plays per band

So this is the bands that apparently I listen to the most. I have listed the amount of times a song by a particular artist has played on my Itunes since January 2007. Allow me to mention a few points that should accompany this:

• It is COMPLETELY linear. What I mean by that is there is no adjusting for bands with only 1 album, or the Beatles entire catalog. Quite simply, the more songs you have put out, the better chance you have of one of them being played.
  
• The plays ONLY go back 2.5 years. Which means bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and Sublime, bands I listened to constantly before this time are less played.
  
• Bands that are stilla ctive (putting out new albums) have a distinct advantage. I devour new music, so when Conor Oberst puts out two new cds in 1 year, he gets a ton of play, while the Strokes have not put out a record during this time. Does that mean I like Conor more than the Strokes, no, but it means I listened to those albums more.
  
• I have worked in several restaurants and ran the music. I created mixes that worked, and mixes that didn't. The mixes that worked got a lot of play, and hence some songs got a SHIT TON of plays. That factors into this.

OK here is the list
comment if you dare

Also: please don't think this is an accurate portrayal of who I like more than who. Of course I don't like the Old 97s more than the Chili Peppers, but in the last 2.5 years, the Chili Peppers have released 0 records, and the Old 97s 1. I have seen the Old 97s in concert, as well as front man Rhett Miller. RHCP have not toured. This is why these numbers are higher!

1. Beatles – 1642

- when you have rubber soul, Help, Abbey Road, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper - I'm going to go to you a lot. They are the kings, and probably always will be.

Most played song - I've Just Seen a Face (29)

2. Old 97s – 1397

- my favorite guitar band. I love to listen to them. I love Rhett's lyrics. They make great driving music. They put out one of my favorite live CDs ever, and every one of their albums rocks. I don't know how they made it up this high, but they're always an easy pick when I'm bored. Saw them June 2008 and saw Rhett March 2009

Most Played song - Victoria (57)

3. Elliott Smith – 1388

- He's Elliott Smith. That simple. I've probably listened to Either/Or all the way through 30 times. I lived in Silver Lake and listened to him every day. He remains the dead musician I'd kill to see more than any to this day (sorry Jimi), and I love his guitar work.

Most played song - Alameda (44)

4. Wilco – 1186

- Count their live album Kicking Television, and all seven albums have a shit ton of play. At gunpoint, they're my favorite band ever. Everything they've ever done holds a place in my heart, and at certain moments, all their albums were at one point my favorite. YHF remains the best album of this decade. Seeing them June 2009.

Most played song - Either Way (40)

5. Jack Johnson – 1124

- I don't know how he snuck up, because the year and a half before this tally started, he's ALL I listened to. All three of his first three albums were CONSTANTLY on. Somehow he made it up. It helps that I saw him live and he put out a new record. My favorite American songwriter alive, and one of my favorite concerts. Saw him live October 2004 and September 2008.

Most played song - Inaudible Melodies (49)

6. Shins – 1090

- Spent a lot of time as "my favorite band." Chutes Too Narrow is in my top five records of all time. And Wincing the Night Away came out 2 weeks before this list started and was played CONSTANTLY when it came out. Also, Australia might be my favorite song and is the most played song on my cpu. Saw them live April 2007 and May 2009.

Most played song - Australia (80)

7. Jayhawks – 925

- I actually thought they'd be higher. I feel like other than Elliott Smith, they are my goto when there's nothing else to listen to. I adore everything they've ever done. I've still never seen them live, and pray I will (at least Mark and Gary).

Most played song - Stumbling Through the Dark (49)

8. Ryan Adams – 874

- Didn't include Whiskeytown or his numbers would be higher. It's easy to get this high when you have like 300 studio albums. Ryan Adams is the man. Plain and simple. I love his work, and appreciate his quantity and quality. I'm sure he's got more for us in the near future. Also, unbelievable show. Saw him live January 2008.

Most played song - A Kiss Before I go (32)

9. Tom Petty – 859

- He's fucking Petty. Nuff said. He's like my fav. I have everything he's ever done (thanks O-Face) and he will always be a part of my life. Saw him live like 6 times.

Most played song - I Won't Back Down (20)

10. Weezer – 849

- Another band I thought I played more before the list. They did put out a new record which pretty much ruled my life last July. Also, there was the concert at the Forum, and the fact that Pinkerton pretty much owns me. Saw them live August 2002 and August 2008.

