2007 NBA Draft Notes

4:36 – The Portland Trailblazers take Greg Oden #1, as everyone already knew. One can’t help but make Bill Walton comparisons with Oden. Hopefully he won’t have the injury problems that Walton did.

4:39 – Stephen A. Smith is the most annoying analyst I’ve ever heard. “You can’t teach 7 feet.” What does that even mean? Arrgh.

4:41 – Just announced – the Sonics trade Ray Allen for the #5 pick, and select Kevin Durant 2^nd overall. This is just awesome news. The Sonics are going to take Jeff Green 5^th overall, and they get Wally Szczerbiak and Delonte West in the trade as well. It’s a great way to rebuild the team around Durant. The Sonics, I’m assuming, are going to start Durant, Green, Watson and Wilcox. Still need another guard though…I don’t see how a Watson, Ridnour combo at guard would work. Collison, I’m assuming, will be on the bench. I guess the Sonics could go with Watson, Durant, Green, Wilcox, and Collison…playing Green as a 2 and Durant as a 3. It would be a small lineup but there’s no way they score fewer than 100 points a game that way.

4:48 – The Hawks take Al Horford third…so this is like…I dunno…the 14^th year in a row that the Hawks have selected a power forward…when Mike Conley was there for the taking...This is like the Hawks passing on Chris Paul all over again.

4:52 – Memphis takes Mike Conley, the best player available, 4^th overall. Great pick by the Grizzlies.

4:57 – Boston takes Jeff Green, who will go to Seattle with West and Szczerbiak, for Ray Allen. I am seriously pumped right now. With Durant and Green, there is finally a chance to save basketball in Seattle (although I do have some issues with Green…his no show in the final four amongst other things).

5:04 – Milwaukee takes Yi Jianlian 6^th overall…this is a bad pick all the way around…first off Milwaukee took a big man, Andrew Bogut, first overall just two years ago. Secondly, Yi was opposed to playing in a city that wasn’t a big market…last time I checked Milwaukee wasn’t a big market. Or a medium market. It’s gonna be hard for the Bucks to sign Yi.

5:10 – The more I think about it, the more I’m bummed out that we didn’t get ANY potentially great players from Boston (other than Green of course). Sczcerbiak is essentially a 6^th man at best with a huge salary ($11.775 M next year). West is a fairly young kid who could end up being a good starter, but probably won’t. With Sczcerbiak’s contract, I’m sure Seattle will try him out as the 2 guard, but I don’t know how long that will last. Opening day lineup for Seattle will probably be Watson, West, Green, Durant, Wilcox; Watson, Sczcerbiak, Green, Durant, Wilcox; or West, Sczcerbiak, Green, Durant, Wilcox.

5:11 – The T-Wolves take Corey Brewer 7^th overall, an alright pick, but I don’t think he’s going to turn into the superstar that a lot of people think he will.

5:17 – Let’s see how badly MJ messes up yet another franchise with the 8^th pick.

5:18 – The Charlotte MJ’s select Brandan Wright 8^th overall. A surprisingly good pick. I think Wright has a chance to be a really great player in the league.

5:20 – Chicago is on the clock. Grab Noah. Grab Noah. Grab Noah. Grab Noah. If Chicago takes Noah, they are instantaneously the team to beat in the East.

5:23 – Stephen A just threw out Spencer Hawes’ name as a potential draft choice by Chicago. Take my word as someone who followed Hawes at UW last year: don’t.

5:24 – NOAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5:25 – The Bulls officially earn the right to be the Eastern Conference team to get swept by a Western Conference team in the 2008 NBA Finals.

5:32 – Sacramento took Hawes 10^th overall. Upside potential. That’s the worst thing you can draft on in the NBA. How often has a player with “upside potential” panned out? Not often.

Rule #1: Don’t draft on upside potential

Rule #2: Don’t draft tall, white guys

The Kings broke both of those rules. Jay Bilas: “You can’t get caught up on a couple of things he doesn’t do well.” You can’t? Why not? If they are important things (and I’m pretty sure blocking and rebounding are important for centers), then you can most certainly get caught up on them.

5:38 – Whoa. Atlanta just took Acie Law IV 11^th overall. I totally did not expect Law to go in the lottery. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a great pick. I absolutely love Law, and I’m absolutely shocked that Atlanta made a pick that makes sense. I still probably would have gone with Mike Conley 3^rd and someone like Julian Wright 11^th, but the Law pick makes the Horford pick at 3 make far more sense.

5:41 – The Atlanta Hawks’ new jerseys are horrible. Just horrible. Why, oh why, do teams do things like this?

5:46 – Philadelphia takes Thaddeus Young from Georgia Tech? What? Billy King is officially the worst GM in the NBA. I can’t wait to read what Bill Simmons writes about this.

6:00 – Had to be away for a bit…I come back to find New Orleans take Julian Wright 13^th (great pick) and the Clips take Al Thornton (great pick). So far only one truly atrocious pick has been made (Thaddeus Young) and, of course, the most atrocious GM of them all made the pick.

