Sports: 2012 NBA Playoffs

2012 NBA Playoffs


It's one of my favorite times of the year for sports:  the start of the NBA playoffs!  This opening weekend is particularly great, with four games each day.  Quite likely, we'll get a taste of what's to come for the rest of the playoffs - or other teams might need some time to get going.  Every year, at least to me, the brackets seem pretty straightforward, at least compared to the NFL playoffs.  This is mostly because, of course, the NBA has best-of-seven series, whereas NFL teams, even heavy favorites, must be at their best each game.  While the longer series takes away some of the drama, the NBA playoffs still have great chess matches, and surprises aplenty.  Last year for example:  who picked the perennial disappointment Hawks to beat the Magic?  Who picked eighth-seed Memphis to take out NBA regular season champs San Antonio?  Who predicted *gulp* the left-for-dead Mavs to sweep my Los Angeles Lakers?  And then who in the world (answer:  no one) predicted the Mavs to beat the Heat in the Finals (how sweet that was...)?


Still, at this point in the 2012 playoffs, before any of the series have begun, I find it difficult to give you many good ideas for upsets.  So, I'll forgo a round-by-round prediction of series - which would be a bit tedious - and instead rank the teams 1-16 for their chances of winning the championship (based on overall quality and potential matchups).  Hopefully, this will be entertaining.




16. Utah Jazz (West - 8th seed)
This is a young team that doesn't have a lot of experience playing together.  Their former star player, Deron Williams, has only been gone about a year, and they're still in transition.  Their frontcourt duo of Jefferson and Millsap is potent, and they won their last five games of the season to make it in - but San Antonio took care of them easily this season, and is a much more cohesive team.  They'll be lucky if they take one game.

15. Dallas Mavericks (West - 7th seed)

It's not often that you see a defending champion this low, but it's appropriate this year.  The team lost key players Chandler and Barea in the offseason, and new acquisition Odom has "parted ways" with the team.  Dirk is having one of the worst seasons of his career, and they rely on old spare parts like Vince Carter and Delonte West.  Oklahoma City is going to get revenge, and they have the ability to really make it hurt - sweep, anyone?

14. Philadelphia 76ers (East - 8th seed)

The 76ers have a solid young foundation that is in its second year together now, and they're led by a great coach.  Unfortunately, Chicago has an even better foundation with an even better coach, and Philly has no one remotely close to matching Derrick Rose's star power.  The only chance the 76ers have is if Rose reinjures himself and the rest of the team gets down on their championship hopes not having him around.  Don't bet on it.

13. New York Knicks (East - 7th seed)

The Knicks have the most potential of any lower seed, based strictly on their roster.  If Lin was healthy, they'd be in even better shape - as it is, they have scoring power in Anthony and Stoudemire and a defensive stopper in Chandler.  Unfortunately, they play the Miami Heat in the first round.  Chandler is known as a Heat-killer, but other than that the matchup is heavily in Miami's favor.  Maybe next year, Knicks fans. 

12. L.A. Clippers (West - 5th seed)

Poor, poor Clippers.  They finally rise from the cellar of the NBA this year and seem on the verge of winning their division.  Only they don't, and they even choke away home court advantage in the first round AND draw the Memphis Grizzlies.  Other than Paul, this team has no playoff experience, and their second best player is useless in clutch situations (Griffin's free-throw shooting).  There's certainly hope for next year, but they face the toughest road to the Finals in the West.

11. Orlando Magic (East - 6th seed)

I suppose that not having Dwight Howard around will perhaps cut down on team strife momentarily.  But otherwise, it's a huge loss.  The Magic were third in the conference for most of the season despite Howard's contract situation (one that made Anthony's from last year look respectful).  Now the Magic literally have no center on their roster, no inside presence to balance their great three-point shooting.  And they have to go on the road to face on of the best pure teams in the NBA.  Not good.

10. Atlanta Hawks (East - 5th seed)

How I love to disparage the Atlanta Hawks.  They've had plenty of talent for years now, but they've completely squandered it with bad coaching and a total lack of discipline.  Last year, though, they surprised me quite a bit by even taking a few games from the Bulls.  This year, they get the Celtics, against whom they played pretty well in the regular season, and they also have home court advantage.  They have a puncher's chance of getting out of the first round, but the Bulls wait for them again.

9. Denver Nuggets (West - 6th seed)

What George Karl has done with this team post-Carmelo Anthony has been amazing.  Their top scorer is Ty Lawson - yes, Ty Lawson - and yet they finished 38-28.  They are the league's highest scoring team, and were quite a handful for the Thunder last year in the first round of the playoffs.  The matchup with the Lakers is one of feast or famine:  if they can dictate the tempo of the games, they can get an upset.  Should they do that, they will be hungry for revenge against the Thunder in the next round.

