You are browsing the archive for 2009 May.

← Previous Entries
Next Entries →

2009 NBA Playoff Predictions: Conference Finals

May 19, 2009 in Basketball, NBA

Can’t believe there are only 4 teams left still battling it out for the 2009 NBA Championship – Cleveland Cavaliers, Orlando Magic, LA Lakers and Denver Nuggets.  The majority of people probably picked these 4 teams to be here when the playoffs first started, but the dynamics and expectations have changed somewhat.

So, what do I expect to happen?

EAST

(1) Cleveland Cavaliers (66-16) vs (3) Orlando Magic (59-23)

Can Dwight Howard and the Magic give Lebron and the Cavs more than a tickle this series?

Can Dwight Howard and the Magic give Lebron and the Cavs more than a tickle this series?

Cleveland has been cruising these playoffs, sweeping Detroit and then Atlanta.  Both opponents had issues but neither were strolls in the park, and yet Cleveland crushed them with ease, not one game coming within single digits.  With newly crowned MVP Lebron James leading the way and playing better than ever and the supporting cast stepping up, right now the Cavs are the clear favourites to make the finals, if not win it.

On the other hand, Orlando has been up and down, first going through an uneven 6-game series against Philadelphia and then coming back from 3-2 down to overcome the defending champs Boston in 7.  Many say they should have disposed of the ailing Celtics (missing both Kevin Garnett and Leon Powe) much earlier, but I think they deserve a lot of credit for pulling through (because I picked against them!) in a game 7, in Boston, against the resilient defending champions.

Further, Orlando matches up well with Cleveland as well as any other team in the East.  The Cavs can probably contain Dwight Howard to some degree with their bigs, but I think the Cavs’ perimeter defense will be tested by the shooters camping out by the 3-point line.  Turkoglu and Lewis both pose matchup problems for the Cavs.  The big game 7 win against the Celtics will give them more confidence that they can upset the favourites.

Nevertheless, the Cavs have the biggest mismatch in the league in Lebron, so it’s hard to bet against them.  If Orlando wants to stand a chance they have to steal at least one of the first 2 games in Cleveland, where the Cavs have only lost twice all season.  As much as I want to see the Cavs tested in these playoffs, I just can’t see that happening.  Despite Orlando winning the season series 2-1, I still say Cleveland in 5.

WEST

(1) Los Angeles Lakers (65-17) vs (2) Denver Nuggets (54-28)

LA vs Denver is shaping up to be an intiguing series

LA vs Denver is shaping up to be an intiguing series

The Lakers were supposed to be the Cavs of the West, annihilating all opposition on their way to a finals the majority believe they will win.  Many people thought after last year’s collapse against the Celtics the Lakers would have learned their lesson and developed the toughness and killer instinct lacking before, but it doesn’t appear as though they’ve quite gotten there yet.  Instead, after disposing of Utah in 5, the Lakers were taken to 7 games by a hobbling Houston Rockets squad that didn’t have Yao Ming for half the series (and Tracy McGrady for the entire series).  I had predicted that the Rockets would give the Lakers a tougher test than most anticipated, but even I didn’t expect them to be that tough, especially after losing their big man.  So now, instead of everyone thinking the Lakers are the sure thing to win the championship this year, people are starting to wonder again whether they have what it takes.  And despite known as a clutch performer almost all his career, Kobe’s 14-point performance in the game 7 against the Rockets also raises questions about his ability to deliver when it matters most.

Conversely, the Nuggets have been a revelation for me.  I honestly didn’t think they were that good, and for most of the regular season they flew under my radar.  Denver was one of 3 teams that finished with a 54-28 record, but they have now established themselves as the clear No.2 team in the West.  They brushed aside both New Orleans and Dallas in 5 games (while I thought both would go to 7), never appearing to be in danger of losing either series.  Carmelo ‘Carmelengo’ Anthony (sorry, couldn’t help it) has been in sublime form, and Chauncey Billups is playing even better than his championship days in Detroit.  Guys like JR Smith, K-Mart and Nene are also contributing in significant ways.  Confidence-wise, you could even say they may have an edge on the Lakers right now.

