South Carolina-Gonzaga
I was right on both of these two. I thought South Carolina would keep the momentum against another team favored against them; hey, South Carolina beat Duke and Baylor to get the Elite Eight while Florida beat an overrated Virginia and a Wisconsin team that was overachieving. I'm still impressed with South Carolina's moxie, their steady hand down the stretch and Sindarius Thornwell stepping up before the draft. Gonzaga, on the other hand, is just plain good and as plucky as Xavier was, I figured the Zags would make short work of them.
South Carolina has bested superior foes again and again in this tourney, seems like if anyone can roll with Gonzaga this is the team. Gonzaga is maybe the best team in the nation this year and though they haven't been tested too much, that doesn't feel like a drawback, it feels more like they're playing the way they've played all year long and no one else can keep up. I like what the Gamecocks have been doing but I think this is the end of the line for them. Gonzaga is too good, too consistent, too deep. South Carolina would have to shoot the lights out, never turn the ball over and get lucky to get a hold on this game.
Oregon-North Carolina
I missed both of these. I thought Kansas would make short work of the over matched Oregon (uh, nope, Oregon controlled Kansas from beginning to end) and I thought Kentucky's scoring would wear down UNC (foul trouble for Fox and a sluggish performance from Monk doomed the Wildcats). I'm still not exactly sure what Oregon brings to this matchup, a gutsy will to win kinda thing I reckon. UNC has depth and they're getting solid performances from their supporting cast but I got my doubts about their PG play. My gut feeling was that the UNC-UK winner would take the crown but I think UNC may have been exposed. If Oregon's guards bring their A-game, I think Oregon can do what Kentucky wasn't able to: outscore the Tarheels. I'll take Oregon.
In the Final, I'll go with Gonzaga over Oregon. As good as Oregon has been (and will have to continue to be), I just think Gonzaga is too complete for anyone to mess with.
Sunday, March 26, 2017
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
NCAA Sweet Sixteen
Coming into this tourney I thought there was a clear top tier in college basketball (with their pre-season rankings): Gonzaga (#14), Kansas (#3), Villanova (#4), Duke (#1), North Carolina (#6), UCLA (#16), Kentucky (#2), Louisville (#13). And a clear 2nd tier: Baylor (NR), Arizona (#10), Florida State (#28), Oregon (#5), Purdue (#15), Butler (#33), West Virginia (#20), Florida (#37). (How was Baylor not ranked in the pre-season top 50?)
I thought going in that the opening weekend would be pretty mellow on upsets but then the Sweet Sixteen on would be an all-time classic demolition derby. I was kinda close: Villanova, Duke, Louisville and Florida State forgot to make the trip but all the rest are here. And on any given day, any one of those teams above can win it all (or get run out of the gym). Of the interlopers: Wisconsin (#9) and Michigan (#42) just met in the Big 10 Championship, South Carolina (NR) bounced in and out of the top 25 all year long and Xavier (#7) was a pre-season top 10 squad that suffered some untimely injuries but played a tough schedule. So none of the 'Cinderellas' are particularly out of left field.
Who comes out alive? I filled out two brackets and ended up with two entirely different Final Fours, so the difference between the remaining teams is minimal, man. I think all eight games are interesting match-ups.
Wisconsin-Florida: Wisconsin played grind it out defense, Florida plays crank it up offense. If Florida is hot I think they'll win but if they can't get going Wisconsin will swallow them up. I suspect Florida is the better team.
Baylor-South Carolina: Baylor is not terribly flashy but they're a consistent team, they're gonna grind their way through this game the way they do every other game and they should be better than South Carolina. I loved the way Carolina finished off Duke: they stepped up and made their free throws. Every coach needs to whip out the last 10 minutes of that game to show the importance of fundamental basketball. If South Carolina can score as efficiently as they did against Duke, then they can sneak past Baylor, who has a solid average but probably won't hit home runs. I'll take Baylor.
Gonzaga-West Virginia: Gonzaga is arguably the best team in the nation this season: reliable down low, explosive on the perimeter, they have veteran smarts and good athletes. But West Virginia plays a tricky irritating defense that catches even the steadiest squads off guard. I think Gonzaga is the better team and should win the game but a West Virginia upset would not surprise me.
Xavier-Arizona: I don't really know either of these teams, haven't watched Xavier at all. I watched Arizona over St. Mary's and for the most part I was impressed with St. Mary's but they ran out of gas near the end, so I know Arizona is deep enough to hang with a good team and come out the other side. But I also would've thought that about Florida State...and Xavier just dropkicked them. Xavier is the house money-est of all these teams, I'll stick with them to throw Arizona for a loop.
Kansas-Purdue: Caleb Swanigan has really impressed me so far in this tournament, looking forward to see him in the NBA next year (reminds me of Marc Gasol, Chris Webber and...yeah, I'll say it....Arvydas Sabonis, the ultimate white whale of pro basketball). He's got size, skill and poise...unfortunately I can't say that I've been terribly impressed with anyone else in a Purdue uniform. My gut is Swanigan will bring it and really shine out but Kansas will be the better team and move on. Coming in I thought Kansas was...not the most likely to win but the least likely to not win...that make sense? They're a veteran squad that does what they need to do to win the game and my pick to win it all (well, my non-Kentucky pick, obviously). As much as I love Swanigan's game, he can't do it himself against a top flight squad like Kansas.
Oregon-Michigan: Oregon wasn't at their best coming into the tourney while Michigan had just finished an improbable run through the Big Ten tournament after a so-so regular season. Michigan is rising, Oregon is treading water, which makes them about even. This game is a total toss-up and I don't know either of them well enough to have a sense of how they match-up. I'll take...Michigan?
Butler-North Carolina: I thought UNC got lucky against Arkansas, a coupla bad breaks (and questionable calls) doomed Arkansas. UNC has the talent and the depth but (*ahem*) those ACC teams play a little loose for my tastes. Butler is gonna play their game the right way and leave it on the court, whereas UNC may shine out or they may have their minds on other things. The average favors Butler, the high/low favors/dooms UNC. I'll take the average, I think Butler wins this game.