8. L.A. Lakers (West - 3rd seed)

OK, I have to admit I'm *partly* trying to reverse jinx my favorite team by putting them here.  I think they could be one of the league's best.  They have the pieces:  two seven-footers (Bynum is just a total beast now), a guy who can score at will, a rejuvenated (though suspended) Artest, and - gasp! - a real point guard!  Unfortunately their bench is thin (especially with Barnes stepping in for Artest in the first round), and they just go through frustrating ruts more often these days.  They should beat the Nuggets eventually, but the Thunder are simply better at this point in time.

7. Indiana Pacers (East - 3rd seed)

Yep, I'm down on both three-seeds (more like up on the four-seeds).  I'm very disappointed about the East draw this year.  Had the Celtics and Pacers swapped spots, we could have had Chicago-Indiana and Miami-Boston in the second round - fantastic matchups.  The Pacers are a very good team, for sure.  But they matchup poorly with Miami, which has been tossing them around easily for the most part this year.  The Pacers have to be clicking on all cylinders (no pun intended) and hope that someone steps up at the end of games, but the Heat will have much more margin for error, not to mention home court.

6. Boston Celtics (East - 4th seed)

Here is my first of two jinxes, my job as a Laker fan.  It seems like the Celtics have a hell of a road to the Finals:  they're on the road at all times, first against a tough Atlanta team, then against a bad matchup in the Bulls, then against the mighty Heat.  They should go down in the second round.  But if these old guys start sizzling again like they did in parts of March and April, they can take anyone.  This is the second of two teams that I give an outside shot of making - perhaps winning - the Finals.

5. Memphis Grizzlies (West - 4th seed)

Maybe I'm latching onto their playoff run last year too much.  But they won their final six games of the season, face a great matchup against inexperienced L.A. Clippers in the first round, the team they upset last year for the second round, and the team they almost beat last year in the conference finals.  After the first round, much will hinge on how well Zack Randolph improves.  He was injured much of this year and needs to resume last season's dominating play of the team to go far.  This is a scrappy, tough team, and they will be a tough out against anyone.

... Now for the top championship contenders - surprise, it's the #1 and #2 seeds.

4. Chicago Bulls (East - 1st seed)

The Bulls have done a fantastic job this season of keeping the top seed in the East despite having Rose play in little more than half the games.  But now it is Rose's health - and effectiveness - that will decide their fate.  If he gets hurt again, they could find themselves out in the second round.  If he can match last year's level of play, they could very well get to - and win - the Finals.  If.  It seems so strange that such a rock-solid team would hinge so wildly on one guy.  Without him, they can still consistently beat any but the best in the league.  But even with him, as we saw in last year's playoffs, they might still be helpless against the Miami Heat.

3. San Antonio Spurs (West - 1st seed)

The Spurs are tricky for me to evaluate for the simple reason that I have barely seen them play at all this year.  Tony Parkers is apparently having a career year, Duncan is reviving, and Ginobli is healthier, while they sport a much stronger supporting cast this season than last.  They will have a much easier time getting past the first round this year, but the true trial-by-fire will come against the Grizzlies.  I think we'll likely see in that series whether the Spurs have what it takes or not.  I think they can win that one, but the Thunder simply have too much firepower, and by now they have the experience, too.

2. Oklahoma City Thunder (West - 2nd seed)

Durant is this team's leader, scoring easily, efficiently and in the clutch, and is certainly the second best player in the league.  It will all come down to Batman's Robin - Russell Westbrook.  The guy is insanely talented and can turn a game against anyone into a rout when he's on fire.  But as a point guard, he tends to take way too many shots, and when he's frustrated he can be a detriment to the team. Harden is a fantastic Jason Terry 3.0 off the bench, and Perkins and Ibaka can hold the fort down low against even the Lakers' bigs.  But their fate in the conference finals and beyond will rest in the hands of Russell Westbrook.

1. Miami Heat (East - 2nd seed)

Jinx #2... hopefully.  Simply put, the Miami Heat have the highest ceiling in the league.  LeBron James is the best player in the game, and Dwayne Wade can take over a game at any time, particularly in the clutch (when Miami's Batman tends to shrink).  Bosh can be a potent option if teams focus entirely on James and Wade, and role players like Chalmers, Battier, and Haslem should be good enough to defend the edge given to them by their dynamic duo.  The Heat had another period of doubt this season, giving fans and analysts just enough to make arguments for others winning the title.  True, they didn't win it last year - the Mavs were red hot and LeBron choked to an extent perhaps unequaled in NBA history (to my great, sadistic delight).  But now they're hungrier.  They know how hard it will be.  They know they must anoint themselves champions, rather than let someone do it for them.  And as an NBA fan who still loathes the cowardly concept of the "Dream Team" they enacted in the summer of 2010 (taking what the Celtics did several steps further), I am frightened.