Consequently, a series that pundits initially thought would be just another formality in the Lakers’ ascension to the NBA throne has become a toss up.  I don’t care much for either squad but I would prefer to see the Nuggets win, simply because the Lakers have, at times, acted like it’s their God-given right to win the championship this season.  However, the things I can’t ignore are the facts that: (1) LA has home-court advantage; (2) they won the season series 3-1; (3) they won 9 more games than the Nuggets during the regular season; and (4) the media went overboard with the Lakers’ premature demise just because the Rockets took them to 7.  Perhaps the Rockets series was the final wake-up call this team needed.  Lakers in 7.

Bring on Lebron vs Kobe!

Recapping my 2nd Round predictions

I sucked.  I got the winner correct 3 out of 4 series (the exception being my prediction of the Celtics over the Magic), but I got the number of games all messed up.  I said Cavs in 5 (they won in 4), Lakers in 6 (they won in 7) and Nuggets in 7 (they won in 5).  I was right that the Celtics and Magic would go 7, but I got the winner wrong!

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Bandwagon Reviewers and Reveal-All Previews

May 18, 2009 in Entertainment, Movie Reviews, On Writing

I’ve got no new material and I’m getting tired of studying all day, so I’ve decided to have a rant about a couple of things.

Bandwagon Reviewers

There’s nothing that irritates me more right now than bandwagon reviewers – people who jump to unequivocally praise or attack a film without having experienced it themselves, for no reason other than the fact that everyone else is.

I like this poster better

I like this poster better

After putting up my reviews of Angels & Demons, I decided to have a look around at some other reviews on the ‘Internets’ to see what others thought of the film.  The reviews were mixed, but the general consensus was that the film was an upgrade on and had more action than its ‘dull’ predecessor, The Da Vinci Code, though the silliness of the plot and its conspiracies were heavily criticised.  As someone who enjoyed the movie, I thought the comments were fair.  The film was far from perfect, but it was, after all, based on a novel, and it already did its best to minimise the most preposterous elements of the plot.

One thing led to another and I found myself on some forum discussing the film, and I was appalled by the number of people blasting the film, and the novel on which it was based, to bits.  The problem was, almost none of these people had actually SEEN the movie or READ the book.  They had based their views entirely on an unflattering review of the film (1.5/4 stars) found on the forum’s website (and the reviewer had not read the book either).  All of a sudden, Angels & Demons had become the worst movie and the worst book of all-time.  They fed off each other, seemingly getting more and more excited at deriding a film they have never seen and never will.  Look, if they had seen the film or read the book and thought it sucked the big one or had issues with its themes because of religious sensitivities or even had genuine reservations about the film for whatever reason then fair enough.  But what do they think they are gaining from this self-validating, bandwagon behaviour?  The irony is that in trying to make themselves seem ‘above’ movies like Angels & Demons through their baseless barrages, all they are really doing is exposing their own insecurities.

One poster even criticised the film’s screenwriters, Akiva Goldsmith and David Koepp, saying that those two alone were enough to for him to ‘keep away’.  Goldsmith has worked on films such as I Robot, The Da Vinci Code, A Time to Kill, I Am Legend and won an Oscar for A Beautiful Mind, whereas Koepp has to his name films like Jurassic Park, Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World, Snake Eyes, Stir of Echoes, Mission: Impossible, War of the Worlds, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Panic Room and Spider-Man.  Just about every screenwriter has a few stinkers in their resume, but one must have exceptionally high (or phoney) standards to make a conscious effort to avoid movies written by those two.

Anyway, it got me thinking – just to what extent do film reviews alter our perception of a film, even on a subconscious level? I refuse outright to read any full review of movies I intend on seeing at the cinema beforehand (though I do try to gauge things on a more general level), but the fact is, many people make their decisions on what movies to see and avoid based purely on reviews they have seen or read.  And consequently, oftentimes those people may go into the film with a pre-conceived opinion of it, which rarely changes even after they’ve actually seen the movie because they’ve already made up their mind about it.  Or perhaps people generally have a tendency to conform to popular opinion – if everyone thought a movie sucked but you secretly liked it, would it in some way impact your outward expressions about the film?