UCLA-Kentucky: This is the one everyone's waiting for. Kentucky has the sloppy habit of getting down early and digging their way out; they've been able to pull that off many times this year but UCLA is one of this season's opponents where they were not able to pull off the comeback. UCLA didn't blow out UK in that game but they held the lead throughout. *hater talk* I don't like this UCLA team as much as most people do. Ball can be great but he can throw it away too and as good as their outside shooting is, it can dry up. UK plays tenacious D and has an explosive offense. I dunno, I am a homer, but I'll take UK in the re-match.
Thornwell (South Carolina) and Swanigan (Purdue) are probably my two favorite players so far. We'll see who comes up big from here.
I thought going in that the opening weekend would be pretty mellow on upsets but then the Sweet Sixteen on would be an all-time classic demolition derby. I was kinda close: Villanova, Duke, Louisville and Florida State forgot to make the trip but all the rest are here. And on any given day, any one of those teams above can win it all (or get run out of the gym). Of the interlopers: Wisconsin (#9) and Michigan (#42) just met in the Big 10 Championship, South Carolina (NR) bounced in and out of the top 25 all year long and Xavier (#7) was a pre-season top 10 squad that suffered some untimely injuries but played a tough schedule. So none of the 'Cinderellas' are particularly out of left field.
Who comes out alive? I filled out two brackets and ended up with two entirely different Final Fours, so the difference between the remaining teams is minimal, man. I think all eight games are interesting match-ups.
Wisconsin-Florida: Wisconsin played grind it out defense, Florida plays crank it up offense. If Florida is hot I think they'll win but if they can't get going Wisconsin will swallow them up. I suspect Florida is the better team.
Baylor-South Carolina: Baylor is not terribly flashy but they're a consistent team, they're gonna grind their way through this game the way they do every other game and they should be better than South Carolina. I loved the way Carolina finished off Duke: they stepped up and made their free throws. Every coach needs to whip out the last 10 minutes of that game to show the importance of fundamental basketball. If South Carolina can score as efficiently as they did against Duke, then they can sneak past Baylor, who has a solid average but probably won't hit home runs. I'll take Baylor.
Gonzaga-West Virginia: Gonzaga is arguably the best team in the nation this season: reliable down low, explosive on the perimeter, they have veteran smarts and good athletes. But West Virginia plays a tricky irritating defense that catches even the steadiest squads off guard. I think Gonzaga is the better team and should win the game but a West Virginia upset would not surprise me.
Xavier-Arizona: I don't really know either of these teams, haven't watched Xavier at all. I watched Arizona over St. Mary's and for the most part I was impressed with St. Mary's but they ran out of gas near the end, so I know Arizona is deep enough to hang with a good team and come out the other side. But I also would've thought that about Florida State...and Xavier just dropkicked them. Xavier is the house money-est of all these teams, I'll stick with them to throw Arizona for a loop.
Kansas-Purdue: Caleb Swanigan has really impressed me so far in this tournament, looking forward to see him in the NBA next year (reminds me of Marc Gasol, Chris Webber and...yeah, I'll say it....Arvydas Sabonis, the ultimate white whale of pro basketball). He's got size, skill and poise...unfortunately I can't say that I've been terribly impressed with anyone else in a Purdue uniform. My gut is Swanigan will bring it and really shine out but Kansas will be the better team and move on. Coming in I thought Kansas was...not the most likely to win but the least likely to not win...that make sense? They're a veteran squad that does what they need to do to win the game and my pick to win it all (well, my non-Kentucky pick, obviously). As much as I love Swanigan's game, he can't do it himself against a top flight squad like Kansas.
Oregon-Michigan: Oregon wasn't at their best coming into the tourney while Michigan had just finished an improbable run through the Big Ten tournament after a so-so regular season. Michigan is rising, Oregon is treading water, which makes them about even. This game is a total toss-up and I don't know either of them well enough to have a sense of how they match-up. I'll take...Michigan?
Butler-North Carolina: I thought UNC got lucky against Arkansas, a coupla bad breaks (and questionable calls) doomed Arkansas. UNC has the talent and the depth but (*ahem*) those ACC teams play a little loose for my tastes. Butler is gonna play their game the right way and leave it on the court, whereas UNC may shine out or they may have their minds on other things. The average favors Butler, the high/low favors/dooms UNC. I'll take the average, I think Butler wins this game.
UCLA-Kentucky: This is the one everyone's waiting for. Kentucky has the sloppy habit of getting down early and digging their way out; they've been able to pull that off many times this year but UCLA is one of this season's opponents where they were not able to pull off the comeback. UCLA didn't blow out UK in that game but they held the lead throughout. *hater talk* I don't like this UCLA team as much as most people do. Ball can be great but he can throw it away too and as good as their outside shooting is, it can dry up. UK plays tenacious D and has an explosive offense. I dunno, I am a homer, but I'll take UK in the re-match.
Thornwell (South Carolina) and Swanigan (Purdue) are probably my two favorite players so far. We'll see who comes up big from here.
Thursday, March 2, 2017
NCAA B-Ball
With pro sports I watch all the teams, each game interests me. But with college basketball I pretty much only watch Kentucky until the tournament. So this is just a basic sketch of what I've noticed about basketball as we had into the conference tournaments.
I think there are a lot of deeply talented teams that can play too loose for their own good on any given night. That's definitely what I would say about Kentucky but that seems to be true of Duke, UCLA, North Carolina, Louisville, Arizona and Baylor too. On any given night any of those teams can blast past their opponent and the next game they can stumble around and look like a bunch of leftovers.
Right now I gotta say Kansas is the best all around squad. Not that they have the most talent, I don't think they do, but I think they are solid at every position and they don't play stupid. They're used to working for their wins, they don't panic, they keep control when times get tough. Let me rephrase that: they're not the best team, they are the team most likely to be there at the end. I suspect Villanova might be 2nd for similar reasons.
