Making the Playoffs in the NBA West...Without Trades

In the ultra-competitive Western Conference, a few games can make difference between having home-court advantage and being out of the play-offs. GM's will be jockeying to collect that needed backup point guard that will hopefully make a two to three win difference. Most NBA analysts tend to overvalue the effect of trading deadline deals in helping a team. (This is why I think the Magic's decision to make moves far ahead of time will eventually pay dividends in the playoffs). But what about players who may make a substantial leap before the play-offs?

Let's take a closer look at West teams who are at .500 or above but who do not seem to be locks to make the play-offs. What young player's improvement could fuel a second-half surge?
1. Marcin Gortat, Suns.
Key Game: Boston, January 28. 19 points, 17 rebounds in a Phoenix win.
Signs of Life: As detailed by Valley of the Suns, Marcin went on a recent tear where he scored in double figures in 8 of 9 games. While Phoenix is still hanging around .500, if Gortat can average a double-double nightly (10.3 ppg and 7.9 rebounds at present), Phoenix could make the play-offs again.
2. Sam Young, Grizzlies.
Key Game: Los Angeles Lakers, February 7. 22 points in a 9-point Grizzlies loss.
Signs of Life: Like Gortat, Sam put together a recent string of good games, scoring 10 or more points in seven of the eight Grizzlies games from January 28 to February 8. The Grizzlies have not coincidentally gone 7-3 in their last 10 games to climb above .500. While the Thabeet Experience may yet hang over the franchise, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate Memphis' grade on drafting and developing young talent.
3. Wesley Matthews, Blazers.
Key Game: None.
Signs of Life: Have a friend who considers himself or herself a die-hard NBA fan? Ask him/her how many 30-point games Wesley Matthews has had this season. It's four, surprisingly. Once supposedly signed for defense, Matthews has had some impressive games. However, the problem for the Blazers is that Matthews has yet to show an ability to take over against good teams. Of course, it's a small sample size so far. If Matthews can find a way to have some great games against the best in the West, Portland may yet avoid the Spurs in Round 1.
4. No one, Jazz.
Key Game: The one in which the Jazz trailed after the first quarter.
Signs of Death: I went through the Utah Jazz roster in hopes of finding some hidden gem or prospects for improvement for this season. I see why Jerry Sloan retired. CJ Miles and Ronnie Price have been around the league for too long to be still considered works in progress, and Gordon Hayward is still a rookie getting used to the league. I would hate to see it, as I grew up loving Stockton and Malone. But don't be surprised if Utah falls out of the play-offs. Even the vaunted home-court advantage is nearly gone, as Utah has already lost 11 games at home this year (17-11).
5. Arron Affalo, Denver.
Key Game: Dallas Mavericks, February 10, 24 points and game-winning shot.
Signs of Life: After not even averaging double-figures last season, Arron went on a tear throughout the pre-season and first few games. Since then, Arron has seemingly cooled off. He reminds me a lot of Wesley Matthews in that before this season, he was considered as more of a defender than scorer. But as Ball Don't Lie pointed out, Affalo has been consistently improving over time. I doubt Carmelo will give this team a second chance. But the future backcourt of Affalo and Lawson makes me think that this Denver team may have a larger window to contend than previously thought.

Halftime Adjustments: Why Don't Sports Sitcoms Work?

A few days ago, I found myself watching an old episode of Coach on TV. At first, I was quite excited about this: I remembered enjoying some episodes when I was younger.

However, as I watched the storyline unfold, I found myself cynically (and successfully) guessing all the major plot twists. I ended up switching the channel halfway through. Another childhood favorite show, destroyed by reality. This is why I won't watch Hang Time today (incidentally, refresh your memory via HangTimeCentral on Youtube).

So what is it about sports that makes it such a bad target for sitcoms? Think about it--the Jason Alexander as Tony Kornheiser failure, Arli$$, My Boys, Playmakers...I'm really having a tough time thinking of a truly successful sitcom that was about sports. Kenny Powers? The people who love Kenny Powers are dedicated, but I don't think your average sports fan knows about the show.

So what chance does the Colin Cowherd-inspired sitcom have? We all know that TV would dearly love to capture the 18-35 sports-loving male demographic without having to shell out hundreds of millions in broadcast fees. So why haven't they figured it out yet? What will it take? Or is it impossible to re-create the live, anything can happen excitement of sports in the highly structured sitcom format?

EDIT: JB reminded me (1) FNL is not a sitcom per se. (2) Sports Night was fairly popular. I suppose I'm saying, why aren't any sports sitcoms hits? It's true, sports sitcoms last a while--but I feel more like that's because of their tremendous upside potential rather than true talent.

The MCBias Cold Cuts Club: Now Accepting New Members

The inspiration for this satire (for those of you who need the definition) is brought to you via this post. You may want to read it first or you won't get it. I couldn't resist a little follow-up to properly pay my respects to that gem.

Throughout Moderately Cerebral Bias' four-year (and counting) history, the bulk of our stories have come from various news items, the mistakes of other writers, and my own creativity. Unfortunately, I've been too rude and unreliable to gain many reader tips and sources, but that should change. My best, most reliable sources of blog shenanigans become members of what we like to call "The MCBias Cold Cuts Club!"