6:05 – STUCKEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

6:05 – Detroit makes my favorite non-Seattle move of the draft so far, taking E. Washington’s Rodney Stuckey 15^th overall. Rodney Stuckey is a guy who can energize an old, tired Pistons team.

6:10 – The Wizards take Nick Young from USC 16^th overall. Not sure if this is a good pick. I think Young is wildly overrated.

6:14 – The Knicks have agreed to trade Steve Francis and Channing Frye to the Trailblazers for Zach Randolph, Dan Dickau, and Dan Jones. Let me just say…what a horrible trade for the Blazers. Why would they do this? Why would they want to put Stevie Franchise around Greg Oden? Why would you trade Randolph for…at most…50 cents on the dollar? I honestly don’t understand this at all. Easily the worst move in the draft so far. Great job by Isaiah Thomas though…wow never thought I would say that.

6:16 – The Nets take Sean Williams 17^th overall. Classic “guy with personal problems but great talent” pick. Definitely a risk to take at #17.

6:22 – Golden State takes Marco Belinelli 18^th overall. I don’t know much about Belinelli, who is from Italy, so I’m not sure whether or not he is a good pick at this slot.

6:27 – The draft has really begun to slow down…great entertainment for the first 2 hours or so, but now it’s really bogging up. I want Stephen A to stop speaking. Seriously.

6:28 – Mark Jackson just pulled a “you’ve got some ‘splaining to do” on the Los Angeles Lakers. High five very nice!

6:29 – The Lakers take Javaris Crittenton from Georgia Tech 19^th overall. Good pick for L.A.

6:35 – Miami takes Jason Smith out of Colorado State 20^th overall. Smith is a big, solid power forward. He has a nice 10 foot jumper and he’s very basketball smart. Oh, and he’s white. Gotta throw that in there right?

6:38 – Interview with GM Mitch Kupchak: “I have no power. Jerry Buss controls everything I do. Shoot me. Shoot me now.”

6:41 – Philadelphia’s 2^nd pick of the 1^st round – they take Daequan Cook from Ohio State…Rich Bucher is reporting that Philadelphia is trading Cook and cash to Miami for Jason Smith…umm this is weird. Why wouldn’t Miami just take Cook at 20? The owner needs the extra money or something? Very strange stuff. Oh…and of course…Billy King is an idiot.

6:45 – Yay! Charlotte’s on the clock! Another MJ pick! Gotta love the MJ picks! (Cut to Kwame Brown crying in a corner somewhere).

6:47 – The Charlotte MJ’s take Jared Dudley! Amazing! MJ makes a pick that doesn’t suck! Again! I’m stunned!

6:51 – According to Spike Lee, “Zeke knows what he’s doing.” Nuff said.

6:52 – The Knicks select Wilson Chandler from DePaul as the 23^rd pick. Spike was right.

6:58 – Phoenix drafts Rudy Fernandez from Spain as the 24^th pick. Once again, I don’t know much about European players. Bucher is reporting that Fernandez may go to Portland in a trade.

7:05 – The Jazz take Morris Almond from Rice as the 25^th pick. I like Almond a lot. A 6’6” 2 guard who can score. Not the best defensive player, but a guy who will be able to average 12 points per game right out of the gate.

7:06 – I’m kind of hoping that Josh McRoberts falls to #31 so Seattle can grab another big guy. I’m not a huge McRoberts fan, but he’ll be a solid backup, and he’s a name that anyone following basketball has heard of. Oh, and he’s white. I want either McRoberts or Afflalo for Seattle. Hopefully we can get one.

7:13 – Somehow I missed the 26^th pick. Shows how much I’m paying attention at this point. The Rockets drafted Aaron Brooks out of Oregon. I like the pick, as Brooks was very good in his years at Oregon.

7:17 – Reports of talks between Seattle and P.J. Carlesimo to be Seattle’s new head coach. Personally, I’d prefer Rick Carlisle.

7:19 – Detroit takes Aaron Afflalo with the 27^th pick. Damn…I was hoping he dropped to Seattle. Good pick by Detroit though (maybe a little high, but still a good pick).

7:30 – Alright I missed #28 too…don’t really care…Phoenix just picked Alondo Tucker at #29…I’m zoning out here. Probably won’t write too much more. Just the Seattle pick and then anything after that I find remotely interesting.

7:45 – Getting ready for Seattle’s 2^nd round pick. Seattle selects Carl Landry from Purdue. I’m very disappointed in this pick. We don’t need another undersized forward. With guys like McRoberts, “Big Baby” Davis and Nick Fazekas out there, I’m bummed that we went with Landry.

7:46 – YES!!!!! MJ makes the HORRIBLE move I’ve been waiting for!!!! Trading Brandan Wright for Jason Richardson???? WHAT IN THE HELL??? MJ is seriously making a run at Billy King and ‘Zeke to be the worst GM in the NBA…and he’s not even a GM!