I wonder how far this extends – do reviewers themselves get influenced by what other reviewers may have said?  I think it’s a possibility.  If all the top reviewers are declaring a film a masterpiece, would a lesser known reviewer be willing to risk his credibility by panning it (or vice versa)?  Given reviews and (consequently) word-of-mouth can essentially make or break a film at the box office, I think this raises some very interesting questions.  Sometimes all it takes is a few bad reviews from critics at advanced screenings for things to snowball and doom a film to failure (or worse, straight to DVD!).

Two things that ruin a movie

(1) Previews that reveal too much or show the best scenes

To me, the movie preview/trailer is a double-edged sword.  It’s intended to attract people to watch the film, and so they are tempted to show you the best scenes by cramming them all into a couple of minutes.  But in doing so, they tend to reveal too much, to the point where they almost need to put a SPOILER warning on the preview.  Especially if they show scenes from the end of the film where there is a twist.  When audiences actually go see the movie, they know it’s not over because they haven’t seen that particular scene yet.

Another problem is peculiar to previews for comedies, where they feel they must show all the best jokes.  I don’t know how many times I went to see a comedy because of the couple of good jokes in the preview, and they turn out to be the ONLY worthy jokes of the entire film!

My best movie experiences have been the ones where I knew virtually nothing about the film, going in not knowing more than just a basic premise.  If the movie turns out to be good, it exceeds all expectations, but if it’s crap, no advance knowledge would have rectified that.

Movies are best enjoyed when you know very little going in

Movies are best enjoyed when you know very little going in

I still remember when I was back in high school and planned to see Armageddon with a friend after school one day, but he was late and we missed it.  Instead we went to see the only other movie on at that time, a film neither of us had even heard of, called There’s Something About Mary.  To this day, that film still ranks as my best movie experience of all time.  We both came out feeling like we had torn all our abdominal muscles.  I’m sure I would have loved the movie even if I had heard about it beforehand, but going into it completely clueless made it very special.

I understand the need to sell the movie, and for infrequent movie-goers, knowing what a film is about and getting a sense of whether it is any good is crucial in deciding what movies to watch.  But for people who watch a lot of movies (like me), it can definitely ruin a movie by revealing too much or creating unrealistic expectations.

These days, if a preview of a movie I want to watch comes up in the cinema, I close my eyes and turn away.  If I have no intention of watching the film, I’ll check out the preview to see if it can change my mind.  Recently I’ve taken a liking to ‘Teaser’ trailers – they let you know the movie is coming and give you a taste, but no more.

PS: I couldn’t help but sneak a preview of Night At the Museum 2 during my last trip to the movies.  Was it just me or was the preview really unfunny?  For its sake I hope they kept the best jokes out of the preview!

(2) Movie reviews that reveal too much plot

Another reason why I don’t read full reviews before seeing a movie anymore is because they reveal way too much.

Nowadays, most movie reviews, professional or otherwise, provide SPOILER warnings in advance – but these are largely limited to ‘twists’ – and even so, simply knowing that there is a twist in the movie will often end up spoiling it.  I remember when my sister came home from watching The Sixth Sense and began raving about the ‘twist’ ending.  She wasn’t the only one because everyone was talking about it.  Consequently, despite not knowing what the actual twist was, I ended up figuring it out minutes into the film when I got around to seeing it for myself.  It was still a good film, but I wonder how mindblowing it would have been had I not been been warned about the twist in advance.  The same thing happened when I watched The Usual Suspects, though to its credit, that twist still got me!

It’s not just the twists either.  So many reviews I read these days spend half the word count (or more!) outlining the plot.  I don’t have a problem with revealing the general premise of a film because most people want to have an idea of what the film is about, but what’s the point of summarising what is going to happen in the first half of the film?  I want to know if the movie is worth seeing, not read a synopsis of the plot!