Duke has the deepest team but this is not a cohesive squad, UCLA is fun to watch and talented but I'm not convinced they're winning squad, North Carolina has plenty of good players but they've got a soft underbelly, Louisville and Arizona both have talent and luck but neither have the consistency needed to get hot in the tourney. Baylor matches well with some teams but could get run out of the gym to others. Kentucky, the team I've watched a lot this year, has explosive scoring and active defense but they lose focus and sputter at times; if you've been watching them all year long you can see how they're going to lose: getting down 10 early on is fine against a weak opponent but it also shows a lack of maturity that will doom them deep in the tournament (flip side: if they win it all, it'll be an amazingly exciting tourney!).
I haven't seen Gonzaga or Butler, I haven't been terribly impressed by Oregon or Florida. I have no sense of who the out-of-nowhere- teams will be largely because I've enjoyed all the classic programs rising to the top with the talent. But all that talent is green. I think the veteran squads have the best chance this season. We'll see, tournament time is right around the corner.
I think there are a lot of deeply talented teams that can play too loose for their own good on any given night. That's definitely what I would say about Kentucky but that seems to be true of Duke, UCLA, North Carolina, Louisville, Arizona and Baylor too. On any given night any of those teams can blast past their opponent and the next game they can stumble around and look like a bunch of leftovers.
Right now I gotta say Kansas is the best all around squad. Not that they have the most talent, I don't think they do, but I think they are solid at every position and they don't play stupid. They're used to working for their wins, they don't panic, they keep control when times get tough. Let me rephrase that: they're not the best team, they are the team most likely to be there at the end. I suspect Villanova might be 2nd for similar reasons.
Duke has the deepest team but this is not a cohesive squad, UCLA is fun to watch and talented but I'm not convinced they're winning squad, North Carolina has plenty of good players but they've got a soft underbelly, Louisville and Arizona both have talent and luck but neither have the consistency needed to get hot in the tourney. Baylor matches well with some teams but could get run out of the gym to others. Kentucky, the team I've watched a lot this year, has explosive scoring and active defense but they lose focus and sputter at times; if you've been watching them all year long you can see how they're going to lose: getting down 10 early on is fine against a weak opponent but it also shows a lack of maturity that will doom them deep in the tournament (flip side: if they win it all, it'll be an amazingly exciting tourney!).
I haven't seen Gonzaga or Butler, I haven't been terribly impressed by Oregon or Florida. I have no sense of who the out-of-nowhere- teams will be largely because I've enjoyed all the classic programs rising to the top with the talent. But all that talent is green. I think the veteran squads have the best chance this season. We'll see, tournament time is right around the corner.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Academy Awards
Might as well make my Oscar predictions. The Oscars to me are a like a Jets-Browns game in mid-October: I don't wanna watch it but I do wanna know the outcome. And I still wanna see if I can see if I can guess the winner (though I skip the shorts because...well, I usually don't get to see them and they ought to be in a separate ceremony anyway). This year will be kinda tough because frankly I thought it was a pretty crappy year. The Oscar bait movies generally left me cold, none of the big summer titles impressed me and I thought it was a pretty sorry year for kids' movies. I struggled to make a top ten this year, which makes me excited for next year.
Best Doc -- Normally this is a quiet category but OJ: Made in America was easily my favorite film of the year (and the title most likely to endure as a watchable classic film on into the future). What a staggering fucking achievement in editing and story telling and who knew that OJ Simpson led the quintessential American life (poverty, fame, murder, redemption, revenge)? The fact that its a TV movie will earn scorn from some but I think the sheer awesomeness of the film itself will win over enough to earn the award it deserves.
Best Visual Effects -- Last year I thought the Star Wars re-boot would take home a pile of technical awards but mostly they went to the Mad Max re-boot instead. My rationale last year going in was that the Academy would reward boffo box office and my rationale afterwards was that there's plenty of time to give Star Wars movies awards. I think this is one of those opportunities. I liked Rogue One made a huge pile of money without being an irritating force. The only other one I saw was The Jungle Book, which is a hell of a good flick but is really an animated film with a little kid in it. Doctor Strange looked interesting, Deepwater Horizon had some cool looking explosions, Kubo is in fact an animated movie, but I'm betting Rogue One is the title that everyone actually watched and liked.
Best Sound Editing -- And here's where the La La Land onslaught begins. Like it or not, La La Land is a masterful piece of sound editing and thoroughly deserves this award. Also all the other films are basically action movies, I think the musical stands out and wins easily.
Best Sound Mixing -- (Ditto) La La Land (win #2).
Best Original Song -- (*screech*) La La Land seems like the obvious choice here with two nominations to choose from, but I thought those were not the best songs in the movie anyway. I'll go with Moana--can't pass up a chance to get Lin-Manuel on stage.
Best Original Score -- Aaaaaaand we're back. La La Land (win #3) is a pretty easy call on this one. Although personally I thought Moonlight had a killer score, La La Land is a total immersion in the musical form that we haven't seen in an Oscar bait movie since...Chicago (?).
Best Makeup & Hair -- I dunno, I'll say Suicide Squad? There certainly is a lot of hair and makeup in the movie and it seems a clearer choice than the other nominees. (And "Oscar-winning Suicide Squad" just has a such a lovely ring to it)
Best Costumes -- I personally would've gone with Everybody Wants Some!! for best costumes but its not even nominated (why not? It's a period piece like the others). We could throw another one on the pile for La La Land but for this one I'll take Jackie instead (the costumes were the most notable part of the film anyway).
Best Production Design -- Though I thought Hail Caesar was the better film (and more interesting take on Hollywood), I think La La Land takes this one (win #4).
Best Editing -- This one is wide open. They may go with La La Land in the onslaught or this could be the place where they throw a bone to another picture. Though I admired Hell or High Water a great deal, I didn't find the editing to be particularly noteworthy but if you're looking for an underdog, this could be a good chance to reward a movie that deserved more love than in got. I'll go with Moonlight, the film had a startlingly original visual look and this is a good and well-earned place to give it some kudos.
Best Cinematography -- Moonlight could sneak an upset here but I'll go with La La Land (win #5) simply because that opening sequence is pretty amazing.