Right now, I count 2 active followers (and there may be more on RSS!) including popular bloggers, current and former sports blog commenters, that one guy on Twitter who hopelessly flirts with porn stars and thinks his observations about sports are original, and other movers and shakers of Web 2.0! In exchange for their throwing me a few links and pretending that my writing isn't pedantic mush, they become, in some ways, privileged figures in the MCBias universe (because a mere blogosphere is never enough!). And since the site is growing, it's time to extend the threat, err, opportunity to others.

Here's what MCBias Cold Cuts Club Members get:

* Any tips or gossip related to their sports blogging ineptitude (or their friends) will be shared with them first before they hit the site in any full-blown capacity. For example, if we receive a tip that a Cold Cuts Club member (or acquaintance) typed up a illogical post, or maybe hit on a female fan of their blog on twitter and DM'ed photos of their, um, writing utensil, or created a Youtubable moment at Blogging With Balls by explaining that most of their content is "borrowed" from Bleacher Report, or by their racist/homophobic blog perspective revealed their sheltered upbringing and the fact that the only minority they've ever talked to was the butler, he or she will be informed and will have the opportunity to respond, and in some cases the item will be dropped altogether. (Cases such as Frost Warnings in Hell and aerodynamic lighter-than-air swine come up fairly often! Trust me!). (Likewise, if a scurrilous item is picked up by another publication, Cold Cuts Club members will be granted a platform on our site to tell their side to tens, no HUNDREDS of readers). We would never blindside a source, as we follow the same code of conduct approved by the sports blogging leader.

You'd be amazed at how much peace of mind can be gained from knowing that some guy is going to trash your Technorati search responses before it shows up in your Google Alerts. SEO is Critical? SEO is Critical.

* On occasion, certain Cold Cuts Club members will be tipped off with information that could give them a jump-start on the competition. I offer links from a variety of obscure sources such as espn.com and USAToday, and I know you can use such hard-to-find information. I know how frustrating it is for bloggers to play catch-up on stories that they weren't spoon-fed by an eager tipster and how hard that "original reporting thing" can be when you're stuck blogging from a couch. I understand that you're no doubt stuck in some remote area where no news is happening, instead of, say, New York City. You get to make that choice. Now of course, you may wonder what information I could have to offer when I only have two followers and I'm openly begging for tips. I refer you to thescientific explanation: and ask you to get in at the top. You'll soon find that we can handle much more than tips and have the length and breadth to deal with all your stories, no matter how squalid or repugnant. What can I say? We have no reservations! All spaces are open! If you eject, we don't reject! We promise to never steal your tip without compensating you, once again following industry leader approved rules of conduct.

* For out-of-towners, we offer free coupons from Subway for a variety of cold cuts sandwiches, and also some Chucky Cheese toys and coupons left over from my 10th birthday party. I think they're still good. You may wonder why, if this program is aimed at sports blogging elite as the first point seemed to indicate, that I could sway such wealthy patrons with the promises of merely a free meal. Am I too lazy to split my three offers for three obviously very different categories into three separate posts, and come up with three different club names, or even one original club name? Do I think that "market segmentation" is something you do with a butterknife at a flea market? Wait, don't answer that.

My response is that anyone who would sign up for this program is obviously a cheap trick anyway, and DON'T HIT THAT BACK BUTTON BARRY, OR I SO WILL WRITE A 5000 WORD EXPOSE ABOUT THAT BAD JDATE OUTING LAST WEEK. I'M SOLICITING ANY AND ALL PEOPLE WHO MAY KNOW ANYTHING...err, sorry about that. Bad aftertaste from one of our Cold Cut sandwiches, got me upset. Just a preview from an upcoming column if certain people don't join. Totally voluntary!

All potential Cold Cuts Club applications should be submitted to me, MCBias, via opportunitynotthreatpromise@gmail.com. Subject: I Still Believe in Santa Too

What's stopping you? "Be cold or get cut!" Act now.

Halftime Adjustments: Does October Baseball Favor Surprise or Experience?

Over the last few weeks, a minor debate has been ongoing about the wisdom of Joe Girardi not bringing in his most talented bullpen pitchers in to key games against the Tampa Bay Rays. When I first read the coverage, my response was to think that the reporters were missing a key element of play-off baseball. In a seven-game series against the Rays, Joe can't lean on the same talented pitchers seven times. He will have to go deeper into his bullpen than usual. What better way to prepare his less-talented and experienced pitchers for October pressure than to insert them into regular-season games against the Rays? This way he also knows which one of these pitchers he can rely on. So at first, I thought some bloggers might be giving Joe too little credit for managerial acumen. Also, I really like using the word acumen, it makes me sound edumacated.

However, there's a flaw in this theory. This assumes that players learn to play under pressure, rather than being born with the ability to remain calm. Is that truly the case? Isn't it quite clear rather early in life how a person reacts to stress?

