TV Production 101

For a sports fan, today was a perfect day to spend in front of the TV, as there were great finishes to be witnessed on both the football field and the baseball diamond. But the two best post-game celebrations of the day were marred by an entity that rarely gets criticized: TV production teams.

Both the Giants-Padres game and the Jaguars-Colts games featured enthusiastic on-field celebrations as soon as they were over. Mind you, these weren't surprising, trick-play endings that might catch a TV crew off-guard. In the Giants game, there was a 3-0 lead heading in to the top of the 9th. In the Jaguars win, they had been driving to set up a game-winning kick. Yet as soon as both games ended, a huge pet-peeve of mine reared its head: the parade of quick-cuts during the celebration. Instead of staying on one shot of victorious players celebrating, the CBS and CSN Bay Area crews showed us the coaches, then the losing players, then fans, then, players on the field, then players off the field...you get the idea. Because of TV Producer ADHD, we missed the full swarm of Giants rushing to the infield and we missed the complete shot of Jags kicker Josh Scobee elatedly running a victory lap. Why is 1.2 seconds too long too stick with a dramatic visual?

Here's a simple rule: in baseball, show the dogpile around the pitcher. In individual sports like golf and tennis, give us a tight shot of the winner's face. In all other sports, stay on a wide shot of all the victorious players roaming onto the field. Often times, the simplest visual is the best visual.

 
The Two Sides of Trading (Pt. 2)

As a follow-up to last night's post, I thought I'd examine the reasons why the NBA is a trade league while the NFL is not. As I see it, there are two main factors: First, the NBA has guaranteed contracts while the NFL doesn't. Because of this, NBA teams are often saddled with undesirable players with undesirable contracts and they're much more eager to get rid of them via trade. NFL teams can simply cut their unwanted players, negating the need for trades.

Secondly, in the NFL, draft picks are plentiful, valuable commodity while NBA draft picks are scarce and often worthless. Because there are seven rounds of an NFL draft, each with a commonly-agreed-upon value, draft picks are used as currency whenever one team wants to trade one of their players. In the NBA, only lottery picks have significant value, meaning that value for one player can truly only be found in another player (or his contract). So which system is better? I'd side with the NBA, not just because trades increase fan interest, but also because GMs, without the luxury of cutting bad contracts, have to pay long-term consequences for their poor personnel moves.

 
The Two Sides of the Trade

Twitter has been blowing up today with speculation about when and whether Carmelo Anthony will be traded from the Denver Nuggets. If, as expected, Anthony heads to the Nets, it will be the culmination of the most buzzed-about offseason that any sport has ever had. The lesson the NBA has learned is that player movement is great for building interest in a league, and that trades in particular (with ramifications for multiple teams, for multiple years) are the ultimate source of fan interest. Nobody does trade rumors like the NBA, as fans and media members alike cannot resist talk of expiring contracts, conditional first-round picks and mid-level exceptions.

The Carmelo story lies in stark contrast to the NFL's biggest personnel story this week, the failure of the San Diego Chargers to trade disgruntled wide receiver Vincent Jackson. For mysterious reasons, the NFL has never embraced trades, particularly when compared with the NBA. Rather than allowing teams to use trades to make a playoff push, the NFL has the ridiculously early trade deadline of October 19. And when trades do take place, they're nearly always for draft picks instead of known commodities. While the NFL certainly isn't desperate for attention, the league would be wise to include more trade-friendly provisions in their upcoming collective bargaining agreement. Roger Goodell could learn a thing or two from David Stern.

 
The U.S. and China: World Cup teammates?

 
Club or Country?


Yesterday I watched the first matches of Europe's Champions League, widely regarded to be the best club soccer competition in the world. My adopted European  team, Arsenal, breezed to a 6-0 win, but it was a quote from Real Madrid's coach that was my most intriguing takeaway from the day's action.


Jose Mourinho, who's led two separate clubs to the title, stated that it was harder to win the Champions League than the World Cup: "You can not compare [Champions League] with a World Cup because the teams are stronger than national sides." Mourinho's argument is that because the best club teams in Europe can amass a level of talent that can't compare to what exists on any one national team, the Champions League has tougher competition. 


But it's easy to argue the other side of the same coin. Because any club can buy any player from anywhere in the world, wealthy teams can (at least for one year), buy a  Champions League title. A World Cup squad, no matter the stature or pedigree, is limited to the pool of players from a given nation. After all, it's easy to forget that only eight nations have won the World Cup in 19 competitions. Meanwhile, the last 19 Champions League competitions have seen 12 different champs, including such non-superpowers as Porto in 2004. Who was the coach of that team? Ah yes, the aforementioned Jose Mourinho. Perhaps someone was trying to tout his own coaching ability with that quote?