Best Foreign Film -- The critics having been talking up Toni Erdman all year long but the American public still hasn't gotten much of a look at it and while A Man Called Ove was a likable crowd pleaser, I didn't think it was an award-worthy picture. I'll go with The Salesman because its an easy thumb in the eye of our new President's foreign policy without being terribly controversial. I don't know if anyone saw the film (though I am an admirer of Asghar Farhadi) but seeing the winners accept their award by satellite will speak volumes free of Michael Moore or Molotov cocktail.
Best Animated Feature -- Three foreign nominees and no Finding Dory (the 2nd highest grossing film of the year)? Interesting. Another chance to bring Lin-Manual to the stage or throw a bone to Zootopia, a huge springtime hit (though I found it to be a twisted paranoid thriller of a kids' movie). I'll take Moana, it was lovable and had a lot of Oscar-friendly elements.
Best Adapted Screenplay -- Everyone's gonna wanna vote for Moonlight but then they're gonna see Fences and want that one, too. Tough call but I'll take the Moonlight crowd over the Fences crowd.
Best Original Screenplay -- Personally I thought Hell or High Water was the best of these five films (and the best original screenplay to boot) but this is the chance to choose Manchester By the Sea over La La Land. I think Lonergan gets the trophy.
Best Director -- La La Land is a very easy choice (win #6). If Manchester By the Sea has any momentum here's where it comes into effect but I think the big mo stays with la la.
Best Supporting Actress -- This is a two horse race: Michelle Williams and Viola Davis. Could go either way, they're both well respected and long overdue, I'll take Viola Davis.
Best Supporting Actor -- This category is wide open. Folks like Mike Shannon and this could be a good time to anoint him but honestly that movie is terrible (and he's not particularly noteworthy in it). Jeff Bridges already won his Oscar (and Ben Foster should've been the nominee from that movie anyway). Hedges is the representative from a popular (but horribly muted) film but no one knows who he is and he is strangely minimal to the action of the film. Did anyone see Lion? I think I'll go with Mahershala Ali because people loved Moonlight and this is a chance to give it a prize.
Best Actress -- The money is on Isabelle Huppert but I thought that movie was...just weird and I didn't really understand her performance. I love Huppert as much as the next guy but Meryl Streep's 14th best performance (that seems about right for Florence Foster Jenkins, a film I really liked btw) is still way more eye opening and invigorating. I think folks admired Natalie Portman in Jackie but, man, that movie....that movie is dumb...just dumb. Did anyone see Loving? I'll go with Emma Stone (win #7 for La La Land).
Best Actor -- Casey Affleck got the early buzz but Manchester is the kind of film that does not live up to the overwhelming hype and neither does its lead performance; Denzel is the crowd's best buddy but he's already won and Fences wasn't much a hit; Viggo is really great but did anyone see Captain Fantastic?; I first noticed Andrew Garfield in 99 Homes last year (he and Mike Shannon were both more award-worthy last year than this year....that no one saw), but this is just a pat on the head nomination. I'll take Ryan Gosling to finally win one and to keep the La La Land avalanche coming (win #8).
Best Picture -- La La Land (win #9). Along with Best Director, this is is the easiest pick of the night. The film was...not bad...and for what it was trying to do, that is plenty enough successful to earn a big pay day on Oscar night (especially in such a weak season).
The rundown: La La Land (9), Moonlight (3), Moana (2), (1) each for Manchester By the Sea, Fences, OJ: Made in America, Rogue One, Jackie, Suicide Squad, The Salesman.
Best Doc -- Normally this is a quiet category but OJ: Made in America was easily my favorite film of the year (and the title most likely to endure as a watchable classic film on into the future). What a staggering fucking achievement in editing and story telling and who knew that OJ Simpson led the quintessential American life (poverty, fame, murder, redemption, revenge)? The fact that its a TV movie will earn scorn from some but I think the sheer awesomeness of the film itself will win over enough to earn the award it deserves.
Best Visual Effects -- Last year I thought the Star Wars re-boot would take home a pile of technical awards but mostly they went to the Mad Max re-boot instead. My rationale last year going in was that the Academy would reward boffo box office and my rationale afterwards was that there's plenty of time to give Star Wars movies awards. I think this is one of those opportunities. I liked Rogue One made a huge pile of money without being an irritating force. The only other one I saw was The Jungle Book, which is a hell of a good flick but is really an animated film with a little kid in it. Doctor Strange looked interesting, Deepwater Horizon had some cool looking explosions, Kubo is in fact an animated movie, but I'm betting Rogue One is the title that everyone actually watched and liked.
Best Sound Editing -- And here's where the La La Land onslaught begins. Like it or not, La La Land is a masterful piece of sound editing and thoroughly deserves this award. Also all the other films are basically action movies, I think the musical stands out and wins easily.
Best Sound Mixing -- (Ditto) La La Land (win #2).
Best Original Song -- (*screech*) La La Land seems like the obvious choice here with two nominations to choose from, but I thought those were not the best songs in the movie anyway. I'll go with Moana--can't pass up a chance to get Lin-Manuel on stage.
Best Original Score -- Aaaaaaand we're back. La La Land (win #3) is a pretty easy call on this one. Although personally I thought Moonlight had a killer score, La La Land is a total immersion in the musical form that we haven't seen in an Oscar bait movie since...Chicago (?).
Best Makeup & Hair -- I dunno, I'll say Suicide Squad? There certainly is a lot of hair and makeup in the movie and it seems a clearer choice than the other nominees. (And "Oscar-winning Suicide Squad" just has a such a lovely ring to it)
Best Costumes -- I personally would've gone with Everybody Wants Some!! for best costumes but its not even nominated (why not? It's a period piece like the others). We could throw another one on the pile for La La Land but for this one I'll take Jackie instead (the costumes were the most notable part of the film anyway).
Best Production Design -- Though I thought Hail Caesar was the better film (and more interesting take on Hollywood), I think La La Land takes this one (win #4).
Best Editing -- This one is wide open. They may go with La La Land in the onslaught or this could be the place where they throw a bone to another picture. Though I admired Hell or High Water a great deal, I didn't find the editing to be particularly noteworthy but if you're looking for an underdog, this could be a good chance to reward a movie that deserved more love than in got. I'll go with Moonlight, the film had a startlingly original visual look and this is a good and well-earned place to give it some kudos.