8:08 – Alright I’m done. Nothing else interesting is happening. I’m going to play Zoo Tycoon 2 now, because I’m awesome like that.

Top 10 Film Actresses of all-time

1. Katharine Hepburn
2. Meryl Streep
3. Bette Davis
4. Ingrid Bergman
5. Geraldine Page
6. Olivia de Havilland
7. Jane Fonda
8. Jessica Lange
9. Greer Garson
10. Maggie Smith

This is my list of who I consider to be the 10 greatest film actresses of all-time. There are many actresses in this current era of film who are simply too young to have compiled the oeuvre of the actresses listed below (Kate Winslet being the best example - she is probably in the next 10, and is only an oscar win and a nomination or two away from jumping into the top 10). There are actresses who did most of their work overseas, and as such it is very difficult to objectively judge them in comparison with actors who worked in the United States (Liv Ullman being the best example I can think of here). Then there are actresses who are still working, but experiencing a lull in the quality of their work (Jodie Foster is the prime example here - she is clearly in the top 20, and 15 years ago anyone making a list like this would have guaranteed her arrival on it within five years. She is still only one or two great performances away from jumping into the top 10, but she needs to get serious about her acting again if she's going to do it).

I am completely convinced that the top four on this list are the four greatest film actresses of all-time. No one can convince me otherwise. Katharine Hepburn has to be #1. There is no other way around it. Hepburn won 4 oscars, and was nominated for 12 academy awards in all. The most impressive thing about her 12 nominations is that all 12 were for "best actress in a leading role." Meryl Streep may have had more nominations, but not more "leading role" nominations. Go through Hepburn's list of films, her work is mind blowing: "Bringing Up Baby," "Holiday," "The Philadelphia Story," "The African Queen," "Suddenly, Last Summer," "Long Day's Journey Into Night." Those are films she didn't win oscars for. Hepburn is the Sugar Ray Robinson of actresses: she's the best ever and it's difficult to even present an argument stating differently.

Meryl Streep is #2 on my list, although really Streep, Davis and Bergman could be 2a, 2b, and 2c. I gave Streep the nod based on her 14 oscar nominations (11 as a leading lady) and 2 wins (a leading win for "Sophie's Choice" and a supporting win for "Kramer vs. Kramer"). Other classic Streep films include "The Deer Hunter," "Adaptation," and "Silkwood."

Bette Davis won 2 oscars (for "Dangerous" in 1936 and "Jezebel" in 1939) and was nominated for 11 overall. As with Hepburn, all of Davis' nominations were for lead roles. Her best performances were in the classic "All About Eve" and the eery and disturbing "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?"

Ingrid Bergman won 3 oscars (for "Gaslight," "Anastasia," and "Murder on the Orient Express"). She was nominated for 7 in total, 6 in a leading role ("Murder on the Orient Express" was a supporting nod). Her greatest role, however, came in "Casablanca," quite possibly the best film ever made. Throw in a great performance in Alfred Hitchcock's "Notorious" and "Spellbound" and Ingmar Bergman's "Autumn Sonota" and (Ingrid) Bergman is clearly one of the top 4 actresses of all-time.

After Hepburn, Streep, Davis, and Bergman, the list gets a little more difficult to put together. I could see any of the #5-8 group switched around in any order. I could see #9-10 off the list altogether.

I put Geraldine Page at #5 because she was nominated for 8 oscars, won 1, and perservered through 32 years and 7 nominations before finally winning for "The Trip to Bountiful" in 1985. Her performance in Woody Allen's "Interiors" is brilliant. She managed to take average movies like "White Nights" and "The Pope of Greenwich Village" and make them more than watchable. Page also happened to be the best actress John Wayne ever worked with in "Hondo."

Olivia de Havilland is my personal favorite actress of all-time and she quite possibly deserves to be ranked higher on this list than she already is (I purposefully put her as low as I felt was justifiably possible because of my bias towards her). de Havilland was nominated for 5 oscars and won 2 (for "To Each His Own" and "The Heiress"). Her most memorable performances, however, were as Melanie "Gone With the Wind" and Maid Marian in "The Adventures of Robin Hood," two of the best films ever made.

Jane Fonda, #7 on the list, was nominated for 7 oscars, winning 2 for "Klute" and "Coming Home." However (maybe you are beginning to see a trend here), her best roles came in the classic "On Golden Pond" (with Katharine Hepburn) and "The China Syndrome." Of course, who could forget the brilliance of my personal favorite movie of all time, "Barbarella"?

Jessica Lange won 2 oscars, for "Tootsie" and "Blue Sky." She was nominated 6 times, including twice in 1983. My favorite Jessica Lange film is "Big Fish." It was probably not her best performance, but watching the film, one notices the subtleness with which she can portray virtually any emotion. I particularly enjoyed her in "Cape Fear" as well.

