Holidays, New Years, and Such
If I were any other blogger, this is where I would say "So, I haven't posted in a while" and then justify my non-posting with a laundry list of activities that have kept me busy. Instead, though, I'll write a sentence about how it's a general trend among bloggers to start off with "So, I haven't posted in a while" and then...you get the point.
Christmas was rad, I guess. I got around 18 books, some stupid shit I didn't need/want, and, best of all, a Pau Gasol jersey from my dad. It's resting across the back of a chair in my room, ready at a moment's notice to be worn, for any occasion. Or, more likely (as has been the case), to be put on for a short strut around the house, and then promptly removed after getting all kinds of hell for it. (Little do they know: I wear it in my room 'cause it's freakin' cool, man.)
The Lakers, ahem, beat the Celtics Christmas Day, which may have eclipsed the Gasol jersey in terms of "Best Gift Ever"; the jersey might win out, however, because, unlike the Lakers Over-the-Celtics win, I can wear it and feel awesome. The game, specifically, was a blast, mainly because it didn't seem to be one officiating error after another, which tends to ruin the pleasure of watching the game while diminishing its relevance in judging teams.
I have a friend who argues that the refs (for David Stern) made the Celtics win last year in the finals. He actually went so far as to say that the Lakers, as a team, were paid off to lose dramatically. His prediction, now, is that this year the Lakers will beat the Celtics in a rematch, garnering a ratings bananza.
While I would agree that we don't know all the facts about NBA officiating and that even if nothing ill is occurring, Stern and Co. are doing a good job producing a public perspective that views the situation differently. I wish officiating was more transparent, or rather, transparent at all. But there's no evidence to suggest that the Lakers were paid off; it's an incredible claim, to say the least. My friend's main reference point was that the Lakers were so dominant in Western playoff bracket that their collapse in the Finals can't be explained. I should address this seperately.
The Lakers, to that point, had yet to face a defense that was focused on shutting down the ability of a single player to dominate. The Nuggets didn't play defense at the time. The Jazz played defense only inside of Utah, and the Spurs don't play the same defense as the Celtics; they don't focus on shutting down single-player domination, but rather aim to disrupt the entire offensive system.
The two times the Lakers faced the Celtics in the regular season, Kobe couldn't make buckets, the scoring was lopsided, and the Celtics dismantled the Lakers easily. And this was because their defense is structured so that players like Dwayne Wade, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and Joe Johnson can't single-handedly propel their respective teams to wins. Now, it's not fullproof nor is it effective in every situation, but it works a very respectable amount of the time. Hence, the Lakers collapse in the Finals (which was due to more than just defensive structure, but this is the crux). So it's a bit absurd, and a little misinformed, to flat-out assert that the Lakers collapse can't be explained.
So while I agree that the NBA's lack of transparency should make us suspicious, I'm not ready to defend a view that thinks everything is conceived, but it's an issue I'm constantly rethinking and researching, if only because information is hard to come by. Also, the discussion is much broader than just "refs make bad calls because David Stern says so" but I'm not going to go into an analytical treatise on the subject (even though it sounds fun).
New Year's was fun. Keith, Brian, and myself got some food, drank some tasty beer, and played Halo 3 all night. Now, that doesn't sound your typical New Year's bash, but it's no big deal. I'm unconvinced that New Year's Eve has to be inundated with crazy partying and slosh-fests. In fact, I see it as merely another reason to have giant parties, but not a day on which you must have a party. Also, it seems strange that we do the same things at bars as we do in someone's living room, but somehow, a bar is more preferable. I'm still unsure as to why this is the case, especially if your group of friends doesn't interact all that often with strangers. I can see a case being made for the bar, but overall, the activities and the conversation are the same. It seems, though, that people are less willing to have fun in someone's living room than at a bar. Who knows.
That's about all for now. School starts in two weeks or something, so I guess that's soon or whatever. I'm taking a billion classes, it seems, and will be reading something like 600 pages each week, along with constant French work. So that should be fun...I guess.
Christmas was rad, I guess. I got around 18 books, some stupid shit I didn't need/want, and, best of all, a Pau Gasol jersey from my dad. It's resting across the back of a chair in my room, ready at a moment's notice to be worn, for any occasion. Or, more likely (as has been the case), to be put on for a short strut around the house, and then promptly removed after getting all kinds of hell for it. (Little do they know: I wear it in my room 'cause it's freakin' cool, man.)
The Lakers, ahem, beat the Celtics Christmas Day, which may have eclipsed the Gasol jersey in terms of "Best Gift Ever"; the jersey might win out, however, because, unlike the Lakers Over-the-Celtics win, I can wear it and feel awesome. The game, specifically, was a blast, mainly because it didn't seem to be one officiating error after another, which tends to ruin the pleasure of watching the game while diminishing its relevance in judging teams.
I have a friend who argues that the refs (for David Stern) made the Celtics win last year in the finals. He actually went so far as to say that the Lakers, as a team, were paid off to lose dramatically. His prediction, now, is that this year the Lakers will beat the Celtics in a rematch, garnering a ratings bananza.
While I would agree that we don't know all the facts about NBA officiating and that even if nothing ill is occurring, Stern and Co. are doing a good job producing a public perspective that views the situation differently. I wish officiating was more transparent, or rather, transparent at all. But there's no evidence to suggest that the Lakers were paid off; it's an incredible claim, to say the least. My friend's main reference point was that the Lakers were so dominant in Western playoff bracket that their collapse in the Finals can't be explained. I should address this seperately.
The Lakers, to that point, had yet to face a defense that was focused on shutting down the ability of a single player to dominate. The Nuggets didn't play defense at the time. The Jazz played defense only inside of Utah, and the Spurs don't play the same defense as the Celtics; they don't focus on shutting down single-player domination, but rather aim to disrupt the entire offensive system.
The two times the Lakers faced the Celtics in the regular season, Kobe couldn't make buckets, the scoring was lopsided, and the Celtics dismantled the Lakers easily. And this was because their defense is structured so that players like Dwayne Wade, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and Joe Johnson can't single-handedly propel their respective teams to wins. Now, it's not fullproof nor is it effective in every situation, but it works a very respectable amount of the time. Hence, the Lakers collapse in the Finals (which was due to more than just defensive structure, but this is the crux). So it's a bit absurd, and a little misinformed, to flat-out assert that the Lakers collapse can't be explained.
So while I agree that the NBA's lack of transparency should make us suspicious, I'm not ready to defend a view that thinks everything is conceived, but it's an issue I'm constantly rethinking and researching, if only because information is hard to come by. Also, the discussion is much broader than just "refs make bad calls because David Stern says so" but I'm not going to go into an analytical treatise on the subject (even though it sounds fun).
New Year's was fun. Keith, Brian, and myself got some food, drank some tasty beer, and played Halo 3 all night. Now, that doesn't sound your typical New Year's bash, but it's no big deal. I'm unconvinced that New Year's Eve has to be inundated with crazy partying and slosh-fests. In fact, I see it as merely another reason to have giant parties, but not a day on which you must have a party. Also, it seems strange that we do the same things at bars as we do in someone's living room, but somehow, a bar is more preferable. I'm still unsure as to why this is the case, especially if your group of friends doesn't interact all that often with strangers. I can see a case being made for the bar, but overall, the activities and the conversation are the same. It seems, though, that people are less willing to have fun in someone's living room than at a bar. Who knows.
That's about all for now. School starts in two weeks or something, so I guess that's soon or whatever. I'm taking a billion classes, it seems, and will be reading something like 600 pages each week, along with constant French work. So that should be fun...I guess.
0 erotic poetry prompts:
Post a Comment