Best Cinematography -- Moonlight could sneak an upset here but I'll go with La La Land (win #5) simply because that opening sequence is pretty amazing.
Best Foreign Film -- The critics having been talking up Toni Erdman all year long but the American public still hasn't gotten much of a look at it and while A Man Called Ove was a likable crowd pleaser, I didn't think it was an award-worthy picture. I'll go with The Salesman because its an easy thumb in the eye of our new President's foreign policy without being terribly controversial. I don't know if anyone saw the film (though I am an admirer of Asghar Farhadi) but seeing the winners accept their award by satellite will speak volumes free of Michael Moore or Molotov cocktail.
Best Animated Feature -- Three foreign nominees and no Finding Dory (the 2nd highest grossing film of the year)? Interesting. Another chance to bring Lin-Manual to the stage or throw a bone to Zootopia, a huge springtime hit (though I found it to be a twisted paranoid thriller of a kids' movie). I'll take Moana, it was lovable and had a lot of Oscar-friendly elements.
Best Adapted Screenplay -- Everyone's gonna wanna vote for Moonlight but then they're gonna see Fences and want that one, too. Tough call but I'll take the Moonlight crowd over the Fences crowd.
Best Original Screenplay -- Personally I thought Hell or High Water was the best of these five films (and the best original screenplay to boot) but this is the chance to choose Manchester By the Sea over La La Land. I think Lonergan gets the trophy.
Best Director -- La La Land is a very easy choice (win #6). If Manchester By the Sea has any momentum here's where it comes into effect but I think the big mo stays with la la.
Best Supporting Actress -- This is a two horse race: Michelle Williams and Viola Davis. Could go either way, they're both well respected and long overdue, I'll take Viola Davis.
Best Supporting Actor -- This category is wide open. Folks like Mike Shannon and this could be a good time to anoint him but honestly that movie is terrible (and he's not particularly noteworthy in it). Jeff Bridges already won his Oscar (and Ben Foster should've been the nominee from that movie anyway). Hedges is the representative from a popular (but horribly muted) film but no one knows who he is and he is strangely minimal to the action of the film. Did anyone see Lion? I think I'll go with Mahershala Ali because people loved Moonlight and this is a chance to give it a prize.
Best Actress -- The money is on Isabelle Huppert but I thought that movie was...just weird and I didn't really understand her performance. I love Huppert as much as the next guy but Meryl Streep's 14th best performance (that seems about right for Florence Foster Jenkins, a film I really liked btw) is still way more eye opening and invigorating. I think folks admired Natalie Portman in Jackie but, man, that movie....that movie is dumb...just dumb. Did anyone see Loving? I'll go with Emma Stone (win #7 for La La Land).
Best Actor -- Casey Affleck got the early buzz but Manchester is the kind of film that does not live up to the overwhelming hype and neither does its lead performance; Denzel is the crowd's best buddy but he's already won and Fences wasn't much a hit; Viggo is really great but did anyone see Captain Fantastic?; I first noticed Andrew Garfield in 99 Homes last year (he and Mike Shannon were both more award-worthy last year than this year....that no one saw), but this is just a pat on the head nomination. I'll take Ryan Gosling to finally win one and to keep the La La Land avalanche coming (win #8).
Best Picture -- La La Land (win #9). Along with Best Director, this is is the easiest pick of the night. The film was...not bad...and for what it was trying to do, that is plenty enough successful to earn a big pay day on Oscar night (especially in such a weak season).
The rundown: La La Land (9), Moonlight (3), Moana (2), (1) each for Manchester By the Sea, Fences, OJ: Made in America, Rogue One, Jackie, Suicide Squad, The Salesman.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
NBA Deadline Recap
Man...I haven't written about NBA once this season...I'm off my game. I've been watching a ton still, just not writing down my observations due to a new job (and looks like an even newer job soon) and a new lovely in my life (no complaints on that one). I';m not as up on the salaries as in previous years but I'm ready to get back into it and the trade deadline is a good opportunity. Here we go.
Hornets get Miles Plumlee; Bucks get Roy Hibbert (stay tuned) and Spencer Hawes
The Hornets got rid of two not-so-important vets for a young guy (with Carolina ties) who gives them a little more life off their bench; not moving the needle but not a bad move for them. The Bucks get rid of a guy who is really expensive for a veteran shotblocker/trade bait and a low cost veteran off the bench; basically they're moving off future salary and adding a tad more perimeter scoring. This deal ain't shaking up the Eastern conference playoff standings in any way.
Blazers get Jusef Nurkic, Nuggets 2017 1st rd pick; Nuggets get Mason Plumlee, Blazers 2018 2nd rd pick
I'm still a fan of Nurkic, a cartoonish big man who fell out of favor after the rise of Jokic but I'm not sure his low block dominance is a better fit than Plumlee, who isn't much of a scorer but is a solid ball handler for a big man. Given that the Blazers are way off where I thought they'd be, perhaps they'd rather look toward the future with a young big and a 1st rd pick than try to make it work with another passer. The Nuggets no longer needed Nurkic and I guess a good passer fits nicely in their rotation. Not a huge upgrade for either team but not a step back either.
Hornets get Chris Andersen, cash; Cavs get Hornets 2017 2nd pick (top 55 protected)
Andersen is hurt, isn't he? And he never plays anyway. Clearly the Cavs would rather have room to bring in a vet that might actually contribute. The Hornets get nothing, give nothing, but pick up a coupla bucks for the end of the year office party.
Raptors Serge Ibaka; Magic get Terrence Ross, Raptors 2017 1st rd pick
This is a nice pick up for the Raptors (although Ibaka may do nothing more than clog the bench on his way to somewhere else), adding a competent veteran who contributes on both sides of the court gives them a counter to Love and/or Lebron come playoff time. Ibaka was never gonna last in Orlando but I'm sure the Magic were hoping he'd be a better trade chip than this. That said, I've always liked Ross and this should be a good draft, even a pick in the bottom third might still could yield a plum and since Ibaka was always just bait, I think the Magic did pretty well here (which is not something I've said about them for the last few years).