Greer Garson won the oscar for William Wyler's "Mrs. Miniver." She was nominated for 7 oscars. Her best role was probably in Mervyn LeRoy's "Random Harvest" as Paula Ridgeway. Garson was also excellent as Elizabeth Bennett in the 1940 version of "Pride and Prejudice" (although Keira Knightley blew Garson out of the water relatively recently). Garson put together a long, solid career, although I wouldn't expect to see her on this list more than 5 years from now. One could probably convince me to take her off the list today (along with Maggie Smith), given a strong argument.

Dame Maggie Smith was in a battle with Dame Judi Dench for the final spot on this list. Smith won out based on a more robust career resume than Dench (although Dench has clearly been the better performer over the last 10 years). Smith won 2 oscars, for "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" and "California Suite." She was brilliant as Desdemona in Laurence Olivier's "Othello" (although I must admit watching Olivier in "blackface," in 1965 no less, is kind of disturbing...also, if one doesn't know that this version is simply a filmed play, they could be very confused). Smith put on another great performance in Robert Altman's "Gosford Park." And who could forget her role as Granny Wendy in "Hook" or Minerva McGonagall in the "Harry Potter" series?

There needs to be a special mention here for Falconetti, a theater actress in the early 1900s. She made only one film, "The Passion of Joan of Arc," but her performance in that film is so brilliant that many critics, including Roger Ebert, have called it the greatest performance in the history of film. Watch "The Passion" and you will understand why.

Review: Shooter

Shooter is a poor man's Bourne Identity. There is no other way to say it. At times, Shooter can be very entertaining. Too often though, the film is brought down by cliched scene after cliched scene. Movies with preposterous plots can often be fun to watch, and indeed the Bourne movies are good examples of this. The plot, however, must be infused with solid storytelling and some kind of character arc if the movie is to stand a chance of being worthwhile. Director Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, King Arthur) is so intent on making its action sequences work (and they do work more often than not) that he forgets what is the main purpose of any film: to tell a story.

There isn't much of a story in Shooter that we haven't seen or watched a million times before, and Fuqua does nothing to make it different or unique. The difference, I guess, is that this time the hero, Bob Lee Swagger (Mark Wahlberg), is a sniper. Swagger, you see, is the best sniper in the world. He worked for the government in this role with his best buddy Donnie Fenn (Lane Garrison) as his spotter. When Fenn is killed during an "unofficial" mission, Swagger quits his job and goes into seclusion. Two years later, give or take, Col. Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover) visits Swagger at his log cabin home in the mountains of Wyoming. You see, the president is going to be the target of an assassination attempt by a sniper at one of his speaking engagements some time in the next week. Only Swagger can stop it, because Swagger is the best sniper in the world, and he would know how to do assassinate the president, and where it would be done. If the plot sounds preposterously preposterous to begin with, you would be correct. Swagger, who is well trained in counter-intel but can't smell a set-up coming from a mile away (if there was a legitimate assassination threat to the president, would he be allowed to go to public speaking engagements? I think not), reluctantly agrees to help Johnson stop the would-be assassin. Of course, as everyone who has watched a preview knows, it is a set-up. Swagger is shot, almost killed, and framed to make it look as though he was the man who assassinated the archbishop. No that isn't a typo. The archbishop was in fact the one who was assassinated (for reasons I'm still not exactly clear of). It has something to do with mass graves in some African nation. But you see where this is going.

Shooter is cliche after cliche after cliche. Following the cliched set-up, there is the obligatory "evade the cops" sequence. Swagger retreats to the house of Sarah Fenn (Kate Mara), the widow of his best buddy, where, despite the fact that Swagger is all over the news depicted as the assassin, he convinces her within 90 seconds to let him in. Oh, I smell another cliche. Yep, it's the "pick up the phone and call 911 when the hero is busy, then change your mind and hang up" scene. Of course, there are a couple of Mark Wahlberg shirtless scenes. Fortunately, Fuqua wasn't tasteless enough to turn the Swagger-Mara relationship into a romantic one. Hooking up with your dead best friend's wife, now that just ain't right.

There are plenty of more cliches in this film, including the nosy young FBI agent Nick Memphis (Mark Wahlberg). He smells a cover-up, and does everything he can to find out the truth, regardless of what his superiors tell him. If you are picturing Jack Bauer right now...don't. Picture someone who is the opposite of Jack Bauer. Picture a complete wimp who doesn't look or act like he could hurt a high school sophomore. Now picture him as an FBI agent. Doesn't work, does it? Neither does much else in Shooter.

Shooter does get some things right. The action sequences are all entertaining to some degree, although there are cliches abound even there (slow motion walk away from a gian explosion, anyone?). Mark Wahlberg, to his credit, is very fun to watch in a role even as one-dimensional as this. Wahlberg, as he showed in the far superior film The Departed, is very good at playing a kick ass, take names, ask questions later kind of guy. He does it very well in this film, and most scenes that include Wahlberg and a gun work.