Most played song - The Good Life (32)

11. Ben Kweller – 805

Saw Him Live October 2008

Most played song - Penny on the Train Track (57)

12. Red Hot Chili Peppers – 630

Most played song - Wet Sand (42) thanks Brown

13. Tom Waits – 595

most played song - Long Way Home (36)

14. Strokes – 573

Saw them live April 2006

Most played song - Heart in a Cage (31)

15. Silversun Pickups – 554

Saw them live October 2007

Most played song - Well Thought Out Twinkes (72)

16. Kings of Leon – 538

Saw them live October 2008

Most played song - Knocked Up (28)

17. Vampire Weekend – 472

Saw them Live September 2008

Most played song - Cape Cod Kwassa Kwassa (51)

18. Mike Doughty – 460

Saw him live April 2008, April 2009, May 2009

Most played song - The Only Answer (35)

19. Death Cab – 458

Saw them Live August 2006

Most played song - Marching Bands of Manhattan (45)

20. Pearl Jam – 405

Most played song - Cordoury (19)

21. Lily Allen – 385

Saw her live April 2007

Most played song - tie Smile, LDN (45)

22. Mason Jennings – 373

Saw him live November 2008

Most Played song - Crown (39)

23. Conor Oberst – 370

Saw him live September 2008

Most played song - Cape Canaveral (37)

24. Grateful Dead – 368

Most played song - Ramble on Rose (30)

25. Flaming Lips – 344

Saw them live August 2006

Most played song - The Yeah Yeah Yeah song (30)

26. Band of Horses – 300

Saw them live September 2007

Most played song - Ode to LRC (40)

27. Led Zeppelin – 291

Most played song - tie Achilles's Last Stand, What is and What Should Never Be (13)

28. Matt Costa – 291

Most played song - Sweet Rose (39)

29. Notorious B.I.G. – 284

Most played song - Things Done Changed (20)

30. Albert Hammond Jr. – 277

Most played song - 101 (32)

31. Fratellis – 295

Most played song - For the Girl (36)

32. Rolling Stones – 247

Most played song - Gimme Shelter (10)

33. Radiohead – 235

Saw them live July 2001

Most played song - 15 Steps (19)

34. Otis Redding – 233

Most played song - That's what My Heart Needs (9)

35. Rhett Miller – 220

Saw him live March 2009

Most played song - Our Love (34)

36. Beck – 211

Most played song - Earthquake Weather (14)

37. Neil Young – 210

Most played song - Walk On (13)

38. Cold War Kids – 205

Saw them live April 2007, September 2008

Most played song - We Used to Vacation (32)

39. Sublime – 199

Most played song - tie 40 oz. to Freedom, Don't Push (10)

40. Golden Smog – 196

Most played song - 5-22-02 (32)

41. Portishead – 196

Most played song - Silence (18)

42. A Tribe Called Quest – 191

Most played song - tie Buggin' Out, Butter (14)

43. My Morning Jacket – 188

Saw them Live September 2008

Most played song - Dondante (Live) (14)

44. Clap Your Hands Say yeah – 186

Most played song - Details of the War (16)

45. MGMT – 185

Saw them live September 2008

Most played song - Time to Pretend (28)

46. Arcade Fire – 184

Most played song - tie, Neon Bible, Intervention (24)

47. Belle & Sebastian – 184

Most played song - tie Piazza, New York Catcher, Step into my Office Baby (23)

48. Kooks – 180

Most played song - She Moves in Her Own Way (30)

49. Drive By Truckers – 177

Most played song - Two Daughters and a Beautiful Wife (18)

50. Ben Harper – 171

Most played song - Burn One Down (16)

51. Jackson Browne – 169

Seen him live a ton of times

Most played song - Late for the Sky (20)

52. Postal Service – 168

Most played song - The District Sleeps Alone tonight (29)

53. Rivers Cuomo – 167

Most played song - Longtime Sunshine (13)

54. Cowboy Junkies – 156

Most played song - Misguided Angel (22)

55. White Buffalo – 156

Seen him live 5 times in the last year

Most played song - Love Song #1 (39)

56. Bob Dylan – 147

Most played song - My Back Pages (14)

57. Dispatch – 147

Most played song - The General (25)

58. The Virgins – 147

Saw them live May 2009 (last concert!)

Most played song - Fernando Pando (20)

59. Decemberists – 145

Most played song - The Sporting Life (16)

60. Pixies – 144

Most played song - I Bleed (10)

61. Black Keys – 142

Most played song - All You Ever Wanted (16)

62. John Fruiscante – 138

Most played song - Omission (11)

63. Art Brut – 130

Most played song - Moving to LA (34)

64. Massive Attack – 130

Most played song - Protection (16)

65. Ramones – 122

Most played song - tie, Sheena is a Punk Rocker and KKK took my Baby Away (9)

66. Foxboro Hot Tubs – 122

Most played song - Mother Mary (28)

67. TV on the Radio – 120

Most played song - Dancing Choose (16)

68. Good the Bad and the Queen – 111

Most played song -History Song (22)

69. Lykke Li – 104

Saw her Live February 2009

Most played song - Dance Dance Dance (14)

70. Uncle Tupelo – 103

Most played song - No Depression (14)

71. Ryan Bingham – 102

Saw him Live April 2009

Most played song - Bread and Water (13)

Next Year, again

When I was growing up, Cleveland tragedies happened in an instant. Whether it was Rich Karliss's kick sailing through the January chill at Cleveland Stadium, Earnest Byner meeting Jeremiah Castille at the 2 yard line, Michael Jordan, John Elway, Jose Mesa – it was always a case of "oh so close" but so far away. But in recent years, the tragedies have come not with a bang, but with a whimper.