Movies: 21 Jump Street

Score: *** out of *****

Long Story Short: 21 Jump Street is a fairly conventional comedy based on an earlier TV show; two young, polar-opposite cops who band together in an undercover drug sting at a high school. Sadly, there's little spice to this adaptation, with mediocre performances, little creativity, and few big laughs. It's solidly done overall and still entertaining, but you'll also likely forget about it before long.

Now for my second movie review of the year... unfortunately, one month after its release in theaters. Well, hopefully you can either see if you agree with me, or take my review into consideration for a rental/Netflix viewing later. This film, like some others I see in the theater, did not interest me when I saw the trailers. But it got quite positive review on Rotten Tomatoes, so I thought I'd give it a shot; it had been awhile since I'd seen a comedy, anyway. 21 Jump Street (which is based on the late '80s TV show starring Johnny Depp) was directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller and stars Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill.

A very brief introduction shows high school kids Morton (Hill) and Greg (Tatum) as cliched opposites - Morton the quiet nerd and Greg the buffoonish jock. Their paths cross again soon after graduation, however, when they both enroll in the police academy. There they team up to bolster each other's weak spots - Morton's physical training and Greg's procedural knowledge - to join the force. The two are made partners in a low-level role, but their personalities still conflict and it ends up in the debacle of a routine arrest.

Morton and Greg are transferred to a new undercover department housed, appropriately, in an old church. Their first assignment is to enroll in a local high school where a new drug is running rampant and caused a recent fatality. Unfortunately for Morton and Greg, their assigned student identities get switched, so that maintaining their cover becomes quite a bit more difficult. Of course, the two manage to embrace the aspects of high school life that they had previously resisted, and use them to foil the mysterious drug supplier.

There are a number of different ways that a comedy can be successful, and a good cast is one of the most effective. Here, in reflecting my score for the film overall, the result is... eh. Jonah Hill is certainly the more practiced comedian of the pair and his role is also slightly larger in this film. I think he's a good actor (excellent in Moneyball), but he gives a pedestrian, at times even sub-par, performance here. I was rather skeptical of Channing Tatum's presence in this movie, but he does a decent job. It wasn't anything special, but he at least seemed to put more effort in than Hill, and he surpassed my expectations. High schooler Brie Larson as Hill's love interest (kind of a creepy idea) is just kind of there, but dealer Dave Franco is a convincing cool kid asshole. Ellie Kemper (Office) and Rob Riggle (Daily Show) have small but humorous parts as teachers. Ice Cube clearly tries to be funny as the undercover boss, but generally fails. I was excited to see Nick Offerman (Parks & Rec) and Jack Johnson (New Girl) in the cast, too, but they have tiny parts, thus wasting their considerable talents.

A comedy also needs a solid structure, whether it's serious or silly, and either consistent laughs or at least several big ones. 21 Jump Street's story formula is not exactly original, but it's good enough. Tatum fits his part in the mold better than Hill, which obviously has something to do with his better performance, relatively speaking. There are certain parts of the story that are made for laughs; the film cashes in on some of these, but others play out with little creativity or humor. The opening police debacle works, and the ending does not, for example. The drug aspect doesn't get overload attention and jokes, fortunately, but there is a clever use of YouTube-like presentation that works well. On the other hand, there are sadly more instances of attempted humor that falls flat on its face (ie: Hill almost getting his cover blown by a completely oblivious relative) than gut-busting riots - in my opinion.

***

I'm really not sure why 21 Jump Street received all the positive critical praise that it did. It wasn't a bad film either; it was really just a middle of the road comedy, one that skews toward younger viewers but not to an extreme. Case in point, I actually saw this more than a week ago, and had to rely quite a bit more heavily on Wikipedia than usual to remember everything that happens in it. It's solidly done, but there's little to give it the kick in the pants that a comedy needs to really shine: a great star or ensemble, or a creative story, or a few outstanding scenes, etc. Jonah Hill is unable to carry the show alongside comedy newbie Tatum, unlike Will Ferrell's excellent job in The Other Guys pulling along the comically inept Wahlberg. I suppose if you are a particular fan of Hill or Tatum, or if you were a fan of the TV show, I'd go see it. Otherwise, you can do better.

Movies: The Hunger Games

Score: **** out of *****

Long Story Short: The first mega-blockbuster of the year, The Hunger Games kicks off the film franchise of another uber-popular YA book series. This particular series creates some serious balancing challenges with its scenes of youth violence. A PG-13 rating necessitates dilution of some of the series' powerful images and themes, yet opens it to a wider audience. A strong cast overall helps the film create both tension and effective emotion often enough to overcome the compromises made in the translation.