Danny Glover, on the other hand, is horrible to watch in this film. It's pretty clear he's not trying and he doesn't really give a damn. At times, his voice is so muffled it's very difficult to hear what he is saying. Glover was just here for the money, which I'm sure he must have figured out pretty quickly after reading the script. As good as he was in Dreamgirls, Glover is equally bad here.

There isn't much else to say about the other actors in Shooter. Watching Pena act is a horror film unto itself. I really don't understand why he was cast for his role. It just didn't work at all. Elias Koteas, one of the great "his face looks familiar but what's his name again?" guys of cinema, is solid as enforcer Jack Payne. Mara has a nothing role, so there is no real reason to comment on her acting. Ned Beatty does an excellent job of playing a corrupt senator from Montana.

Shooter is a film that at times can be quite entertaining. However, as a whole, Shooter simply misses the mark. I would feel bad about using a cliche to end my review, but in a film with character names like "Bob Lee Swagger," "Nick Memphis," and "Jack Payne," I feel I have the right to end my review however I would like.

Great Sports Figures: Bill Russell

Bill Russell is the greatest winner in the history of major American team sports. Period. There is no debate about it. In thirteen professional seasons, Russell led his Celtics to 11 NBA Championships (including two as a player-coach). A dominant defender and rebounder (a dominant blocker as well, although statistics for blocked shots were not kept during his playing career) and a more than capable scorer, Russell was at the center (literally and figuratively) of the great Celtics dynasty of the late 50s and 60s. After legendary Celtics coach Red Auerbach retired following the 1965-66 season (in which the Celtics won their 8th consecutive title), Russell was handed the reigns to the team, thus becoming the first black coach of a major sports team. Russell was just as successful winning as a coach (at least in Boston), leading the Celtics to two more championships in three seasons before retiring himself following the 1968-69 season.

Russell stood at 6 feet, 9 inches and weighed 215 lbs.
Only average height for a center in the 60s, Russell would be dwarfed by many of the centers of the modern era (Shaquille O'Neal, for example, is 7'1" and well over 300 lbs). What Russell lacked in size he more than made up for with tenacious defense and an incredible wing span. Born on February 12, 1934 in Monroe, Louisiana, Russell attended college at the University of San Francisco. It was there that his basketball ability gained national attention. In Russell's three seasons at San Francisco, he averaged 20.7 points and 20.3 rebounds, exceptional numbers even in that time period, while shooting 52% from the field.

Red Auerbach wanted badly to have Russell on the Celtics, for he knew that Russell was the key to unlocking the championship door for his team. The St. Louis (now Atlanta) Hawks picked Russell 2nd overall in the 1956 NBA draft. Auerbach, in what was considered a bold move at the time, traded all-star center and future HOFer Ed Macauley to the Hawks in return for Russell. The 1956 draft would indeed be the beginning of the Celtics dynasty, as Auerbach selected Tommy Heinsohn just 4 picks after Russell, then selected K.C. Jones in round 2. Both Heinsohn and Jones (as well as Macauley) are possible "great players" subjects in the future. Russell, Heinsohn, and Jones along with Bill Sharman and Bob Cousy, would form the core of the first teams of the Celtic dynasty.

Russell was a dominating force from the first moment he stepped on an NBA court. Russell made it resoundingly clear on which end of the court he would dominate most: defense. Though most stats were not recorded during Russell's era, rebounds certainly were. Russell averaged an incredible 19.6 rebounds per game in his rookie season. He would average a solid 14.7 points per game as well, despite the fact that he wasn't the first scoring option (or second for that matter) on the team. In fact, that would be Russell's philosophy his entire career: dominate on defense, let the other guys do it offense, then if they can't get it done dominate on offense as well. Of course, the "other guys" on Russell's teams were usually a bunch of future hall of famers, so they could get it done pretty well most nights.

Russell's defensive dominance would only grow as the years went on. For 10 consecutive years beginning in 1957-58, Russell would average over 20 rebounds per game: 22.7, 23.0, 24.0, 23.9, 23.6, 23.6, 24.7, 24.1, 22.8, and 21.0 respectively. Russell would tail off in his final two seasons to a "paltry" 18.6 and 19.3 rebounds per game.

Russell became a better scorer as well. Traditionally, it is thought that Russell's best scoring year came during the 1961-62 season, when he averaged a career-high 18.9 ppg. A closer look at the numbers, however, show that he was just as effective a scorer as early as the 1957-58 season. Russell averaged 16.6 ppg that season, but he also played far fewer minutes (38.3 mpg compared with 45.2 mpg during the 61-62 season). On a "points per 40 minutes" scale, Russell actually averaged more points in 57-58 than he did in 61-62: 17.3 to 16.7.

Russell was not a great passer early in his career, averaging only 1.8 assists per game in his rookie season. He became a far better passer as his career went on, however, and by the end of his career he was one of the best passing centers in the history of the NBA. Russell averaged 5.8 apg during the 1966-67 season, a very high rate for a center in any era.

