SI's Extreme Makeover

For the last week I've been really enjoying the site redesign over at SI.com. I have always been a fan of the site, despite the fact that it's widely seen as the uglier stepsister of ESPN.com. When comparing the two sites, I think that the main advantages of ESPN are that it's faster at breaking stories and that there is generally more content-- any given sport section has an endless roster of contributors, plus Page 2 is a nice supplement. However, I prefer SI.com because the quality of the writing is so much better. Since both sites usually use the same AP stories for the news items, you have to compare the writing based on the columnists of the two sites. To me there is no contest, as SI.com has their entire slate of Sports Illustrated experts like Peter King, Tom Verducci, Phil Taylor and Jack McCallum. Their columns are always insightful and well thought-out, whereas a lot of the pieces on ESPN seem slapped together and written just for the sake of adding another viewpoint to the discourse.

The SI.com redesign is great because it makes all of their content more accessible. For example, the top banner of the site has "mouse-over" links to every subsection of every sport, along with stories and columns. My favorite new aspect however is that on the right side of the page there is now a pulldown menu that instantly takes you to the archive of any writer. I love the fact that pretty much all significant content on every subject is now accessible from the frontpage.

My one gripe with both SI.com and ESPN.com? Too many huge photos. It's like they have no regard for the millions of us who want to surf at work inconspicuously. Why would they alienate their readers by ratting us all out with an 8x4 inch photo of Donovan McNabb that can be spotted 20 yards away?

 
The Million Dollar Sentimental Favorite

When it comes to the Oscars, I have never been a fan of giving the award to the sentimental favorite. It has long been popular to hand out Oscars to veteran actors who have never won, even for a subpar acting performance. This is why Oscars were handed out to winless faves Henry Fonda in 1981, Sean Connery (for The Untouchables?!?) in 1987, and Al Pacino in 1992. I've always thought that you only deserve an Oscar when you actually are the best in a given year. Once you start whining "Goodness, how come he hasn't been given an Oscar yet?" you lose the integrity of the competition. If it's all about reputation and not about the individual performance, then the Oscar becomes as inignificant as an MTV Movie Award statuette.

I was thinking about all of this when I heard about Morgan Freeman's nomination for Million Dollar Baby yesterday. But after evaluating his performance, I decided that I can root for the man in good conscience. For several years, I have believed that Morgan Freeman is the greatest living actor never to have won an Academy Award. But I don't think he's ever been robbed of the Oscar (Tom Hanks was better in '94) and I never advocated handing him an award for The Sum of All Fears or Bruce Almighty. I saw Million Dollar Baby two weeks ago and from start to finish, it was clear that Freeman had knocked this one out of the park. Perfectly cast as a washed up boxer, perfectly delivered performance. The man is in a class by himself when it comes to playing the veteran mentor and nobody is more dignified on screen.

This morning on the Today show, Matt Lauer asked him about this, asking how he and Clint Eastwood utilize "underacting" in their performances. Freeman responded, "Jesus Matt, I don't know what underacting is!" It immediately called to mind Freeman's line from The Shawshank Redemption: "Rehabilitated? Let's see now. You know, come to think of it, I have no idea what that means."

Both lines were perfectly delivered in the same voice, from that of a man who now deserves that Oscar.

 
The Deceptive Superstar

Tonight I had the pleasure of attending the Warriors-Cavaliers game, allowing me to see LeBron James in person for the first time. As the game's box score can attest, I picked the right night to see the King, as he notched his second career triple-double. The funny thing was, even though LeBron's performance was probably the best NBA performance I've ever witnessed live, it didn't look like one. When I think "outstanding individual performance," I usually imagine a gunner like Jordan or Iverson throwing up 50 points, putting the team on his back and taking all of his team's shots down the stretch.

Tonight, LeBron gave a dominating performance that was somehow subtle. In the first quarter, he was just another cog in the Cavs machine, letting his teammates handle the ball in the half court, only taking five or six shots and continually feeding his teammates in the post. Rather than beat you over the head with his talent, LeBron lets it permeate throughout his team. As the game went on, he started affecting the game more and more with deft passes, nifty deflections and overachieving rebounds (the kind where he had no business even getting his hands on a ball so high in the air). These intangibles more than made up for the few sloppy turnovers that he committed in the first half. You can only shake your head when you think about how flawless he'll be after he has a few years in the league to iron out the kinks.

As the game stretched into the fourth quarter, the Warriors made a little run and got within six points. LeBron decided it was time to stop worrying about his teammates for a sec and just put the game away. So all he did was score 10 points in a two minute span. After a garbage time assist gave him 28, 12 and 10 for the night, the Oakland crowd cheered, LeBron raised his arms and I made a mental note to attend every Cavs-at-Warriors game for the next 15 years.

 
Camera-Shy

Right now I'm watching the replay-challenge of Freddie Mitchell's touchdown during the third quarter of the Minnesota-Philly game. Viewing the replays over and over, I once again wonder: why don't the networks permanently set up a camera directly on the goal line? Through the years, we have seen so many challenges and controversies about whether a player got the ball across the plane of the goal line. But in situations like today, we have to deal with a camera that's placed 10 yards behind the action, preventing the viewer from getting the correct depth perception on the play. Tennis and postseason baseball telecasts already have camera's set up for these "is it in or out" disputes and I can't understand why football broadcasters have been so slow on the uptake. Do us a favor and stop putting all your resources into the wacky cable-rigged overhead cams and provide something that's actually useful to the viewer and referee alike.

 
The Fallacy of the On-Paper Classic

As for this afternoon's Colts-Pats tilt, I'm anticipating this game just as much as everyone else, but I shake my head whenever I hear predictions that this game will be "a classic." People assume that because teams are matched up evenly on paper, a close game will be the result. However, history suggests otherwise. Ninety percent of the time, a close game is the product of two mismatched teams on paper. The favorite underacheives, the underdog overacheives and the teams meet in the middle, producing a tight finish (think Jets-Steelers yesterday, the Rams-Pats Super Bowl or the 2002 Ohio St.-Miami championship).

However, when two teams that are both great on paper, usually one style wins out. In the weeks leading up the Orange Bowl, we heard "Game of the Century" proclamations. What happened? The Trojans brought their A-Game for a high caliber opponent and USC's style won out over Oklahoma's style. The same thing happened for great on-paper matchups like the Tampa-Oakland Super Bowl and last year's Colts-Pats match-up.

So what does this mean for today? I predict that it won't be a close game, and one team will win by at least 14 points. I wouldn't be surpised to see the Pats grind their victory behind Corey Dillon or to see Peyton Manning outgun the Pats in a shootout. But if forced to pick one team, I'd go with Indy. As I see it, most analysts are focusing too much on how Manning will perform in the poor conditions against Belichick's schemes. But nobody's talking about Edgerrin James, who just happened to have 1548 yards on the season. While the Patriots defense focuses in on wrapping up Manning and the Colts receivers, I think The Edge will run wild today, carrying the Colts to a convincing victory.

 
Say Cheese

Lately I've becoming more and more interested in the craft of photography. It started started when I flipped through the fascinating coffee-table book "America 24/7." The book features terrific photographs of every-day life, and all the pictures were taken by amateur photographers across the country. I thought, "hey, even a chump like me can learn to take nice photos."

I started putting my trusty 3.2 megapixel machine to work (as my friends and family can attest) and I felt like I was making real progress in my aesthetic skills. I thought "hey, soon I'm gonna be a pro at this." But then I happened across MSNBC's Photos of the Year and I thought "hey, maybe I shouldn't get all full of myself just yet." Some of the pictures here are stunning, and I am now inspired to take a photo class.