Consider further that now, various members of the Rays have had experience against these lesser-known pitchers. Of course, there is plenty of film on each Yankees pitcher in action. However, there's a difference between trying to watch a pitcher on video and having actually seen his curve ball dip when you were in the batter's box. Might Manager Girardi's move rob his pitchers of the element of surprise against the Rays' hitters should the Yankees face the Rays in the playoffs?

I can't decide myself, so I leave the question open to you. Is using more pitchers than usual against the Rays in a regular-season game an excellent way to give those pitchers experience under pressure, or an unfortunate way of tipping the Rays off on how to best exploit those pitchers?

Halftime Adjustments: Will Rings Truly Fix Lebron's Reputation as a Pitchman and Player?

Lebron James has seen a sharp drop in his popularity since "The Decision" aired. He's gone from having one of the highest positive Q-ratings for any athlete to being disliked by 40% of the population (link). For a man so obsessed with money, Business Lebron has to be concerned about the effect on his endorsements. But surely a championship or two will restore him in the public eye? You would think...but let's compare him with Kobe Bryant.

Kobe is often cited as the example of rehabbing one's reputation via winning. He is now America's favorite sports star. But the comparison between the offenses Kobe and Lebron committed against sports fans do not hold up over time. Kobe's crimes were helping to push Shaq out the door (and time has shown that might have been the right decision) and sexual impropriety in Colorado (in which the case was settled out of court). Neither incident had an easily definable, televisable moment that can be replayed over and over again. Neither incident was watched by millions of sports fans live. And neither incident was a crime against an entire fanbase (or perhaps two, depending on how delusional Knicks fans are given Lebron's previous statements about NY). To compare Kobe's situation to Lebron's fails to recognize the differences between the two...but then again, what else is new when it comes to Kobe-Lebron comparisons?

Halftime Adjustments is a new type of blog I'm working on to sniff out bad comparisons, generalizations, and analogies in ongoing stories. Feel free to submit your own angles on developing stories in need of adjustment to me via my email or twitter (links on sidebar).

Poor Phil Davison, Literally

By now you've probably seen the Phil Davison speech on Youtube--I saw it on TheBigLead, among other places. It does seem funny, as an emotional, over-the-top political speech that doesn't resonate with anyone. Yet another out of context politician, right? But then I went over to TalkingPointsMemo for more information. Sandwiched inbetween the amusing revelation that Phil doesn't know what Youtube is and some random political fluff to justify the interview was this statement:

"Davison, 39, earns $260 per month for his part-time council position. He is in between employment and looking for work. His last job was as a bailiff at the county courthouse and he's paying the bills thanks to a savings account."

A jobless man, almost 40, making less than $4000 a year, trying to make something of himself. That might explain the tremble in the voice and awkward phrasing as well, right? My voice would crack too if I saw a job interview like this as my last chance to make something of myself and earn a livable wage. Ah context, there you go, ruining yet another viral video sensation.

Phil Jackson's Whipping Boys

The other day, I read an article over at Order of the Court that explained why Scottie Pippen was so angry when Toni Kukoc got the last shot in the infamous "1.8 seconds" game against the Knicks. It got me wondering about one of Phil Jackson's coaching strategies that I feel has escaped scrutiny. Phil is a strong believer in treating his stars differently depending on their talent level, whether they seem to truly deserve that treatment or not.

In The Jordan Rules by Sam Smith, I recall reading how Phil Jackson made Horace Grant his whipping boy while taking it easy with Jordan. This strategy resulted in Horace Grant breaking down in tears late in the 1991 season during a game and wanting to go after Jackson. Horace left the Bulls after the 1994 season and was a key reason why Orlando beat the Bulls in that 1995 series, scoring 20+ 3 times in the first five games. While Horace and Phil later reconciled, I wonder if the Bulls 3-peat had Horace truly imploded in that 1991 game and forced a trade.

While I can't find any material about Jackson mistreating Pippen, I wonder if Pippen was so insecure due to many years of being in the #2 role. It seems that once Jackson places you somewhere in the pecking order he desires (#1 star above criticism, #2 or #3 star heavily scrutinized), he's not able to change it very easily. Which brings us to Kobe....

It's pretty clear by now that Jackson sided with O'Neal in the Bryant-O'Neal wars. Phil went so far as to make the charge that Kobe threw games in high school, and the book he wrote was intensely one-sided against Kobe. How many of Shaq's coaches say the job of coaching the petulant big man was "an experience I will cherish forever?" Phil's decision to establish a pecking order and choose sides was a critical, understated part in the fall of the Lakers dynasty. When the coach is not neutral, how can a team stay neutral?

Finally, on the present-day Lakers, we see that Jackson has been hard on Pau Gasol. Google "Phil Jackson Pau Gasol criticism" and you'll see a steady stream of jabs at his #2 star, or scroll down on this ESPN story about Phil. I have to wonder about Phil's coaching strategy. Laker fans, given the past history that I've described, do you see a possibility that Pau will rebel, and that the surprisingly good Laker chemistry of last season (given Artest) will be damaged? Or is Phil's philosophy of establishing a clear-cut hierarchy a key reason behind the championship rings?