Russell, for his career, averaged 15.1 points, 22.5 rebounds, and 4.3 assists per game, while averaging an incredibly high 42.3 minutes per game and shooting 44% from the field (a high number at that time). Most importantly though, he led his team to 11 NBA championships in 13 seasons.

Think about that...11 championships in 13 season. Think of the most modern sports dynasties: The Yankees of the 90s, the Bulls of the 90s, and the Patriots of...well...right now. The Yankees won 4 world championships in 5 years between 1996-2000. But guess what, they haven't won one since and they have only made it back to the World Series twice. The Chicago Bulls are the only modern dynasty you can legitimately compare to the Celtics, as Michael Jordan led them to 6 championships in 8 years. Many will argue that had Jordan not briefly retired following the 1992-1993 season, the Bulls would have won 8 straight titles. I happen to agree. But Russell's Celtics did win 8 straight titles - then after their streak was broken they won two more (not to mention the one title they won two years before the streak of 8 began). There is no way in hell Jordan's teams would have done that. Tom Brady's Patriots team won three Super Bowls in the span of four years (2001-2004), which is impressive, but once again, nowhere near the Celtics dynasty.

What I am getting at is this: Bill Russell was the most important piece of the puzzle and the on court leader of the greatest team ever assembled. For that reason and that reason alone, throwing statistics completely out of the equation, Russell deserves to be recognized as the one of the greatest sports figures of all-time.

But, just for fun, let me throw some final stats at you:

*12-time all-star (aka every season after his rookie year)
*5-time most valuable player (only MJ has received more)
*4-time rebounding champ (he finished 2nd six other times to Wilt Chamberlain, the greatest statistical player in NBA history)
*3 All-NBA First Teams (8 All-NBA second teams, once again thanks to "Wilt the Stilt")
*Made the inaugural All-Defense 1st team in his final season
*Finished in the top 10 in assists per game 5 times
*Became the first black coach to lead a team to a major American sports championship

Oh yeah, and he won 11 NBA championships in 13 seasons.

Review: Reign Over Me

What an inconsistent yet ultimately powerful film this is. Mike Binder's Reign Over Me attempts to reach the levels of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest with its story of friendship, internal pain, and most importantly mental illness. While it doesn't quite reach that plateau, Reign Over Me still manages to be emotionally moving and, as of March 26, is one of the best movies of 2007.

Make no mistake about it, Reign Over Me is first and foremost about one man's mental illness, stemming from the tragic loss of his family. Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) was a successful dentist with a wife, three daughters, a poodle, and a damn good life. That ended on September 11, when the plane his family was on flew into one of the twin towers. Now Charlie lives a reclusive life, subsists on chinese food and barq's root beer, and keeps himself busy with his album collection, the drums, his motor scooter and headphones, and a video game called "Shadow of the Colossus." He never drinks (assumedly because if he drinks, he will not be able to resist thinking about his family) and has no friends. Charlie spends his life pretending not to remember the past while attempting to forget.

By chance, Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), Charlie's old college roommate, runs into him on the street (with his scooter and headphones of course). Charlie is so out of touch with reality that he doesn't even remember Alan at first. Alan takes Charlie for some coffee, they get to talking, and eventually they go back to Charlie's apartment and Alan begins to see how messed up Charlie really is. This doesn't stop Alan from playing "Shadow of the Colossus" until all hours of the night though, nor does it stop him from jamming with Charlie in his music room. For Alan, Charlie's life is an escape from the doldrums of his own life. Alan is, like Charlie was, a successful dentist with a loving family. However, his life is unbearably boring, and he feels as if he has no freedom to just "do guy things." His wife (Jada Pinkett Smith) loves him very much, but happens to be controlling. In Charlie, Alan finds a kind of release that he enjoys very much, and so he intentionally overlooks the very obviously reality that Charlie is mentally ill and needs some sort of help.

As the movie progresses, Alan suffers a tragedy of his own, realizes that Charlie needs help and seeks it from a colleague of his (Liv Tyler), and Charlie reaches a breaking point, ultimately attempting to kill himself. This all leads to an unfulfilling conclusion, in which Charlie, who is clearly not even close to being in a stable state of mind, is not only allowed to continue living his life (rather than go to a mental institution for one year), he is allowed to live by himself. I am sorry if I am being too much of a cynic, but it seems as if a guy who tries to kill himself and goes wacko even at the mention of his family might need more help than a good friend can give him.

There are other inconsistencies to be sure. Donna Remar (Saffron Burrows) was an almost entirely unnecessary character and I couldn't help but feel that she was initially thrown in as a joke, one that Binder couldn't figure out how to get rid of so he just kept her in as a character. The attempt to relate her tragedy to Charlie's tragedy was embarassing and almost insulting. Yes, adultery is a horrible thing, but compared with the death of one's entire family?

