Reflections on a Title Run



I recently finished watching the official San Francisco Giants World Series DVD that I bought myself for Christmas. I'd never bought one of these videos before, primarily since my Bay Area teams haven't exactly hauled in the championship hardware in recent years. I assumed that the film would be cheesy, with sweeping music and excessive slo-mo scenes. However I was surprised at how instantly it took me back to the Giants fan experience from last October. The memories (both joyous and torturous) came flooding back:

* Brian Wilson closing out game 162, the only time the Giants had a clinching game at Pac Bell Park
* The jubilant players taking a victory lap after said game, slapping high-fives with fans
* Jumping online during the postgame show to purchase my NLDS Game 1 ticket on StubHub
* Attending Game 1 against the Braves, in which Lincecum pitched his 14-strikeout gem
* Leaving that game, assuming I would never again see a baseball performance that great, with a crowd that amped
* Watching Brooks Conrad hand us Game 4 of the NLDS with his cringeworthy comedy of errors
* Being the only Giants fan at the bar in the House of Blues in New Orleans, anxiously watching the final outs of Game 1 (long story)
* Listening to Matt Cain's NLCS Game 3 gem in my cubicle, thanks to a rarely-seen century-old technology called portable radio
* Watching Jonathan Sanchez's NLCS Game 6 meltdown-- and the subsequent Giants recovery to clinch the pennant
* My certainty that winning the pennant was gravy and the Giants' lineup would have no chance of out-slugging through a stacked Texas team that would start Cliff Lee twice
* My uncertainty over whether superstition dictated that I ought to remove my Giants Bengie Molina bobblehead doll from my shelf at work
* Watching the raucous crowd lift inspire outbursts of offense in World Series Games 1 and 2
* Witnessing Madison Bumgarner vault from obscurity into baseball supremacy in eight innings
* The unbridled joy of torture's end on November 1, 2010
* And finally, the greatest celebration I've ever had the pleasure of attending, the San Francisco Giants World Series victory parade

A $17.99 DVD can't fully capture a month-long life experience, but it sure can jog a few memories.

 
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

 
Report Card: '09 Summer Box Office Results

Well, the summer quickly came and went, which means that it's time to revisit my annual predictions for this summer's box office results.

I'm a little disappointed in my prognostications, as I wasn't very accurate on my top 5 and I outright whiffed at the bottom of the list. I overestimated the appeal of franchises Harry Potter, Wolverine and Terminator (all of whom were at least the fourth movie in a series), as I suppose the long-running brands aren't what they used to be. And while I thought that The Hangover would be a surprise hit, I had no idea it would be such a huge smash. In retrospect, I should have known that there would be at least one comedy in the top 8.

My biggest mistakes were forgetting about Angels & Demons (a glaring omission), thinking Eddie Murphy is still a big draw with kids (Imagine That? Honestly?) and overrating the popularity of Sascha Baron Cohen. I was part of the droves that ignored from Bruno, but I felt kind of sorry for him when the movie bombed. It's safe to say that nobody this summer worked harder at promoting a movie than Cohen, with his outlandish, theatrical premiere appearances and the press interviews performed entirely in character. But these days, savvy movie-goers are less likely to be fooled into heading out to a movie that they won't enjoy.

As for the feathers in my cap, I was spot on with my predictions of Ice Age 3, Night at the Museum and Public Enemies. Not sure what lessons are to be learned, but I'll pat myself on the back nonetheless.

 
The Playoff Under our Noses

With another glorious college football season about to start once again, writers, pundits and prognosticators are already throwing out picks for how the BCS games will shape up. And with every discussion of the BCS, there are the inevitable discussions of potential controversies ("What if Penn State is undefeated and there are one-loss Big 12 and SEC teams?!?"). And with every mention of controversy, there are inevitable debates on whether we should scrap the BCS and go to a playoff. This of course is the Holy Grail of 90% of college football fans, while the other 10% view it as an assault on the hallowed sanctity of the bowl system. After all, how could we go on without our precious Rose Parade each New Year's Day?

But what's surprised me over the past three years is that I never hear anyone mention one semi-obvious fact: we already have a playoff, separate from the bowls. Since 2006 when the BCS added the plus-one, we've had a two-team playoff called the BCS title game. Last year, Florida and Oklahoma played in this playoff to decide the national title, while eight other teams played in the existing four BCS bowls. So what would be the harm in adding two more teams to the BCS system (which has already moved from 8 to 10 teams), leaving eight teams to play in the bowls, but adding two more to the playoff? The BCS title game would then be preceded by two semifinal games featuring the four highest-ranked teams. Under my plan, this season's BCS schedule would then look like this:

• Dec. 30: BCS Semifinal #1 (Atlanta) & #2 (Dallas)
• Dec. 31: Sugar Bowl (New Orleans) & Orange Bowl (Miami)
• Jan. 1: Rose Bowl (Pasadena) & Fiesta Bowl (Glendale)
• Jan. 6: BCS Title game (Pasadena)

The BCS title game sites could continue to rotate among the four current cities, but the semifinal game sites open up a whole new opportunity. These games could rotate among warm-weather cities around the country, much like the Super Bowl. San Diego, Houston, San Antonio, Tampa are all potential options, as college football fans are more than willing to travel for their teams. Waves of new revenue, an inclusive four-team playoff, the preservation of the major bowls, and a tightening up of the bloated bowl schedule: what's not to love?

 
Darkness is Spreading

I was happy to see ESPN's Tim Keown shed light on the most dastardly, yet low-profile rule in sports: The NFL blackout policy. This has been on my mind for several weeks and I have a strong feeling that the issue will blow up into a major story this fall.

The league's policy is that if a game is not sold out within 72 hours of kickoff, the game is blacked out on all TV sets within 75 miles of the stadium. As harsh as that sounds, the blackout rule was even worse in the past: prior to 1973, all NFL games were blacked out in the home market, regardless of whether the game sold out. Yes, even the Super Bowl used to be blacked out in the host city.

While the rule was originally implemented to help owners maximize ticket sales and gameday revenue, the NFL blackout is hopelessly outdated. The idea that fans in Oakland with Sunday Ticket on their HDTVs are going to leap off their couches and head to the stadium to watch JaMarcus Russell live is simplistic at best and insulting at worst. The blackouts are more likely to exacerbate the attendance problem, since embittered local fans at home are deprived of the product and can't develop as strong a bond with the team. When the fans can't see the atmosphere of their home team's crowd, they literally don't know what they're missing by staying home.

The problem is only going to get worse this year, with ticket sales sufffering due to the slow economy. This is going to sneak up as a major issue once the season starts, as more and more NFL markets will face blackouts throughout the season. In Keown's article, an NFL spokesman maintains that the policy ain't broke, so the league won't fix it, economy be damned. This is a perfect example of institutional inertia at its worst: If Roger Goodell (or anyone for that matter) were starting a sports league today, is there any chance that they would create a blackout policy? Goodell needs to recognize that this recession is the perfect opportunity to rid the league of the most archaic, punitive, short-sighted policy in all of sports.

 
Mr. Predicto: Summer 2009 Box Office

 

Yes We Did