Take an example of a review of Angels & Demons I found at a respected newspaper’s website (skip this paragraph NOW if you don’t want SPOILERS!).  In this relatively short, 15-paragraph review, it tells us that: (1) Langdon wants to but is denied access to the Vatican archives, so he can’t finish his book; (2) they are about to elect a new Pope and the 4 leading candidates have been kidnapped; (3) the villain has a canister of antimatter and will blow up the Vatican if he is not stopped before midnight; (4) it seems the secret ancient sect of the Illuminati is behind it all; (5) Skarsgard’s Swiiss Guard character is against Langdon and Mueller-Stahl’s character is an ‘arrogant’ cardinal; (6) there are a number of ingeniously sadistic murders ; (7) the film has a fanciful climax; (8) the Sistine Chapel, St Peter’s Square and Piazza Navona are among the places Langdon will visit.

Taken together, that’s pretty much half the film right there.  If I hadn’t read the book and accidentally stumbled upon this review before seeing the movie it would have KILLED half the excitement and enjoyment.  At least the first half-hour of the film would have been sat through in boredom because the review already tells us what’s going to happen!

Okay, rant completed!  Now back to studying.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
4 Comments »

Movie Review: Angels & Demons (2009)

May 16, 2009 in Movie Reviews

Angels and Demons

Yesterday I saw Angels & Demons, you know, the highly anticipated follow-up to the controversial (and hugely successful) The Da Vinci Code, also adapted from the novel of the same name written by Dan Brown.

After the somewhat modest reactions to the The Da Vinci Code (which I actually think deserved more credit), my expectations were held in check this time.  Another good thing is that it had been so long since I read the book that I had kind of forgotten what it was all about.  Consequently, I was pleasantly surprised.  It was fun, exciting, and the pieces came together at the right moments.

In short, it was a vast improvement on the first film and I totally enjoyed it!

Background

Angels & Demons the book is a prequel to The Da Vinci Code, but the movie is filmed as a sequel (and there are several references to the events of the first film in the opening scenes).  As per my review etiquette, I won’t divulge plot details, but given the success of the novel, it’s safe to assume most people at least have an idea of what it is about.   All I will say is that, like its predecessor, Angels & Demons is heavily influenced by religious themes and involves a desperate race against time that leads to a lot of running around.  Whereas The Da Vinci Code was set predominantly in Paris, Angels & Demons leads you through a breath-taking adventure through the various attractions and sights of Rome and Vatican City.

Action, action and more action

Dan Brown’s novels are known to unveil at neck-breaking pace.  However, unlike the book, many felt that The Da Vinci Code movie was, frankly, a bit of a bore.  Angels & Demons doesn’t suffer from the same problem because it’s made as more of a popcorn movie with full-throttle action right from the beginning, rarely pausing to catch its breath.

The difference is in the adaptation.  The Da Vinci Code movie was bogged down by the need to fully explain its complex conspiracy theories, and despite doing so very well (and innovatively), it led to dull patches that killed the momentum.  Director Ron Howard certainly learned his lesson, because even though the plot and theories of Angels & Demons also require a fair amount of explanation, this time they did it right – by giving you the essentials upfront and then feeding you bits of information at a time so that the pace never sags for very long and things are kept moving.

Though I couldn’t recall much from the book, Ron Howard definitely changed or deliberately left out certain parts of the storyline in the film – and I think it was for the better.  To be honest, the conspiracy theories in Angels & Demons sounded pretty silly when transformed from the page to the big screen (and coming from me that says a lot because I tend to believe in a lot of that stuff), so I felt it was a smart choice to leave the emphasis off all of that and focus on keeping the foot on the gas pedal.  There’s probably another reason why they decided to do it, but I won’t say because it may lead to a potential spoiler.  Nevertheless, the end product was much closer in style and pace to the novel than The Da Vinci Code was, and therein lies the biggest contrast between the two films.

Cast

The mullet is gone

The mullet is gone

Terrific all-star cast.