For as many problems as Reign Over Me has, there are just as many good things. The acting, for one, is incredible. Don Cheadle is one of the 10 best actors working today. Period. There is no way you could convince me otherwise. Take a look at what he has done recently: The Assassination of Richard Nixon, Crash, Hotel Rwanda, After the Sunset, the Ocean movies, and now Reign Over Me. Watch each of these films: not one of his characters is anywhere near similar. Cheadle can act with his body, with his eyes, in a way that very few others can. He can be funny, he can be noble, he can be angry, he can be simple...Cheadle is one of those rare breed of actors who can play any role and fit into it seemlessly.

Adam Sandler isn't on par with Bill Murray or Robin Williams on the list of comics who can play serious roles, or Jim Carrey for that matter, but he is clearly growing into a solid actor and his performance in Reign Over Me ranks with Punch Drunk Love as his best. The one thing Sandler can do as well as any actor working today is play someone in pain. Roger Ebert first mentioned this in his review of Happy Gilmore: "Happy Gilmore tells the story of a violent sociopath." Another remark from Ebert on Sandler, in his review of Punch Drunk Love: "The Sandler characters are almost oppressively nice, like needy puppies, and yet they conceal a masked hostility to society, a passive-aggressive need to go against the flow, a gift for offending others while in the very process of being ingratiating." This is Adam Sandler, and he embodies Charlie Fineman, finding a way to relate to Fineman's pain in a way that is too real to be "acting" in the conventional sense. It is eerie to watch Sandler in some of the film's more depressing sequences.

Certain moments in this film are so moving that people around me were brought to tears, and while Reign Over Me didn't affect me to that degree, I was still touched. Reign Over Me does not consistently hold its power. There are certain scenes, such as the scene with the judge (Donald Sutherland), that completely break the film's spell. It was a very bad decision to cast Sutherland, as he is too well known for such a small role and instead of watching the scene too many will be busy saying to the person next to them "hey that's Donald Sutherland!" As a whole though, this film works. There are many moments of comedic genius (the scene in front of the movie theater in particular) and many more moments of sadness. The film is beautifully shot, presenting a side of New York City that most people don't see. Mike Binder had a vision for this film that a more talented writer and director could have brought to life far more vividly. I couldn't imagine what a cinematic master like Ken Loach would have brought to this story. Reign Over Me is still a great film, one of the best of the year so far, but it is not the masterpiece it most certainly had the potential to be.

One final note: I've read many reviews stating that this film exploits 9/11. That is wrong, plain and simple. There is no exploitation in this film. In fact, 9/11 is only brought up two or three times at most. I had a problem with Reign Over Me using 9/11, but not because it exploited the tragedy. My problem was that it was used so little, that there was no point in bringing it up at all. Any plane crash would have sufficed, so it just annoyed me a little that Binder decided to use 9/11 when any kind of tragedy would have done just as well. If you want to say that is exploitation, fine. I just consider it a bad choice by an average director attempting to tell a great story.

Great Sports Figures: Babe Ruth

How could I write the first installment of my "great sports figures" series on anyone else? I considered Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan, but there was really only one choice. It would be blasphemous to choose anyone else. While Ali and Jordan are both surely more internationally renowned (they are probably more well known in the U.S. at this point too), no one has truly transcended sports the way that Babe Ruth has. Ruth died 58 years ago last August 16. He played his last game over 71 years ago. He played his first game 92 years ago. It is remarkable that so many generations have passed, yet I would guess that he is still one of the 5 most well known sports figures in the United States. No single sports figure embodies the ethos of American sporting culture, of the need to raise athletes to legendary, even mythological status, as much as George Herman "Babe" Ruth. Ruth was our Achilles, our King Arthur. He was Paul Bunyan brought to life. He was "The Great Bambino," "The Sultan of Swat," "The Colossus of Clout." One season, he hit more home runs than any other team in the entire league. He also happened to begin his career as a pitcher.

Ruth debuted for the Boston Red Sox as a pitcher on July 11, 1914. At the time he was 19 years old. Ruth only pitched in 4 games in 1914, but by 1915 he was a feature member of the Red Sox' rotation. In 32 games pitched (including 28 starts), Ruth won 18 games while losing only 8. He threw 16 complete games and his ERA (runs allowed per 9 innings) of 2.44 was 14% above the league average. Ruth's 18 wins were good enough for 9th best in the league, while his win-loss percentage of .692 was 4th best. Ruth also allowed the 2nd fewest hits in the league per 9 innings, just 6.86 and his 4.63 strikeouts per nine innings was 8th best. 1915 was also the season in which people would first begin to notice Ruth's hitting ability, though the extent of it was not discovered for years to come. In just 92 at bats, Ruth would hit 4 home runs, good enough for 9th best in a league where Braggo Roth won the home run title with 7 over 384 at bats. Ruth would hit 5 home runs over the 1916 and 1917 seasons, but it would not be until 1918 that people would fully begin to realize his greatness.

