playoffs knowing the Mavs are out but this doesn't sting like '05, and '06 seasons. The earlier you go out the less it stings and in the end only one team ends up happy. I like to see teams that play the game the right way do well. I hope Utah can make a run. I think Jerry Sloan deserves a title and his team looks good. Only eight franchises have won the title since 1980. The Lakers have a legit chance at repeating but I think I want to see a new team get it done. The Cavs or the Jazz would satisfy my basketball appetite.
Tonight was such a microcosm of the entire season. Slow first half (October thru February), an impressive rally (13 game win streak), and a flat finish to once again bounce this team way too early during one of the last few years of Dirk's prime. There were several reasons why we lost this series but I think you have to look back to the entire season to find out why. Why did such a talented team struggle so much on its home floor? Why did they often start slow and have to rally late in the 4th quarter to such inferior teams? Why did Carlisle say time and again that this team didn't have the energy it needed? I'm sure there are many answers to these questions. Let me make my observations on this position by position.
PG-Without a doubt, Jason Kidd is one of the greatest point-guards in the history of the game. Jason Kidd is 37 years old. His game is not built around scoring. He needed to become a scorer in order for this team to become successful. He went and made himself into a very respectable 3-point shooter and this team benefited from it a great deal. The problem with his 3-point shooting is that it relied on him being wide-open for him to hit these shots. Jason is not at the point of his career where he can create a shot on his own. His drives to the baskets rarely result in points and he often turns the ball over in those situations. Jason Kidd is not a scorer. Look at the great point-guards in the league like Williams, Paul, Billups, and Parker. They are all very good scorers and good defenders. Jason Kidd is still a good defender but not the scorer the Mavs need from that position. Poppovich essentially took Kidd out of the series by not leaving him at the three-point line. Roddy B is the point-guard of the future for the Mavs. He is exactly what Devin Harris was a few years ago. Roddy can get his shot off when he needs to and can drive to the basket. He will be the backup point-guard for this team in the coming year and will eventually take the starting job away from Kidd. JJ Barea is one of the gutsiest players the Mavs have had in some time and I can see why Carlisle stuck with him. At 5'10", he was more fearless in going to the basket than almost anyone on this team. I don't think Barea is back for the '10-'11 season but will definitely find a job in the NBA.
SG-It's tough to write about this position since the Mavs haven't had a true off-guard since Michael Finley left several years ago. Caron Butler is the closest player we have to that position. Caron is a player that this team can use for the next few years. His toughness is something that this team sorely needs. But Caron can't be this team second option if it wants to find success in the next few years. If he is your second best option then you don't have the team that you want to have. I see Caron sliding over and playing his natural small-forward position next year. Jason Terry might be my second favorite Maverick. Jet has given us all some great memories over the years and no one appreciates a crowd like Jason Terry. There have been plenty of times in Jet's career when he took over games. Game seven in San Antonio in 2006 comes to mind. Jet came out in that game and hit his first six or seven shots and helped Dallas win that game. But I think Jet's time here is up. Jet is not the players he was a few years ago. He had less and less games where he would take over and dominate. His defensive lapses were killer to this team. If Jet is to stay with this team I think he can no longer be this teams first option of the bench. I can only see Jet as this teams seventh or eighth option going forward.
SF-Shawn Marion came to this team with great potential. The Matrix was a scorer in Phoenix who never needed a play called for him but still managed to score 18 points a nite. The pairing with him and Jason Kidd seemed like it was exactly what this team needed, if only it was 2004. But this is 2010 and The Matrix can no longer jump and be a threat around the basket that he could in the Phoenix days. Marion had several shots blocked at the basket and that was a sign that he has lost a step or two. His three-point shooting was gone and his overall offensive game lacked what we thought it had. He was still this teams best on the ball defender. But he often had lapses and showed a lack of interest at times. Marion's contract makes him a tough player to trade but some team might see some use out of him. I just don't think Marion is a starter on a team that contends for a title. Now Marion can be a useful weapon off the bench. If he was to accept a role similar to Bruce Bowen then I think this team can use him. I just don't see Marion as the answer at the small-forward going forward and I hope that Caron Butler holds this position starting next year.
PF-Undoubtedly, there will be several who point out Dirk's foul trouble in game six and that he lost control of him emotions. It really bugs me to hear Dirk get criticized. Dirk has never had superstar play along side him in his career. Look at every team that was won an NBA title and tell me that that team didn't have two of the twenty best players in the NBA on their roster. Dirk has never had a player like that on his team. Dirk has done more with less than any player in the NBA. Dwayne Wade gets bounced in the first round and people say he doesn't have enough help. Kobe loses in the first round without Shaq a few years ago and people say Kobe can't do it all alone. Kevin Garnett couldn't get out of the first round for years because he didn't have help around him. For some reason tho, Dirk can have very little help but he will take more criticism than any superstar in this league. The guy has been as tough as any player in the league for the better part of a decade. No one plays thru more pain and no one has done more with less than Dirk Nowitzki. His prime is nearly up. He turns 32 in June. He might have one or two more years of a very high level of play before he starts to go south. Eventually, those injuries are going to catch up with him. He won't be able to return from a severe high ankle sprain in a few days. I really want to see Dirk Nowitzki win a title. If not here then somewhere else. If Mark Cuban can't bring in the proper help then he owes it to Dirk to give him that chance elsewhere. I don't see Dirk as someone who plays well into his late 30's. I think Dirk plays until 36 or maybe 37 and then calls it quits, title or not.