Pelicans get Demarcus Cousins, Omri Casspi; Kings get Buddy Hield, Langston Galloway, Tyreke Evans, 2017 Pelicans 1st rd pick, 2018 Pelicans 2nd rd pick
Here it is, the big one. The Kings finally give up on the guy they've been unable to please for a handful of future prospects and an expiring contract...isn't that always the deal that was gonna happen? We've been waiting for a Boogie Blockbuster for years now and while this seems anticlimactic, the Kings were never gonna get as good a player back, so this looks kinda normal to me. The Kings get Hield (me and Vivek like him better than everybody else, but I still think he can be a top notch shooter), Galloway (a hard working young ballhandler, not the most talented guy but the Kings need all the self-motivated players they can get), Evans (I suspect he gets waived, on his way to...Atlanta? Cleveland?), a 1st rd pick in a good draft and a 2nd rd pick because...hey, people like 2nd rd picks. Could they have done better? Almost certainly but they could've done worse (this is the Kings we're talking about, I guess that caveat goes without saying). Also, it helps them tank now, bulking up their own draft pick. (Ironic, right, that they covet draft picks when they're only two good picks in the last ten years just got swapped for each other?) As for the Pelicans, it'll take time to gel and they're still soft on perimeter scoring but at least I get I get to watch my two favorite Wildcats miss the playoffs on one team instead of two. An underrated part of this deal is Casspi, an occasional deadly outside shooter, which the Pelicans need very much. Can the Pelicans sneak into the playoffs? Ehhhh, maybe. I like them to get past the Kings and Blazers now but I think the Nuggets and Grizzlies hang in there. (The upcoming free agency period should be quite a bit more exciting in New Orleans, though)
Rockets get Lou Williams, Marcelo Huertas; Lakers get Corey Brewer, Tyler Ennis, Rockets 2017 1st rd pick (and shook up their front office) (two separate deals but I'm squishing 'em)
These deals were clearly dreamed up by an accountant somewhere because I'm not seeing much change for either side. The Rockets had to upgrade Brewer but I'm not convinced Williams is that guy. And the Lakers had to...uh...I dunno, not sure what they get out of this. I can see them moving on from Williams but Brewer isn't part of their future, Ennis is still young enough that maybe he gets some run but I don't see him as a long time Laker either. The Lakers get an extra late 1st rounder and move off some veteran salary, while the Rockets get a more reliable scoring option off the bench. Neither of these are earth-shattering deals.
Wizards get Bojan Bodanovic, Chris McCullough; Nets get Andrew Nicholson, Marcus Thornton (waived), Wizards 2017 1st rd pick
I think the Wizards got the best of this swap. Bojan is a solid shooter, McCullough could still be a fine young big man and all they give up is a late 1st round draft pick, which I think is a good enough move. The Nets need all the youth they can get so I guess every draft pick is valuable to them but they gave up (to my mind) the two best players in this deal for a salary dump and the hopes they can turn that pick into someone like....oh, I dunno....Chris McCullough.
Hawks get Ersan Ilyasova; Sixers get Tiago Splitter, 2 Hawks 2nd rd picks
Ilyasova (which is actually Turkish for 'Chris Gatling') has now played for every team in the league twice--in just the last 3 years. Man, it just wouldn't be a trade deadline with Ersan in the mix. He's a reliable (if unspectacular) rotation guy, thought he kinda worked for the Sixers, not sure what he brings to the Hawks. Splitter has been injury-plagued in recent years but clearly this is a salary dump for the Hawks, not sure what he brings to the Sixers (except two more 2nd rd picks to throw on the last of the Hinkie haul).
Mavs get Nerlens Noel; Sixers get Justin Anderson, Andrew Bogut, Mavs 2017 1st rd pick
The Sixers have been trying to unload Nerlens for ages now and I think this isn't a bad deal for them. I like Justin Anderson and this pick should be a pretty good one for a guy they didn't really need (I assume Bogut will be waived). The Mavs get a rim protector to build around going forward and while I kinda like Anderson, they've now got a tantalizing piece to lure free agents this summer. The Mavs are currentl 12th in the West and this deal doesn't change that but this move is about next year.
Nets get KJ McDaniels; Rockets get....well....nothing
I forgot McDaniels even played for the Rockets (I guess because he didn't). Remember his 15 minutes back in Philly a few years back? He had a brief run as a high flying shot blocker and crazy wing shooter that got him promptly traded away. The Nets got nothing better to do, might as well see if he's got another nice run in him.
Thunder get Taj Gibson, Doug McDermott; Bulls get Cameron Payne, Anthony Morrow, Joffrey Lauvergne
The Thunder get a veteran leader off the bench and the perimeter shooting they've been dying for for years. The Bulls get younger and cheaper and continue to peel off one more of Thibodeau's soldiers. Taj was so important to the Bulls but I'm not sure he means that much to the Thunder and McDermott is talented but hasn't exactly set the world on fire, will either of them get more opportunity in OKC? I'm not sure. Some are down on Payne but I'd already put him ahead of Rondo and MCW, so I look forward to seeing him get some playing time. Lauvergne is a nice young player, we'll see if he fits in there, I guess Morrow can get some of McDermott's time but hardly a move for the future.
Nuggets get Roy Hibbert; Bucks get Nuggets 2017 2nd rd pick
The Nuggets can offer Hibbert one last shot at being the down low presence he used to be and it sounds weird but Jameer Nelson is the kind of crafty veteran that can get the most out of him. The collection of youngsters in Denver is exciting to watch and I think Hibbert can give them a bit of veteran presence (or perhaps he's already been waived, either way).
Suns gets Mike Scott; Hawks get cash
All I know about Mike Scott (and I would certainly never say this to his face): goofiest looking tats I've ever seen in my life. Looks like he gave a kindergarten class some sharpies and let them go to town on his torso. (And didn't he get busted for selling weed last summer?)