The 2007 NBA Finals were never a series. Even with two kinda close games at home, we never really got too excited. Duncan, Ginobili, and especially Parker, made it clear from the outset that this was about them.

Game 7 of the 2007 ALCS – while a little drama was conceded earlier in the week, game 7 was never REALLY in doubt. Fans point to Joel Skinner's decision to hold Kenny Lofton at third in a one run game, but even fixing that error would only have delayed the inevitable. Just like the NBA Finals, at some point well before the last pitch, the fan's mindset changed from "we have a realistic chance of winning," to rationalizing about how a comeback wouldn't be the most incredible thing in baseball history. It's a comforting feeling, but also one that is looked back on as naïve and stupid. When my team is winning by 4 runs late in a game, I'm not thinking about ways the other team can come back, I'm thinking about winning.

And now this. A series that included two one-point games, an overtime game, and another game not decided until the final minute. A series that could have been considered on of the best ever had it gone to a seventh game. It ends with the greatest whimper yet. The game was decided early. The half-time deficit was 18 (19 if you count the tech), we never got the lead below 10 in the second half. The rationalizing started early. And when the final buzzer sounded, and Lebron untucked his jersey and walked off the court, it was hard to be depressed. It was hard to be angry. In fact, the angriest I got on Saturday night, was when TNT dusted off the tri-yearly Cleveland sports misery montage. The montage that only seems to get longer as we become more and more sick of it. Unfortunately for the montage gods, this series will have a tough time making it onto that montage. There was no defining moment in Game 6, there was no instant of heartbreak, or calamity of spirit.

Which hurts all the more.

After game 4 I stayed up thinking. What if Rashard missed. What if Varajau tipped in that missed free throw that mercifully went in. Then we win. But behind all of my misery and pain, I thought that we can still win this series, 3 in a row is not impossible.

But after game 6, there was no loss of sleep. There was no "what ifs" or "second guesses," the lack of a moment to point to and ask yourself why wasn't there. There was no Jose Mesa, no Elway, or Castille. No Pedro, no Jordan, no Tommy Maddox. Just a team, considered by most to be the best in the NBA, going down to a team that was simply better in all facets. No blown calls, no cruel twists. Just a more cohesive group, better coached, better prepared, and able to catch one or two more breaks over 6 games.

The pain won't come from game 6, but from game 1 – what if Delonte hits that three in the corner, what if Rashard can't hit that miracle over Andy, what if Lebron doesn't dribble into the corner? And game 4 – what if delonte gets that rebound?!?! Sure, Mo had a bad series, Delonte lost a step, and Z was absolutely a disgrace – but in my memory, and all of our collective memories, we won't have an image. The image we'll have is Lebron, standing 25 feet away from the hoop with 6'10" Hedo Turkoglu's arms outreached, and the ball on its way into history. We will all remember where we were on Friday May 22, we will always have that, but beneath that memory, and forever, we'll remember only one other fact. We lost.

We won't remember why. We won't remember how. We will simply remember that the greatest image in Cleveland sports, from the greatest player in Cleveland Sports was ruined 8 days later in the most lobsided playoff defeat in three years. We had no answer for them, and they were the better team. End of another chapter in the tragedy that keeps on writing itself. Curses? Falling out of favor with the Gods? An inferiority complex born upon the shores of Lake Erie? Believe whatever you will. But what's important is not why this is happening, but the fact that for some indescribable reason our lives as sports fans remains defined by failure.

Another season has passed. Since December 1964, 125 Cleveland sports seasons have started, 1 ended 65% through the season. 39 have gone to the playoffs. 0 have ended with a championship. By October, that number will be 126, and certainly by January it will be 127. Next year at this time is our next hope. We will see the same montage, we will hear the same stories. But next June, maybe that image of Lebron standing triumphantly, arms raised in the air, and elation flooding his face, will not be the memory of a game 2 victory, but the final lasting image of this never-ending story.

Hate to say it, but for the 125th time in the last 45 years: "we'll get them next year."

Response to SImmons

I want to bring up two things that Bill Simmons talked about today. Both are relating to officiating, one is structural and the other is more analytical. He points out (like we needed someone to) how dreadful the officiating has gotten, and cites several problems such as the age of the officials, the state of the game as a 1 on 1 thing, and the desire by the NBA to curb on-court violence leading to a crack-down that limits hard play. I have no answers for how to fix the officiating but one very simple thing that could address a lot of issues and doesn't seem to be too drastic.

In baseball, you have a crew of umpires. This crew is headed by one ump called "the crew chief" but in reality, they are all equally important. As they travel from stadium to stadium, they rotate counter-clockwise from base to base. So the crew chief isn't always behind home-plate, in fact, he's behind home plate as often as the other three umps.
In football, you also have crews, headed this time by the head referee. Football officials are the most specialized as any sports. They have two line judges standing on the sidelines marking balls and calling pre-snap penalties and penalties on the edge. You have a back judge to police things that happen beyond the secondary and already back to keep up with the speed of the faster players. You have an umpire standing LITERALLY in the middle of the action policing anything that might happen near the ball. Everyone knows their role. Guys generally don't have to make a call that they're not in position to make because there is a system set up to make sure there is always someone in position.