Finally, a new post! Shockingly this is the first new film I've seen in 2012 (although I caught Star Wars: Episode I in 3D). There are a few winter films that I may catch in the dollar theater, and I'll be seeing several more in the near future. This was one I was looking forward to quite a bit, however. I read the series a little over a year ago, and have been quite curious to see how it would be adapted on film. The Hunger Games was directed by Gary Ross and stars Jennifer Lawrence; it is based on the first of a three-book series. Here we go...

The opening scenes of The Hunger Games establish the main character's, Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence), home environment. It is an impoverished, desperate, backward setting where survival itself is a struggle. Katniss' poaching partner Gale is introduced, as well as her little sister Primrose and quiet mother. Katniss' home is one of twelve districts in a future North America, and each year the government randomly selects one boy and one girl from each district between the ages of 12 and 18 as "tributes" for the Hunger Games. Naturally, Katniss ends up going, as does Peeta (Hutcherson), a quiet but affable baker's son.

The teens are amazed when they see the Capitol for the first time - a place of far greater prosperity than their own district, and one that flaunts it to extravagant extremes. Katniss and Peeta get a few days to prepare for the Hunger Games under the half-drunken, sour supervision of former champion Haymitch (Harrelson). Katniss and Peeta are filled with dread for the coming Games, which they have been forced to watch all their lives: a death match of twenty-four children in an enclosed environment, with unseen "gamemakers" providing additional new peril at random for entertainment. Katniss gains widespread popularity and sympathy even before the Games begin, however, and soon becomes a symbol of hope around whom more and more people rally.

It's always interesting to compare one's impression of a character on the written page to the actors that have been chosen to represent them on film. In my opinion, there are mostly hits here, with a few misses. While Jennifer Lawrence looks quite a bit older than Katniss' 16 years, and is far less scrawny as I thought she would be, she conveys the more important personality traits appropriately. She dives into Katniss, the strong, independent girl who is often withdrawn and sometimes moody; she also reveals her as the scared little girl in over her head at times, yet fiercely loyal to those close to her. Co-star Josh Hutcherson as Peeta is even a slightly better fit (a younger actor, he looks his part better), portraying a quiet, affable boy who is comfortable in front of a crowd but believably awkward around Katniss. Stanley Tucci as the flamboyant media star Caesar is my favorite of the bunch, improving on the character from the book. Elizabeth Banks also shines as Effie; it could have been easy to exaggerate the part. Donald Snow as President Snow and Amandla Stenberg as little Rue are also well cast.

Not all the parts are successful. I enjoy Woody Harrelson, but not his watered-down version of Haymitch. In the first book, at least, this grouchy old guy is flat out unlikeable, though he's still a good character. Woody, in part due to the script, plays him as a grump but one who attaches to Katniss and Peeta too quickly. Liam Hemsworth as Gale is just awful - not only does he look ten or more years older than his character, but his acting is Twilight-esque. Fortunately he has little screen time. Lenny Kravitz plays Cinna as a bit too cool in my opinion, but nothing terrible.

What I was most curious about with the film adaptation of The Hunger Games, of course, was how they were going to portray the disturbing violence among minors. The books do not hand out bloodless, fairy-tale demises, to put it mildly. Overall, I give the film a positive rating in balancing tension and the idea of kids fighting to the death with taste. The actual events are pretty faithful to the book, if considerably accelerated; the tree scene was done particularly well. This is certainly not meant for little kids, but it's certainly well within the realm of its PG-13 rating (relatively little bloodshed, etc.). There are plenty of moments well-set up for considerable emotion involvement in the story. These are done well early in the film, in addition to one case involving another one of the tributes, but not all work so well. The book provided a few more laughs than the film, which helped the mood yet didn't interfere with the overall tone. The parts of the score that happened to register to me were inventive and effective.

***

It took me a while to decide on a score for this one. It's always difficult to assess a film on its own merits when you've previously read the book that it's based on. I actually thought about giving it a slightly lower score, but settled on four stars. On the downside, and I'm being a little unkind here, I think a significantly more effective adaptation could have been done if they made it rated R (of course, then it wouldn't have made over $150 million on its first weekend). Yes, many of the series' fans are early teens and younger - but the themes and images are potent and disturbing (yet somewhat easier to take in print). The dilution of certain scenes not only reduced gore but also numbed the truth, however horrific. But from the perspective of a general movie fan, I am pleased that a creative new franchise like this can have action, emotion, politics and some great characters, and yet still be successful. So while a PG-13 adaptation prevents it from reaching four and a half stars, its place among contemporary blockbusters puts it well above the average.