Of course, Tom Hanks returned as professor Robert Langdon, sans the infamous mullet from last time (I still think the new hairdo is a FAIL, just not an EPIC FAIL – perhaps he needs sideburns or something).  Hanks clearly got into good shape to portray the character, as evident from his very first scene, but there was still some awkwardness to him.  Maybe he just wasn’t the right choice for Langdon, but it’s too late now because like it or not the character will forever be associated with the actor.

The big upgrade was Ayelet Zurer (Israeli actress best known from Munich – the film not the city), who portrays the scientist/sidekick to Hank’s Langdon.  As much as I like Audrey Tautou (from The Da Vinci Code), Zurer’s chemistry with Hanks was so much better, and she more than holds her own in the film.

I was glad to see Ewan McGregor (as the ‘Camerlengo’) again on the big screen after bumping into him in person while vacationing in Berlin.  By the way, he was brilliant in the role.

There were other solid supporting roles too, such as Stellan Skarsgard as Commander Richter of the Swiss Guard and the always trusty Armin Mueller-Stahl as Cardinal Strauss.  Note both names were changed from the novel.

Special Effects

Ron Howard and his special effects team really worked miracles in Angels & Demons, because despite the film being set almost entirely in Rome and Vatican City, the Vatican made it virtually impossible for them to shoot there.  And yet you would have never noticed if no one had told you.

I don’t know how they did it, but it must have involved building full-scale replicas, smaller scale replicas and lots of digital effects.  Really just shows you can pretty much do whatever you want in movies these days (as long as you have the budget).

There were also some other sensational special effects sequences that were done with amazing realism, though I can’t discuss them without spoiling the plot.  You’ll just have to watch it!

Religious Themes

I found it interesting that the Vatican basically condemned this film before it even began shooting.  It probably had a lot to do with the anti-church reputation The Da Vinci Code had developed, but I actually thought that Angels & Demons had a pro-church and pro-faith undercurrent.  Sure, there were some thinly-veiled criticisms of the Catholic Church, but on the whole the film did a decent job of reconciling science and religion, and reminding everyone that religion is, ultimately, a man-made thing that is not perfect.  Perhaps Catholics might even find the film uplifting.  Regardless, I’m sure the boycotts are already in motion.

Dan Brown

Angels & Demons, apart from being a fun action flick, really reminded me of what Dan Brown is capable of. You see all the copycat authors that are out there today and it tends to dilute what Brown accomplished with his two most popular novels.  Seeing the film made me remember how great the storyline was and how brilliant Brown was in being able to link everything together so intricately, making all the pieces fit so perfectly.  A mind-boggling amount of research and thought must have gone into it.  It’s a great example for aspiring writers who want to pen the next international bestseller.  Brown may not be a great (or even good) writer but he’s put a lot of effort into creating these engaging stories.

This has definitely reinvigorated my enthusiasm for Brown’s upcoming new novel, The Lost Symbol, which is coming out this September (s0me preliminary thoughts here).

Final Thoughts

In all, Angels & Demons is a great action film (with a little extra) that doesn’t pretend to be something it’s not.  It’s a movie that caters for a wide audience.

Those that have been to Rome or the Vatican will get a kick out of seeing all those places being used in the film (I had a few ‘remember that place?’ moments myself).  It’s also good for people who haven’t, because it will probably make them want to go now!

I’m sure those who have already read the book will enjoy the film because it is genuinely exciting and captures the thrill ride entailed in the novel.  However, I think those that will like the film most are those who haven’t read the book (and there’s probably not many out there), because they will be even more impressed by the scale of the story and the way the symbols, conspiracies, science, religion, action and storyline is all woven together.

Just go in with an open mind, don’t expect everything to make sense, take the conspiracy theories with a large chunk of salt – and you might be surprised how enjoyable the film can be.

4 out of 5 stars!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments »

Danny Granger named Most Improved Player!

May 13, 2009 in Basketball, Indiana Pacers, NBA

The only bright spot of the Indiana Pacers’ season (unless you believe the spin doctors as Pacers.com) has continued to shine brightly.  Danny Granger, who was a first-time All-Star this year, has been named the NBA’s Most Improved Player (MIP) for the 2008-2009 season.