However in basketball, there are no crews. I mean, there are game-to-game, but after the officials ref a game, they get in separate cabs, fly to a different city, and join up with a new set of two officials to ref another game. There is SOME specialization, but when there is, it comes from a short pre-game discussion amongst the three refs. So if Danny Crawford is reffing a game with Zac Zarba and Bennet Salvadore one night, he might be assigned with Monty McCutcheon and Joey Crawford another night, while Zarba is in another city reffing with Violet Palmer and Dick Bavetta.

Now, Simmons talks about the chemistry acquired after playing years of pick-up ball with the same guys. I could not agree any more. If Matt Neff flew out to L.A. today, we could hang with any group in a two-on-two game. We've been playing together for 15 years. He's Malone, I'm Stockton. It's not even fair. But the reason isn't because we're so talented. And I don't necessarily think we have a form of ESP or anything. The point is, he and I know each others strengths and we know each others weaknesses. I know how he dominates in the post, he knows how effective I am in a screen and roll. He knows I like to D up on the ball, I know that if the ball hits the rim he's got the bound. I don't worry about rebounding, he doesn't worry about perimeter defense, both of which are weaknesses for each other. This is how basketball works.

So tell me, why can't this work for officiating? If I know that a certain official loves to officiate in the paint, and has been doing it long enough that he can seek things I can't see, I won't make a call from half-court when he's already on the baseline. If he knows I can run, and he's slower, wouldn't it make sense to let me work the sidelines and play in transition while he stands closer to mid-court and doesn't need to run as far in between plays. Wouldn't there be more trust amongst the officials to let no-calls be no-calls. You can specialize like in football, you can trust each other, and you can rely on chemistry the same way that my friend and I do in two-on-two.

Furthermore, there's a lot less alpha-dog posturing when you guys are all co-workers. Think about playing pick-up ball with nine strangers. You want to be the man for your team. You might feign alpha-dog mentality simply to impress your teammates, or to position yourself as the leader. This happens in officiating ALL the time. Take D-White's tech the other day. It obviously was a dumb call, but the official who made it was showing off for his crew. He was saying "Oh really D-White, well watch what I can do!" That call NEVER gets made if they crew was together all year. You let that slide, you let a lot of fouls inside slide if the guy on the baseline is your partner, and your season-long friend. The games would be officiated right.

What's baffling is how easy a fix this would be. Of course it wouldn't fix everything, and there's a long way to go, but it makes no sense the way it is now. Certain problems would go away immediately. Others would get better over time as officials grew to respond to one another. I just don't understand any argument for the other way.

And prong two of this is WHY a lot of this is happening. I don't get why no one wants to bring up the major elephant in the room: race. Ok, so Stern wants to curtail the violence, and I applaud him for that. There is a point (see: Artest, Ron) when violence gets out of control. But there's also a point when it's both entertaining and an asset. Magic-Celtics. Pistons-Bulls. Heat-Knicks. These were better cuz the teams were knocking the crap out of each other. But what happened in the mid- to late 1990s was a new crop of players came into the league. They wore corn-rows, banged to hip-hop music, and connections to criminality were easily drawn. On-court violence became less of an extension of tough, physical play, and more of an extension of the streets. Obviosuly, retrospectively, there is no difference between an on-court fight in 2005 and one in 1985, but visually and esoterically, there is.

In 1984, when Kurt Rambis clubbed Kevin McHale, he was tough. In 2006 when Carmello Anthony sucker punched Nate Robinson, he was a thug. The only thing that changed was the perception of the black athlete in the NBA. This is why baseball gets away with it, hockey applauds it, and basketball does EVERYTHING in their power, even if that means ruining the game to prevent it. I urge people to read articles from the late 1990s regarding violence. The word "thug" and "criminal" appears far more often than it should. There is a disproportionately vitriolic response against physical play and even violence in the setting of a basketball game. To ignore this element, which one can argue (like I just did) is the primary element in the curtailing of violence in games, is both ignorant and safe.

I am not "playing the race card," are acting as an apologist. All of us want to see more physical play, less techs, and more rivalry. But no one wants it from a big, black guy, with braids and a scowl. These guys are not criminals but athletes, and the associations are both wrong and detrimental to the game. It won't be until we, as consumers, and the mainstream press drop these associations with language such as "thug" that we'll see the game move back towards allowing emotional, and physical play, with sportsmanship added. Simmons is right on all accounts, and I applaud him for writing such an in-depth piece on the issue, I just wish he'd mention the giant elephant sitting in between Stern and Stu Jackson: race.

The Other Shoe awaits

Why can't I shake this feeling? I never thought the Cavs were going to win it all. Check that, I didn't think so until about 2 months ago. About 2 months ago, amidst the chaos of March Madness and the dog days of what seems to be a year round NBA season, I started to believe. I think it was a combination of the Cavs hitting their stride at the same moment that the other three contenders—Boston, Orlando, and Los Angeles—starting hitting road bumps. At one point, Lebron passed Kobe, Garnett's injury pushed the Celtics into second-tier status, and Orlando, struggling to beat bottom-run teams, faded into championship irrelevancy. Once we secured home court, it seemed destiny. For the first time in 14 years, we were actually favored to win…and this time, thanks to the NBA's meritocracy where the best record is worth something, we actually had the home-court in the finals. Best player in the land, home court, contenders dropping like the Tribe in 2005 and the Browns in 2007, I actually started to believe.