C-Every team who wins the NBA title has had a guy who can play with his back to the basket. Shaq, Duncan, Garnett are just a few that come to mind. Some might say the Bulls teams never had a great post player but Jordon and Pippen could post up almost anyone up and find success. The Mavericks don't have a player like that. Erick Dampier came here with a lot of promise. For a few years Dampier had the reputation of a good defender with the ability to set picks on the offensive end to free up the shooters. But the reality of Dampier has set in. His defensive skills have diminished and he never had a great offensive package to begin with. His hands are awful as he finds difficulty in catching easy passes. He can't finish around the basket and and he gets into foul trouble easily. Dampier should not be a Maverick next year. His contract makes him a valuable trade piece and he is someone Mav fans will not miss. Brendan Heywood may be the best center this team has to offer. His offensive skills are a upgrade from Dampier and he is extremely active on the defensive end. He is someone who the Mavs can feed inside. He usually has a high fieldgoal percentage and can almost be counted on for a double-double if given the minutes. Brendan Heywood is a center that this team can work around for the next few years.
Coach-Rick Carlisle came here after the 2008 season and promised to give this team back to the players. He was a players coach. But many questions loom over Rick Carlisle as Poppovich got the better of him in these playoffs. Why didn't Heywood keep the starting role after Dampier got back? Why did this team lack energy on so many nights? Why wasn't Roddy B given more minutes that Barea seemed to get? Why did Butler and Marion sit out almost the entire second half of game 3? Calisle seemed to preach all the right things but he rarely got his team to do them. This team never played the consistent defense that it needed to play despite having some decent on the ball defenders. I'm really wondering if Rick Carlisle lost this team. This team just did not look ready to play on too many nights. You can't have the biggest game of the year and score eight points in the first quarter without looking at the coach and wondering what's going on. I think Carlisle needs to look at himself and maybe take the blame for how this season ended. I think he had the talent to make a run in the west, maybe not win the west, but at least scare some teams. This team did not respond the way it needed in crucial situations and the coach needs to take some blame for that.
So where does that leave us? The summer of 2010 has officially begun for the Mavs. What does this team need to do to become successful? Lets look at the 2006 team and try to find out why they were the best Mavs team in history.
PG-Jason Terry and Devin Harris held this spot during 2006. What you notice here is two guards who can shoot the ball well as well as penetrate to the basket. The point-guard of today is a superior passer but does not have the ability to create his own shot. I think this position is crucial going forward. The Mavs have to have a point-guard who can breakdown a defense off the dribble.
SG-This position consisted of Adrian Griffin and Jerry Stackhouse. These are two tough minded guards who play physical defense but are not heavily relied on for their scoring. This has always been a position of need for the Mavs since Michael Finley left. I know Joe Johnson will be someone the Mavs will look at if he is available this offseason. Caron Butler filled this position after the trade but I believe he suits this team better as the starting small-forward.
SF-Josh Howard was a very serviceable small-forward before the injuries to his ankles. Since then he has become a shell of his former self. Caron Butler can fill the need for this position nicely. I don't think Shawn Marion is this teams starter at this position next season. He would be great coming off the bench as his days of being an effective starter appear to be coming to an end.
PF-Dirk entered the best patch of his career starting in 2006. He has since played to that level and beyond but those days may be coming to an end. Most players peak years end at about 32-33 years of age. Dirk has to have superstar help or this team will continue to flounder around the first or second round.
C-Damp and Diop occupied this role in 2006 and things weren't much better for this team until the trade this year that brought Heywood in. I think that Heywood is this teams starter next year or is at least involved in a trade to bring in the starter (Bosh). Either way I think this position is improved over the previous few years.
So another pathetic end to a season that looked so promising just a few months ago. It's hard to watch the playoffs knowing the Mavs are out but this doesn't sting like '05, and '06 seasons. The earlier you go out the less it stings and in the end only one team ends up happy. I like to see teams that play the game the right way do well. I hope Utah can make a run. I think Jerry Sloan deserves a title and his team looks good. Only eight franchises have won the title since 1980. The Lakers have a legit chance at repeating but I think I want to see a new team get it done. The Cavs or the Jazz would satisfy my basketball appetite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)