The MIP was the last award to be handed out, and it was also the closest, with Granger edging out early favourite Devin Harris (of New Jersey) by a point total of 364-339.  Oklahoma City’s Kevin Durant was a distant third with 83 points.

Granger joins Jalen Rose (1999-2000) and Jermaine O’Neal (2001-2002) as the third Pacer to win this award.

Before discussing anything further, let’s check out some of Granger’s highlights of the season.

Did he deserve it?

In my earlier post on NBA Award Winners for 2008-2009, I said I hoped for a Granger win but I thought Harris would get it (based on his strong performance early on in the season) and Durant deserved it most!  But clearly, the voters thought otherwise, and much of it probably had to do with (1) Granger’s improvement on offense; (2) Granger’s clutch performances; and (3) Granger becoming the clear face and future of the Pacers’ franchise.

(1) Granger’s improvement on offense

Statistically, the only significant jump in Granger’s game has been his points per game.  In 67 games this season, he averaged 25.8 points per game, good for 5th in the league.  In doing so, he became the first player in NBA history to up his scoring average by at least 5 points for 3 consecutive seasons (7.5 as a rookie, 13.9 in his sophomore year and 19.6 last season).  He also became one of the best 3-point shooters in the league (despite bombing out in the first round of the 3P Contest), hitting over 40% while putting up almost 7 shots behind the arc per contest.  And how is this for a fact?  Granger has hit more 3 pointers in his first 4 seasons than Reggie Miller did (493 to 419)!

While his shooting percentages remained virtually identical (with a slight improvement in FT%), Granger put up an average of 4 more shots per game this season compared to last (from 15.1 to 19.1, including 5.3 to 6.7 in 3-point attempts).  He also increased his free-throw attempts from 4.7 to 6.9 per game.  Bear in mind, Granger played only 0.2 minutes more per game this season than the previous season (36.0 to 36.2).

As impressive as that is, Granger didn’t really improve by much in many other aspects of his game, at least on paper.  He improved in blocks from 1.1 to 1.4 and assists from 2.1 to 2.7, but his stats actually got worse in steals (1.2 to 1.0), turnovers (increased from 2.1 to 2.5, though that comes with the territory of being the primary offensive option) and most noticeably, in rebounds, which saw a drop from 6.1 to 5.1 per game.

However, the general consensus from players and coaches around the league is that Granger has really upped his game this season.  Rather than being just another good offensive player (of which there are many in the NBA), he’s taken it to another level with his shot-making ability and versatility.  He can shoot 3-pointers at over 40%, is extremely efficient from mid-range, can drive the ball and get to the line, where he is as steady as they come.  He doesn’t overwhelm you with speed or power or thundering dunks, but he gets the job done in a variety of ways.  As Granger said himself, “I think in my fourth year, I just had the experience of playing a lot of minutes.  I could read defenses a lot better. I could get my shot a lot easier than what I had in the past. I think I just thought my way through the game a little more than I had previously.”

Another factor that must have crept into voters’ minds is that Granger finished off the season strong, whereas Harris and Durant dropped off from their frenetic pace earlier on in the season.  As I noted in another post, Granger averaged 31.1 points per game in his final 11 games of the year, leading the Pacers to a 7-4 record.  The Pacers were also much closer to the playoffs than the Nets or the Thunder.

(2) Granger’s clutch performances

Granger was clutch this season

Granger was clutch this season

The Pacers had been longing for another guy they can count on in the clutch ever since Reggie Miller retired (Jermaine O’Neal just wasn’t getting it done!).  Well, judging from Granger’s late-game heroics this season, it appears the wait is finally over.  He hit a couple of game-winners: to beat Houston (a tip in) and Phoenix (a 3 at the buzzer).  He also hit several big shots down the stretch (including a big game-tying 3 against the Hornets, before Chris Paul drained one of his own at the buzzer) and ranked among league leaders in points in 4th quarters (4th behind Lebron, Kobe and D-Wade).  He actually led the NBA in a statistic calculated by STAT Inc called ‘field goals made with the game on the line’.  According to this stat, Granger made 7 baskets (in 10 attempts) in the final 24 seconds of the final quarter of a game in which the margin was three points or less.  Obviously this needs to be taken with a grain of salt considering the Pacers played more close games than any other team in the league.