However, I must admit, I thought there was a chance we'd lose to Detroit. Honestly. I didn't think of it as extremely legitimate, but they're the fucking Pistons. You don't walk over them. After that series, I was hooked. This was it. I actually, for the first time since an unseasonably warm autumn night in October of 1997 thought to myself, "Now you will know what it's like to be a Yankee, or a Niner, or a Bull. This is what it's like. Get Ready."

I'll tell you when it ran out. Game 1, forty seconds left. Delonte had just knocked down a huge three to take a one point lead and then Rashard Lewis, effortlessly caught a ball on the right baseline, put up an eleven footer and buried it to take a one-point lead. At that moment, despite Lebron's ensuing three-point play, I started to doubt. And now, as we stare up a small hill, a hill that we are almost expected to climb, I see an impossible mountain.

I don't know why. A win tonight, and we have a pretty distinct advantage. A best of 3 with 2 games at home is a lot stronger than a best of 7 with 4 games at home. But that win tonight seems implausible, and NOT for the easy reasons. I don't care about D-white, Rashard, Hedo, and Pietrus. I Don't care about Mo, Delmonte, and Z's problems. I mean, I do. Believe me I do. But this is beyond that. This is mythical. This is the product, not of Xs, Os, or statistics, this is the product of Dr. Pavlov, teasing me, baiting me, and universally letting me down. I am conditioned to expect the tease, and when the mouth-watering temptation to believe tries to overcome my pre-ordained cynicism, that cynicism rises, triumphs, and destroys grace in a higher power. The only higher power I know, is that giant shoe, worn by athletes from Elway to Alomar, the same shoe worn by Tommy Maddox, Josh Beckett, and an injured, hobbled Pedro Martinez. As I look up into the unknown today, I do not expect a Cavs win, I do not expect Mo's shot to turn on, or Z to turn effective. What I expect is the worst.

I expect a new story to tell my kids. Lebron's shot—despite what many other cynical Clevelander's are saying—will not be a footnote, but the central theme in the melodrama of another Cleveland tragedy. His shot will represent the worst or our abilities: Our ability to believe. Perhaps it is this trait that is our worst. Perhaps it is not our expectations to fail, our athletically-trained inferiority complex that defines us, but our insistence in believing in a cruel and self-serving deity who, at least from this perspective, seems to be more interested in our failures that anyone's triumphs. If this were not the case, than that shot would not have gone in. If Orlando truly is simply "the better team," than Lebron's shot would have hit that back iron and bounced mercifully off the rim, relieving us of that cruel hope that—despite my heart-felt attempts at abandoning—lives in my body, still today, causing more frustration than faith, and more anticipation for the worst than belief in the best.

More than anything today, I want to blow them out. I want it to be over after the first quarter. But there is a part of me, a slice of brain matter that I'm sure neurologists have discovered contains our ability to reason, to organize, and to plan, that wants D-white to hang 50 on us. Put us out of our misery. Take the hope, the belief, the prayers, and make them go away. It is May. The Indians are relaxed in the cellar, the Browns are….the Browns, and the Cavs are on the brink of collapsing before our very eyes.

I don't want that to happen, but I know better. I think we're the better team, but I don't see us winning. We have the best player ever on our team, and even he can't overcome some things. I know it's been sad before, but there are some things that will just never change. Unless they do tonight. Go Cavs….OH NO, NOT AGAIN.

Center problems

I know the Cavs have some serious problems to address. I know that the local media, the blogosphere, and the insufferable and uninformed national media have pointed out their lack of any production from the backcourt, which is entirely valid. Mo and Demonte's disappearance in this series is most likely the difference between a 3-0 lead and a 2-1 hole right now. But that is not what this is about. My posts are not here to reiterate what is so blatantly obvious after watching these games.

I'm not here to talk about the officiating, which seems to favor Lebron, then the Magic, then the Cavaliers. It's a super-weird issue that will probably rear its head more often than not, but the Cavs, outside of Lebron are getting hosed, while Lebron seems to be getting absolutely retarded whistles. Obviously the amount of free-throws on Sunday made for a stupid game, but what do you expect when you line up Joey Crawford in a playoff game. It's an odd choice, but not nearly the oddest of David Stern's handling of officials.

I'm here to harp on an issue that I can’t seem to understand. It's actually quite simple: Why is Zydrunas getting minutes in this series? Look, I've never met the guy, but it seems that all that have say he's an absolutely classy and gentlemanly guy. (Save his DUI and his stealing of Bob Sura's wife) I want him to succeed, and I thank him for everything he's given the city in the last thirteen years. But I am absolutely BAFFLED as to:

A. Why despite his inability to defend Howard, along with his complete inefficiency on offense, Mike Brown insists on starting him.