Raptors get PJ Tucker; Suns get Jared Sullinger, 2 Raptors 2nd rd picks
The Raptors get a hungry forward to step in do some dirty work (should platoon nicely with Patrick Patterson) and give up only a guy that wasn't working out for them anywhere. The Suns get a Hinkie-ish collection of picks and can offer some playing time to see if Sullinger can actually become something.
It looks to me like the Raptors were big winner of this year's trade deadline, which is a pleasant surprise considering their usual stand-pat style. Tucker will play for them and Ibaka has a chance to be a really good player again and basically all they gave up was Terrence Ross (but they've got enough wing scoring) and a so-so 1st round pick. Not bad. The Pelicans and Kings are radically changed but neither will affect this year's playoff race. The Wizards and Mavs are upgraded but not much else seems meaningful looking around the league, a lot of bean counting moves but nothing on the court. The 2nd half of this season doesn't look it will be terribly different from the 1st half.
Hornets get Miles Plumlee; Bucks get Roy Hibbert (stay tuned) and Spencer Hawes
The Hornets got rid of two not-so-important vets for a young guy (with Carolina ties) who gives them a little more life off their bench; not moving the needle but not a bad move for them. The Bucks get rid of a guy who is really expensive for a veteran shotblocker/trade bait and a low cost veteran off the bench; basically they're moving off future salary and adding a tad more perimeter scoring. This deal ain't shaking up the Eastern conference playoff standings in any way.
Blazers get Jusef Nurkic, Nuggets 2017 1st rd pick; Nuggets get Mason Plumlee, Blazers 2018 2nd rd pick
I'm still a fan of Nurkic, a cartoonish big man who fell out of favor after the rise of Jokic but I'm not sure his low block dominance is a better fit than Plumlee, who isn't much of a scorer but is a solid ball handler for a big man. Given that the Blazers are way off where I thought they'd be, perhaps they'd rather look toward the future with a young big and a 1st rd pick than try to make it work with another passer. The Nuggets no longer needed Nurkic and I guess a good passer fits nicely in their rotation. Not a huge upgrade for either team but not a step back either.
Hornets get Chris Andersen, cash; Cavs get Hornets 2017 2nd pick (top 55 protected)
Andersen is hurt, isn't he? And he never plays anyway. Clearly the Cavs would rather have room to bring in a vet that might actually contribute. The Hornets get nothing, give nothing, but pick up a coupla bucks for the end of the year office party.
Raptors Serge Ibaka; Magic get Terrence Ross, Raptors 2017 1st rd pick
This is a nice pick up for the Raptors (although Ibaka may do nothing more than clog the bench on his way to somewhere else), adding a competent veteran who contributes on both sides of the court gives them a counter to Love and/or Lebron come playoff time. Ibaka was never gonna last in Orlando but I'm sure the Magic were hoping he'd be a better trade chip than this. That said, I've always liked Ross and this should be a good draft, even a pick in the bottom third might still could yield a plum and since Ibaka was always just bait, I think the Magic did pretty well here (which is not something I've said about them for the last few years).
Pelicans get Demarcus Cousins, Omri Casspi; Kings get Buddy Hield, Langston Galloway, Tyreke Evans, 2017 Pelicans 1st rd pick, 2018 Pelicans 2nd rd pick
Here it is, the big one. The Kings finally give up on the guy they've been unable to please for a handful of future prospects and an expiring contract...isn't that always the deal that was gonna happen? We've been waiting for a Boogie Blockbuster for years now and while this seems anticlimactic, the Kings were never gonna get as good a player back, so this looks kinda normal to me. The Kings get Hield (me and Vivek like him better than everybody else, but I still think he can be a top notch shooter), Galloway (a hard working young ballhandler, not the most talented guy but the Kings need all the self-motivated players they can get), Evans (I suspect he gets waived, on his way to...Atlanta? Cleveland?), a 1st rd pick in a good draft and a 2nd rd pick because...hey, people like 2nd rd picks. Could they have done better? Almost certainly but they could've done worse (this is the Kings we're talking about, I guess that caveat goes without saying). Also, it helps them tank now, bulking up their own draft pick. (Ironic, right, that they covet draft picks when they're only two good picks in the last ten years just got swapped for each other?) As for the Pelicans, it'll take time to gel and they're still soft on perimeter scoring but at least I get I get to watch my two favorite Wildcats miss the playoffs on one team instead of two. An underrated part of this deal is Casspi, an occasional deadly outside shooter, which the Pelicans need very much. Can the Pelicans sneak into the playoffs? Ehhhh, maybe. I like them to get past the Kings and Blazers now but I think the Nuggets and Grizzlies hang in there. (The upcoming free agency period should be quite a bit more exciting in New Orleans, though)
Rockets get Lou Williams, Marcelo Huertas; Lakers get Corey Brewer, Tyler Ennis, Rockets 2017 1st rd pick (and shook up their front office) (two separate deals but I'm squishing 'em)
These deals were clearly dreamed up by an accountant somewhere because I'm not seeing much change for either side. The Rockets had to upgrade Brewer but I'm not convinced Williams is that guy. And the Lakers had to...uh...I dunno, not sure what they get out of this. I can see them moving on from Williams but Brewer isn't part of their future, Ennis is still young enough that maybe he gets some run but I don't see him as a long time Laker either. The Lakers get an extra late 1st rounder and move off some veteran salary, while the Rockets get a more reliable scoring option off the bench. Neither of these are earth-shattering deals.
Wizards get Bojan Bodanovic, Chris McCullough; Nets get Andrew Nicholson, Marcus Thornton (waived), Wizards 2017 1st rd pick
I think the Wizards got the best of this swap. Bojan is a solid shooter, McCullough could still be a fine young big man and all they give up is a late 1st round draft pick, which I think is a good enough move. The Nets need all the youth they can get so I guess every draft pick is valuable to them but they gave up (to my mind) the two best players in this deal for a salary dump and the hopes they can turn that pick into someone like....oh, I dunno....Chris McCullough.