Becoming a big-time player is another important step in Granger’s development and will enable him to distinguish himself from the other ‘good’ players in the league.  Lots of players in the NBA can put up points, but few have a reputation for being able to do so consistently in crunch time.

That being said, guys like TJ Ford, Jarrett Jack and Troy Murphy also hit a few game-winners for the Pacers this season, but when the game is on the line, Granger should be their first option.

By the way, I’m certain that Harris and Durant hit some big shots this season, but I can’t be bothered looking them up.

(3) Granger becoming the clear face and future of the franchise

I’m not sure if you can really call this an ‘improvement’, but Granger has stepped into the role of franchise leader admirably this season.  Of course, he became so by default, with Jermaine O’Neal finally being put out of his misery (by getting traded) and with Mike Dunleavy Jr battling serious injury all year.  Arguably, however, he would have become the face of the franchise this season even if those two guys were still playing and in Indiana.  Some may say he already became the face of the franchise last season.

Nevertheless, he has done well in the role, setting the example with his work ethic and lifestyle off the court, which has been particularly important for the Pacers given the indiscretions in recent years that have alienated their fans.  He’s become one of the best offensive players in the league, earned a reputation for hitting big shots and is now recognised as THE guy that opposing teams are most concerned about when they play the Pacers.

Team president Larry Bird sums it up as follows: “He is the face of our franchise, and he handles himself well on the court and off.  I think going forward, he will continue to do the things he’s doing, and continue to improve. That’s all you can ask for.”

Earlier on in the season, people were saying that Devin Harris had become the face of the New Jersey Nets, but I’m not sure Vince Carter has handed the mantle over yet.  On the other hand, Durant is undoubtedly the face of the Thunder franchise, but he came into this league with that reputation as the second overall pick, and there really isn’t anyone else on the cellar-dwelling Thunder squad that can come close to competing.  By contrast, Granger was drafted 17th in the first round and has gradually evolved into the franchise-player role over the past couple of years.  There aren’t many players in the NBA these days that come into the league with as little hype as Granger had that end up attaining a reputation bordering on superstar level (well, at least ‘above-average star’ level) in just four years.

So, if you are simply looking at statistics, there are probably players who appear more deserving than Granger to win the MIP award.  But if you factor in these other considerations, which I’m sure the voters did, perhaps Granger is the most deserving after all.

What’s next for Granger?

Get that wafer out of here, Von!

Get that wafer out of here, Von!

For Granger to evolve from Most Improved to true superstar, he needs to become more than just a scorer.  He does have the occasional highlight block, but for the most part his defensive brilliance has been sporadic this season.  Both Coach Jim O’Brien and Larry Bird have both remarked that Granger needs to improve on defense because he has the potential to be a great defensive player with his athleticism and long arms, but often loses focus because he is so dedicated to the offensive end.

Next season, Granger intends to establish himself as a genuine defensive stopper, kind of like what MVP Lebron James did this season.  It’s a bit of a stretch to expect Danny to land on the All-NBA First Defensive Team as Lebron did this season, but he needs to make some visible strides.  Granger has made this his focus next season:  “I don’t just want to be a better defender, I want to be an elite defender,” he said. “I really modeled my defensive game after Ron Artest when he was here. He was a phenomenal defensive player when he was here. I probably got away from that the past two years. Next year, that will be my big focus…We scored a lot of points but we also gave up a lot of points and I think as a leader it starts with me. I have to be better on the defensive end.”

As long as he ONLY models his defensive game after Ron Ron that would be fine, but let’s just hope he doesn’t pick up anything more than that!