B. Why, despite these inefficiencies in all three games, Brown insists on playing him in crunch time despite Joe Smith and Ben Wallace both giving better minutes in this series.

C. Where, please someone tell me where, Darnell Jackson has gone!!!

The first is the most understandable. Z has been your starting center all year. I understand this attempt at congruency as the team tries to regain their regular season form. In fact, one can even argue that, given our hot starts in games 1 and 2, this can't be pointed out as a problem. But here's the thing: In game 1, Dwight Howard DESTROYED him in the first quarter. Dwight is a first half player. Z simply can't guard him. If Brown wants to start Z, I get it, but what I don't get is playing him through the first quarter (like he did Sunday night). It is PAINFULLY obvious that he is simply overmatched and hurting the team, so it's fine to give him the start, but to handicap the team leaving him in doesn't make any sense to me.

The Second question is quite bothersome. I am not arguing for more Joe Smith, Ben Wallace or others. I am not the coach, and I do not have the resources that I pray Mike Brown is currently consulting. I am simply asking: What is Z giving you down the stretch? Please…What!!!!

Several bullets about this. For one, Z appears, on paper, to have two discernable offensive skills. His ability to hit from 12-16, and offensive rebounding. The jump shot has simply not been there. In fact, one can even argue that he's simply not taking enough jumpers. So far in this series, in 95 minutes, Z is 9-26 from jumpers, including an 0-5 from beyond the arc. Overall, he's 13-34 from the field. This is well below replacement level, and is completely ineffective. I understand that no one on the team is shooting well, and that Z has the unfortunate task of going up against the DPY, BUT, it is different for Z, and I'll get to that in a minute.
The other skill is his ability to offensive rebound, and more specifically tip-in. However, in 95 minutes of play in this series, Z has 8 ORB. Now, I concede that rebounding can be a misleading statistic, for instance, Ben Wallace (in way less than half the minutes) has 5 ORB, but has countless tips keeping balls alive that aren't measured by a traditional stat, while Z has very few if any. Again, I concede that Z is up against Dwight Howard, so his numbers will go down, but this at the end of the day, both of Z's skills that make his defensive liabilities worth dealing with have been neutralized. Whether its declining skills, lack of heart, or Orlando's schemes and personnel, Z hasn't done what he does.

Defensively, I don't need to say anything. When Howard is in, Z resembles the chair that Yi Jianlin infamously dueled in his 2007 pre-draft workouts. When Howard is out, Z is turning a pole, seemingly named after a concentration camp into Hakeem. He cannot, and will not play a role on the weak side, he doesn't block, tip, or alter shots, he's slow in transition, clunky in the post, and even his fouls have been weak enough to allow way to many and-ones. You've all watched the games, so just know this.

OK, so you say "But Mo and Delonte haven't been able to hit either!" Here's my rebuttal. First off, Mo and Delonte had great years; fantastic years even. Z's numbers in almost all categories went DOWN. Z is getting older, his body is falling apart, and his skills—like all mid-30's big men—are declining. To compare Mo and Delonte's cold streaks to Z's lack of production is ignorant.

Also, Mo and Delonte's cold streaks could be attributed to invariable factors. Guys get cold, guys struggle under pressure, guys go through streaks like this. With Z, the problem is more about the Magic. They have neutralized him. If we get past this round, and Z can rip up Andrew Bynum, so be it, play him 40 a game. But against this team, in this series, he is a nothing.

And furthermore (and most importantly), with Mo and Delonte, we don't really have a choice. Mo was an all-star and Delonte was our best non-Lebroner in the playoffs. Their backups are Gibson, Szerbiack, Kinsey, and Sasha. Even given Sasha's hot 5 minutes on Friday, we still kind of NEED these two to get hot. We need to ride them out, and hopefully, given the nature of their problems, they could get out of it. With Z, it's not the case. Wallace is a MUCH better defender and MUCH better rebounder. While statistically his presence is hard to interpret, his presence has been very much felt. Joe Smith has been average, but significantly better than Z. He has been better shooting jumpers, a better rebounder, and played better defensively. And then there's the third question I've asked.

WHERE THE HELL IS DARNELL JACKSON!?!??!?!?!

Please, let me make this clear. I have no clue, NONE, if Darnell Jackson is capable of making an impact in this series. Why do I have no clue? Because none of us do, including Mike Brown, because he will not try him. Here's what goes against Jackson: He's a roogie who may not be able to handle the limelight. He's untested against such a great player like Howard. He hasn't played much in the playoffs and might be rusty. Here's what he has for him: His size is, BY FAR, the best asset we have against Howard. Howard's second-round struggles were, by consensus, attributed to the physicality and size of Kendrick Perkins, and Jackson is the closest thing we have to a Perkins. His youth and inexperience could actually inject life into the team that seems to be lagging (see Lee, Courtney). He played very well in the second half of season, eventually usurping one-time future savior J.J. Hickson's minutes, and actually playing a few crunch time's late.