Hawks get Ersan Ilyasova; Sixers get Tiago Splitter, 2 Hawks 2nd rd picks
Ilyasova (which is actually Turkish for 'Chris Gatling') has now played for every team in the league twice--in just the last 3 years. Man, it just wouldn't be a trade deadline with Ersan in the mix. He's a reliable (if unspectacular) rotation guy, thought he kinda worked for the Sixers, not sure what he brings to the Hawks. Splitter has been injury-plagued in recent years but clearly this is a salary dump for the Hawks, not sure what he brings to the Sixers (except two more 2nd rd picks to throw on the last of the Hinkie haul).
Mavs get Nerlens Noel; Sixers get Justin Anderson, Andrew Bogut, Mavs 2017 1st rd pick
The Sixers have been trying to unload Nerlens for ages now and I think this isn't a bad deal for them. I like Justin Anderson and this pick should be a pretty good one for a guy they didn't really need (I assume Bogut will be waived). The Mavs get a rim protector to build around going forward and while I kinda like Anderson, they've now got a tantalizing piece to lure free agents this summer. The Mavs are currentl 12th in the West and this deal doesn't change that but this move is about next year.
Nets get KJ McDaniels; Rockets get....well....nothing
I forgot McDaniels even played for the Rockets (I guess because he didn't). Remember his 15 minutes back in Philly a few years back? He had a brief run as a high flying shot blocker and crazy wing shooter that got him promptly traded away. The Nets got nothing better to do, might as well see if he's got another nice run in him.
Thunder get Taj Gibson, Doug McDermott; Bulls get Cameron Payne, Anthony Morrow, Joffrey Lauvergne
The Thunder get a veteran leader off the bench and the perimeter shooting they've been dying for for years. The Bulls get younger and cheaper and continue to peel off one more of Thibodeau's soldiers. Taj was so important to the Bulls but I'm not sure he means that much to the Thunder and McDermott is talented but hasn't exactly set the world on fire, will either of them get more opportunity in OKC? I'm not sure. Some are down on Payne but I'd already put him ahead of Rondo and MCW, so I look forward to seeing him get some playing time. Lauvergne is a nice young player, we'll see if he fits in there, I guess Morrow can get some of McDermott's time but hardly a move for the future.
Nuggets get Roy Hibbert; Bucks get Nuggets 2017 2nd rd pick
The Nuggets can offer Hibbert one last shot at being the down low presence he used to be and it sounds weird but Jameer Nelson is the kind of crafty veteran that can get the most out of him. The collection of youngsters in Denver is exciting to watch and I think Hibbert can give them a bit of veteran presence (or perhaps he's already been waived, either way).
Suns gets Mike Scott; Hawks get cash
All I know about Mike Scott (and I would certainly never say this to his face): goofiest looking tats I've ever seen in my life. Looks like he gave a kindergarten class some sharpies and let them go to town on his torso. (And didn't he get busted for selling weed last summer?)
Raptors get PJ Tucker; Suns get Jared Sullinger, 2 Raptors 2nd rd picks
The Raptors get a hungry forward to step in do some dirty work (should platoon nicely with Patrick Patterson) and give up only a guy that wasn't working out for them anywhere. The Suns get a Hinkie-ish collection of picks and can offer some playing time to see if Sullinger can actually become something.
It looks to me like the Raptors were big winner of this year's trade deadline, which is a pleasant surprise considering their usual stand-pat style. Tucker will play for them and Ibaka has a chance to be a really good player again and basically all they gave up was Terrence Ross (but they've got enough wing scoring) and a so-so 1st round pick. Not bad. The Pelicans and Kings are radically changed but neither will affect this year's playoff race. The Wizards and Mavs are upgraded but not much else seems meaningful looking around the league, a lot of bean counting moves but nothing on the court. The 2nd half of this season doesn't look it will be terribly different from the 1st half.
Sunday, February 5, 2017
Super Bowl
The last football game of the year...always a bit melancholy. Aussie Open got 2017 off to a great start and I think the Super Bowl will be a good one too. We don't often get two killer offenses in the big game.
I thought the Falcons had the best offense in the league this year and the Pats were their usual high efficiency selves. The beauty of tonight's game is that while both teams are high powered offenses, they're both led by defensive minded coaches. Two weeks of prep time should make for some brilliant chess.
It is not uncommon for Super Bowl squads to come out tight, for 1st quarters to be awkward low scoring affairs. Tonight's contest will likely play out that way with a twist: these two squads are both offensive juggernauts so I think the nerves will be on the other side of the ball. I like both teams to score on their opening drives and then for the defenses to find their footing, making the rest of the 1st half a sloppy slog. I'll say Falcons 13-7 at halftime.
I like both defenses to play well but they'll both be cracked eventually. I think the model for tonight's game is the Panthers-Pats Super Bowl: low scoring for a while then an explosion of points in the 4th. Both of these offenses are too good to be stopped for long but I look forward to both coaching staffs keeping the defensive intensity high. (Kooky prediction: if the team that gets the ball first in the 2nd half scores, I think they'll win)
I like the Falcons 34-27. I'll take Matt Ryan as MVP.
I thought the Falcons had the best offense in the league this year and the Pats were their usual high efficiency selves. The beauty of tonight's game is that while both teams are high powered offenses, they're both led by defensive minded coaches. Two weeks of prep time should make for some brilliant chess.
It is not uncommon for Super Bowl squads to come out tight, for 1st quarters to be awkward low scoring affairs. Tonight's contest will likely play out that way with a twist: these two squads are both offensive juggernauts so I think the nerves will be on the other side of the ball. I like both teams to score on their opening drives and then for the defenses to find their footing, making the rest of the 1st half a sloppy slog. I'll say Falcons 13-7 at halftime.
I like both defenses to play well but they'll both be cracked eventually. I think the model for tonight's game is the Panthers-Pats Super Bowl: low scoring for a while then an explosion of points in the 4th. Both of these offenses are too good to be stopped for long but I look forward to both coaching staffs keeping the defensive intensity high. (Kooky prediction: if the team that gets the ball first in the 2nd half scores, I think they'll win)
I like the Falcons 34-27. I'll take Matt Ryan as MVP.
Australian Open
Federer and Nadal....five sets....oh man....just....jeez....wow....god damn good day to love tennis. I don't even know what to say. What a brilliant way to start the 2017 sports season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