 
The Science of Setting NBA Expectations

When I heard today that the Minnesota Timberwolves had released a letter to fans via full-page newspaper ad, I could of course think of only one thing. Say it with me folks... KAHHHHHHHN!!! Wolves GM David Kahn has been the deserved target of much ridicule, criticism and general befuddlement this summer due to his awful personnel moves and Star Trek-inspired internet meme (check out the comments section of this article). But the howls of mockery should not obscure an important point about what Kahn said in his letter. He was actually realistic with his fans.

The main problem with most pro front offices, particularly in the NBA, is that their team goals are almost always unrealistic. Too many teams think they're currently equipped to contend, and hang on to washed-up veterans while making short-sighted deadline trades (see: Cleveland, 2006-2010). Often more dangerous is the "We're Only a Year Away" Syndrome, in which teams overpay for free agents thinking they're only a couple moves away from a title (see: Dallas, 2008). On the opposite side of the coin, there are penny-pinching GMs who hold fire sales, ignoring just how close they are to championship contention (see: Phoenix, 2003-2009).

Unlike the parity-loving NFL, it takes many years of playoff appearances to build an NBA team into a champion-- and that's if you have a strategy in place. The Minnesota fans know the T-Wolves aren't winning the title any time soon. David Kahn knows this too. The refreshing and somewhat shocking thing is that David Kahn simply acknowledged what the fans already knew. To help out the other 29 NBA GMs who aren't quite as honest, I've developed this handy guide (with a nod to this Chad Ford & John Hollinger feature) for setting your team's championship expectations:

Can win this year
Lakers, Heat, Celtics


At least 1 year away from a title:
Magic, Suns

At least 2 years from a title:
Thunder, Bulls, Mavs, Nuggets, Jazz, Blazers

At least 4 years from a title:
Rockets, Hawks, Kings, Bucks, Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Wizards, Warriors

At least 6 years from a title
Spurs, Hornets, Clippers, Nets, 76ers

At least 8 years from a title:
Cavaliers, Raptors, Bobcats, Grizzlies, Timberwolves (KAHHHHHHN!)

Labels: david kahn, heat, kahn, lakers, nba, timberwolves

 
Report Card: 2010 Summer Box Office

Another summer has flown by, meaning that it's time to review my box office predictions from this past May.

After largely whiffing on the top-grossing movies last year, I'm happy to see that I bounced back pretty well in my guesses this time around. It's surprising that despite the relentless hype and endless promotional tie-ins surrounding Iron Man 2, it actually finished nearly $100 million behind the champ, the unanimously-hailed Toy Story 3. That "twenty-something female" uprising I predicted never materialized, as Sex and the City 2 and Eat, Pray, Love both disappointed. And in perhaps the worst prediction I have ever made, I overestimated the box-office gross of MacGruber by a whopping $111 million. I forgot that there's a reason they make so few Saturday Night Live movies nowadays.

As for my under-estimations, I got blindsided by the success of The Karate Kid (really? People wanted to see Jaden Smith that badly?) and The Expendables (should have seen the potential of an underserved genre). But looking at these box office totals, I was most stunned that The Last Airbender made the top ten. Not only were the reviews atrocious, but the conventional wisdom was that it was the latest addition to M. Night Shyamalan's ongoing career trainwreck. Another lesson learned for next year, when I will once again continue my quest to go 15 for 15.

 
Mr. Predicto: Summer Box Office 2010

It's time for my annual attempt at guessing the top domestic grosses for summer movies. I'm betting that The Last Airbender, The Other Guys, Knight and Day and Get Him to the Greek will underperform, or flop alltogether. As far as hits go, I predict that the "twenty-something female" will become the new "teenage fanboy" as Twilight, Sex and the City and Eat, Pray, Love will all hit big. Finally, the financial and critical performance of Inception will cement Christopher Nolan as the top director in Hollywood. I'm a tad late with the list, since Iron Man 2 already opened. But here's my best shot at what the box office totals will look like on Labor Day:

1. Iron Man 2: $380 million
2. Toy Story 3: $350 million
3. Twilight 3: $305 million
4. Inception: $250 million
5. Sex and the City 2: $220 million
6. Shrek 4: $205 million
7. Robin Hood: $180 million
8. Eat, Pray, Love: $170 million
9. Prince of Persia: $150 million
10. Salt: $130 million
11. MacGruber: $120 million
12. Knight and Day: $115 million
13. The A-Team: $110 million
14. Despicable Me: $105 million
15. Grown-Ups: $95 million