1916 was Ruth's best season as a pitcher. He pitched in 44 of the team's 154 games, starting 41 of them. Winning 23 games while losing just 12, Ruth led the league with an ERA of just 1.75, 58% above the league average. Ruth won the 3rd most games in the league and had the 5th best win-loss percentage (.657). He also had the 5th best WHIP (walks+hits per 9 innings) and allowed only 6.40 hits per 9 innings, the best in the league. Ruth's 323 2/3 innings pitched and 170 strikeouts were both 3rd best in the league, whiile his 41 games started and 9 shutouts both led the league. According to Bill James' revolutionary Win Shares method (too difficult to attempt to explain), Ruth was the second best pitcher in the American League and the third best pitcher in all of baseball in 1916, behind only the hall of famers Pete Alexander and Walter Johnson.

I wanted to give a fairly in depth analysis of Ruth's first couple of seasons in the league as a pitcher, because so few realize how good he was. I promise I won't do this for every season, as he played until the mid 1930s.

Ruth won 24 more games in 1917, finishing with an ERA of just 2.01, 28% above the league average. According to the win shares formula, Ruth was the third best pitcher in the American League in 1917 and the fourth best overall.

1918 was the year that Ruth transitioned from pitcher to hitter. Though he still pitched enough to win 13 games , and his 2.22 ERA was 21% above the league average, he was far more effective for the Red Sox as a hitter. In just 317 at bats, Ruth led the league with 11 home runs, a huge amount in the dead ball era (which would soon be over). Ruth's combined effectiveness as pitcher and as a hitter made him, for the first of what would be many times, the best player in the major leagues according to the win shares formula.

1919 would be Ruth's last in a Red Sox uniform. Now a full time left fielder (as well as an occasional pitcher), Ruth officially ended the dead ball era, hitting 29 home runs in 432 at bats, setting the record for home runs in a season.

Ruth would set the league record for home runs in a season on three more occasions: 1920 (54), 1921 (59), and 1927, when he became the first player ever to hit 60 home runs in a season. By the time Ruth retired in 1935, he would have 714 home runs, far and away the most of any player at the time. Ruth's teammate Lou Gehrig (377) and Jimmie Foxx (302), number two and three on the all-time home run list as of 1935, combined for fewer career home runs than Ruth.

While Ruth is best known for hitting home runs, he was far more than just a home run hitter. Ruth was hands down the greatest to ever play the game - it is almost inarguable. 72 years after he retired, Ruth is 10th all-time in career batting average (.342), 2nd all-time in on base percentage (.474), 1st all-time in slugging percentage (.690) and OPS (1.164), 3rd in runs scored (2174), 5th in total bases (5793), 3rd in home runs (714), 2nd in RBI (2217), 3rd in walks (2062), 1st in runs created (2757), 4th in extra base hits (1356), and 9th in times on base (4978). Add in his career as a pitcher, in which he won 94 games, losing only 46, while leading the league in ERA once, and Ruth is clearly the greatest baseball player of all-time.

The Red Sox of the 1910s were the Yankees of the 1920s (as well as the 30s, 50s, 60s, 90s, and 00s). In three of the six years Ruth played for the Sox, they won the World Series (1915, 1916, and 1918). After Red Sox owner Harry Frazee, who was losing money with his team, sold Ruth to the Yankees, the Sox didn't win another World Series until 2004. The Yankees, in that same span, won 26 World Series. Ruth transcended the game to such an extent that he even had a curse named after him.

The Beginning

Soon I will post the first of what will be many installments focusing on the great players of the NBA, NFL, and MLB, as well as great tennis players, golfers and boxers. My goal here is to present elite athletes in their respective sports in a way that illuminates their remarkable abilities to an average sports fan (or even someone who isn't a sports fan).

I think it is important to note that very few athletes truly transcend their sport into what could be called, I suppose, the stuff of legend. I am not sure yet if I want to write about these athletes, or if I want to write about equally (or close to it) great athletes who, for one reason or another, never achieved that transcendence. In essence, I don't know if I want to write about the Charles Barkley's of the world or the Vern Mikkelsen's. I'm sure I will figure it out as I go along.

If you are here, then I'm sure you've noticed that my blog site URL is "sportsandcinema". My true love is sports, but cinema (and theatre in general) is not far behind. I hope to post reviews of films, as well as thoughts on cinema in general from time to time, once or twice a week maybe. More often I will post my thoughts on sports (as well as the great athletes installments), but I will try to give cinema its "just due". Maybe for fun, my first review will be of "Rocky" or "Hoosiers" or "Raging Bull".

Maybe a lot of people will wind up reading this. Chances are no one will. That doesn't bother me, since I am doing this for two reasons:

1. I find it fun to research sports figures and I love to write.
2. I find myself perpetually bored.

With that I will go and watch the replay of the Mavs-Pistons game on ESPN...in HD!!!! (hmm, maybe that will be the subject of my first post...nah.)