And the biggest thing Jackson has is: WHY THE HELL NOT! The Cavs have no answer, I repeat, NO ANSWER, for this team. All we hear is the "matchup problems" et al. Why not try, even if just for a 6-8 minute stretch in the second, to match this guy up against Howard. Worst case scenario, he gives you Ben Wallace's impact on offense and takes a few fouls on Howard that can keep Varajau in the game. Best case scenario, he frustrates Howard, helps get stops, scores a few easy baskets on offense (i.e. what Z SHOULD be doing) and forces the Magic to change their strategy. Could it hurt to TRY???

Z is getting 30+ minutes a game. He needs 20 at most. Give Jackson 8-10 of Z's minutes, 2 or 3 of Smith's and 2 or 3 of Wallace's. Match him up on Howard and just try to see if he can stop him. Give him 16 minutes, and let's hope that he's our Kendrick Perkins. Otherwise we lose this series 4-1 or 4-2. We go back to the drawing board and try to figure out next year. How will we deal with this guy, we will need to re-design our frontcourt. Why not try that now Mike? Change on the fly? Z won't mind.

On The Road

I'm out for a few days...here is a change of pace, I give you the top 3 albums of the last 10 years. These are my opinions, serve NO purpose, and are meant to be disagreed with. But these 30 albums have had a bigger effect on ME than any other records.
Feel free to disagree

Top 3 Albums of Last 10 years:

2009 (in progress)

- Silversun Pickups – Swoon
- Ben Kweller – Changing Horses
- Conor Oberst and the Mystic Valley Band – Outer South

2008

- Vampire Weekend – Vampire Weekend
- Conor Oberst – Conor Oberst
- Portishead – Third

2007

- The Fratellis – Costello Music
- The Shins – Wincing the Night Away
- Bon Iver – For Emma, Forever Ago

2006

- Silversun Pickups – Carnavas
- The Strokes – First Impressions of Earth
- Ben Kweller – Ben Kweller

2005

- Jack Johnson – In Between Dreams
- Death Cab For Cutie – Plans
- Matisyahu – Live at Stubbs

2004

- Mike Doughty – Skittish
- Elliott Smith – From a Basement on a Hill
- Franz Ferdinand – Franz Ferdinand

2003

- The Jayhawks – Rainy Day Music
- The Strokes – Room on Fire
- The Shins – Chutes Too Narrow

2002

- Red Hot Chili Peppers – By the Way
- The Flaming Lips – Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots
- Eminem – The Eminem Show

2001

- Wilco – Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
- The Strokes – Is This It?
- Jack Johnson – Brushfire Fairtytales