Additionally, Granger needs to improve those playing around him.  Part of that will involve Granger becoming a better distributor of the ball.  2.7 assists per game is not too shabby for a small forward, but to put himself in the same sphere as a D-Wade or Kobe or a healthy Tracy McGrady (note I left out Lebron because he’s in a sphere of his own), he’ll need to improve on that drastically.  He should get his opportunities as I’m sure he’ll face some double teams next season.

Lastly, there was some mention of Granger being on the 2012 US Olympic team.  That’s an interesting idea because Granger is an excellent shooter and is fundamentally sound enough to play the international game.  He will also learn a lot from his teammates on being a better leader.  As long as it doesn’t tire him out for the regular season then I’m all for it.

NBA Awards Round Up

So, all the NBA Awards for this season are out.  Just to recap:

MVP: Lebron James (Cleveland Cavaliers)

Defensive Player: Dwight Howard (Orlando Magic)

Rookie: Derrick Rose (Chicago Bulls)

Most Improved: Danny Granger (Indiana Pacers)

Sixth Man: Jason Terry (Dallas Mavericks)

Coach: Mike Brown (Cleveland)

Amazingly, I managed to predict all the winners (not that they were difficult this year) with the exception of Granger!  As a Pacers fan, I ought to be ashamed.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

Electronic Books on the Rise?

May 11, 2009 in Technology

There was a time when I thought I'd never be able to use one of these

There was a time when I thought I'd never be able to use one of these

Like many other people, I haven’t been a big fan of the electronic book (e-book).  You know, those little hand-held devices where you read the book on the screen.

One of the major players on the market is of course Amazon, and they’ve developed the ‘Kindle’, which is a hardware and software platform for reading e-books.  I must confess, until a couple of days ago I had never even heard of Kindle (perhaps I was just out of touch), and for the most part I believed e-books wouldn’t be too successful, or at least would take many years before being accepted as a genuine alternative for the old-fashioned paper book.

And so I was shocked when a friend sent me this article which says that when Kindle versions of books are available on Amazon, Kindle sales make up 35% of sales.  In other words, roughly 1 in 3 would buy the Kindle (ie e-book) version of a book rather than the hard copy version where Kindle is available.  Apparently, this is a huge jump because back in February (when ‘Kindle 2′ first went on sale) it was only around 13% of sales.

That’s a big surprise to me.  Maybe people are getting used to reading things on the screen.  Personally, I had been pretty prejudicial towards e-books, even though they look kinda cool (as they are made to look like books).

My main problem with e-books is the strain on the eyes.  Regardless of whether I’m working or studying, I have to sit in front of a computer for long hours almost every day.  Back when I was working I used to always prefer to print things out and read them on paper.  Environmental considerations aside, it was just easier.  Thank goodness I got laser-eye correction because when I used to wear contacts it would dry my eyes out severely.  I’d look like a red-eyed demon after a couple of late nights.  The last thing I would have wanted before or after a long day in front of the monitor is to read a book on an even smaller screen.

The second issue relates a view which I’m sure many others share – that is, I prefer to feel the paper in my hands.  The crisp sensation and smell of a brand new book has always been a part of the appeal.  But perhaps we just need to get used to e-books.  If e-books became widespread, think of all the paper we would save, the space we would save – not to mention how light it would be to carry around literally hundreds of books at the same time (I’ll no longer be restricted to 1 or 2 books on a long holiday!).  It also opens up other possibilities, like mixing moving artworks with literature, hyperlinks that can quickly guide us to other relevant information or sources.  Needless to say though, there will undoubtedly be a plethora of other less exciting issues, such as compatibility with other devices, copyright problems, piracy, pricing, just to name a few.

There was a time when I thought I’d never get used to reading lengthy documents on a screen, but after finding out how expensive printing is at the university over here, I’ve had to force myself to read on the laptop all year.  And gradually, I got used to it.  Maybe it’s not that bad after all.  That being said, I just bought a printer (for exam purposes!) – but I have to now go out and buy the USB cord to connect it to my computer.  Stupid HP!  What type of company sells a printer without including the critical USB cable?  What a scam.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

← Previous Entries
Next Entries →

Bad Behavior has blocked 586 access attempts in the last 7 days.