2000

- Ryan Adams – Heartbreaker
- Elliott Smith – Figure Eight
- Radiohead – Kid A

Lack of Heart vs. Not Very good

The sentiment on L.A. radio today (and those with outlets to me via other outlets, like say…conversation) seems to be an air of dominance after yesterday's altogether dominance of the Aaron Brooks's – ahem, the rockets (lower-case to represent their shell of a team). True, yesterday's performance was entirely one-sided, and despite gritty and tough play from Houston, Bynum, Gasol, Ariza, and others completely controlled all aspects of the game, BUT, what exactly does that mean.
Vegas, for what it's worth, thinks it means little. They give the Denver Nuggets a very realistic chance of winning the series, and considering the Lakers have home-court advantage, somewhat implies that in a neutral arena, Vegas, (whose opinion I value more than any analyst's) thinks the two teams are just about equal. While Denver did earn the number 2 seed, they finished eleven games behind the Lakers, and a staggering .140 points behind the Lakers in the Pythagorean standings. (Denver also finished behind the Celtics, Spurs and Blazers in the Pythagorean standings, three teams currently watching on television) What this means, is that despite no injuries, and despite the Lakers's convincing five-game disposal of the Jazz in the first round, some time in the last two weeks, Denver has made up 11 games of regular season separation and .140 points of Pythagorean separation to even up (or at least come close to evening up) the perception that the Lakers are BETTER than the Nuggets, save for home-court.
While Denver was quite impressive against Dallas in the second round, Dallas's Pythagorean winning percentage was barely better than Pheonix, who missed the playoffs altogether and has to be, at least somewhat, expected. What happened is, at least in Vegas's mind, is that the Lakers' struggles with Houston changed the perception of how good this Lakers team can be. Houston's obviously injured stars should have made for an easy series, but they were unable to capitalize, and were forced to subject their fans, and their own bodies, to a surprising game 7. A lot has been made about their heart, their character, and their "championship will" but I think eventually, like Vegas has done, we need to start looking at other factors such as: age, fatigue, and maybe this Lakers team is not that good.
Am I ARGUING they are not good, or even that they will lose a series…not really. I am saying that perhaps all of the things that critics and fans of the Lakers say they lacked in their 2 defeats in Houston in games 4 and 6, were effects, not moveable variables, of more fixed variables that have changed the perception of the Lakers' dominance in the Western Conference.
Some things to consider: Kobe Byrant, the unquestionable heart and soul of this team, is now 31 years old; however, like many astute critics will be quick to point out, he is an "old" 31, for he came into the league at age 18, and has, for the most part, started since his third year. In his thirteen-year career, he has played in 1112 games, starting 944 of those. This is not counting Olympics, preseasons, or the fact that Kobe is known as the hardest working player, off the court in the NBA. In the past two seasons alone, he has played in 197 games, starting each of them and averaging about 38 minutes per game. These numbers are STAGGERING.
To put this in perspective, over his career, he's already played 16 more games than Magic Johnson played in his entire career, and Johnson's numbers began a slight decline (especially in scoring, rebounds, and defensively) after about 900 games. Larry Bird played in 55 less games than Bryant and his numbers also took a sharp turn (also in part to his back problems) after about 900 games. Not counting his Wizard's numbers, Kobe has even played more games than Jordan, whose career total was 1109. Jordan also took two and a half years off in the mid-90s, and, though he did experience a SMALL dip in his numbers in the last two years of his Bulls career, he still won the championship those seasons.
Kobe, by contrast has NOT yet seen a dip in his numbers. He won his first MVP in 2008 in the season he surpassed the dreaded 900 game clip. Up until maybe two months ago, he was the undisputed, unanimous choice for "best player on the planet," and despite his age and games played numbers starting to reach some important benchmarks, has not (at least to the untrained eye) shown any signs of erosion. (There are some statistics such as FTA and points in the paint that do, in fact, point to a small decline in his athleticism, but Jordan worked through that, meaning there's a precedent to follow).
But the point I'm making with all of this data is that: instead of assuming that players age only during the off-season; the assumption that Kobe's 08/09 exists in a vacuum and signs of fatigue or maybe age will only emerge side by side with his 09/10 numbers is simply wrong. In fact, can't we assume the opposite is true? Can't we assume that players probably age more during the season that after? Can't we assume that Kobe, who seems to be playing at as high of a level as he was last year, is not even playing at as high of a level as he was in November? That assumption goes for Bryant, Fisher (1111 GP), even younger players like Gasol (629) or Odom (723) who may not be "old" but may be experiencing some sort of age-related fatigue after playing the amount of games at the level that they've been playing at over the last eighteen months? Look at Boston. Garnett and Pierced look like they're about 65 years old right now. Their month-long winning streak over November and December seems like it was three years ago.
So maybe, while fans and critics jump on the "will the Lakers show up tonight" bandwagon, they should be looking at another point. Furthermore, maybe the Lakers just aren't as good as we thought. The NBA season, despite being 6 months long, is only 82 games. While 82 games is a large sample size (6 times longer than the NFL) it is far from perfect. It is half as long as baseball's; it is played through an unbalanced schedule, and does not ALWAYS tell the exact story of the best team's in the league. For instance, Denver, Portland, and San Antonio all finished with identical 54-28 records. Houston, with Yao, and half a season of McGrady finished one game behind with a quite comparable 53-29 record. I am considering the fact that the Spurs are banged up, but also considering Houston as even more banged up. In the playoffs, these four teams, despite essentially identical records, have played four ENTIRELY different post-seasons. Denver is 8-2, Houston 7-6, Portand 2-4 and the Spurs 1-4. Since these are small sample sizes as well, little could be said about which team's are "the best" but perhaps the Lakers' 65-17 might not be as impressive considering their second-round performance.
Here again, my point is that maybe, while their regular-season record was more than impressive, perhaps it's sample size was too limited to expose the fact that the Lakers were merely not as good as their record indicates (and their Pythagorean record confirms). For instance, from February 29 through March 31, the Lakers played at a 10-6 clip. Maybe this pedestrian .625 record (duplicated in during a significant stretch in December) is truer to form than the much higher percentage played in other, hotter stretches. Again, I am not arguing that this is the case, but it would not be a stretch to say that the Lakers are closer to a .625, or even .659 (Denver's reg. season Winning pct.) than the loft goal of .793 they actually set. In fact, their post-season record right now (against a free-falling Jazz team, and a terminally injured Rockets team is .666 with 7 of 12 games being played at Staples Center.
Obviously this small sample size renders these numbers ALMOST irrelevant, but perhaps this sample is truer than other samples. Especially considering Kobe's age, the entire team's fatigue, and other fixed variables that are being interpreted by both familiar and unfamiliar sources as moveable variables, maybe the Lakers are just about as good as the Nuggets.
I could go on and discuss the hypocrisy of judging a team's merit based on an incredibly small sample size when a much larger sample size is readily available, or the virtue of match-ups, home-court advantage, and the ever-popular "heart", but I think that Phil and Kobe SHOULD be able to answer any questions over the next month.
I do not want to make any predictions, and I do not want to assume anything. All I will say is to my L.A. brethren, you just went 7 games with a team that most likely would be a high lottery pick if they played the entire regular season with their game 7 roster. Of the four teams in the final four right now, none is more fatigued than you, none is under as much pressure as you, and all three are playing better at this stage of the playoffs. Of course this can change drastically and quickly, but instead of basking in the game 7 domination, maybe a quick fan gut-check is in order. Shit-talking to a minimum, concern at an all-time high.