Stone Cold

I had to travel again for work yesterday, and arrived at the meeting site about 90 minutes early, so I decided to kill some time and go to the Coldstone Creamery across the street. As a sidebar, you know how if you tip them a dollar at Coldstone, they have to sing some kind of super-enthusiastic T.G.I. Fridays sort of song? Apparently in high school, James used to go to his suburban Coldstone Creamery, where he was the only customer and there were only like one or two people working there, and bring maybe 6 dollars, and just periodically tip a dollar for no reason other than forcing them to sing those stupid songs, which they did with furious rage on their faces.

Anyways, I walk in, and it's chock full of high school or maybe middle school kids and a few poorly dressed parents. In I come, on a lovely 75 degree day, in a full suit and tie. Pretty awkward - everyone had this look on their face like "Who does this douche think he is?" But what the hell, I already walked here - no 13-year olds are scaring me away. So then, picking up my briefcase, I walk up to the 16-year old cashier, resplendent in his acne and braces, and muster the straightest face I possibly could.

"Can I help you, sir?"
"Yes, I'll have a Cookie Doughn't You Want Some, please".
"Sure, a Cookie Doughn't You Want Some. You want a 'Like it' or 'Love it'?"
"'Like it' is good."

As I tossed my tie over my shoulder to avoid any ice cream stains, it occurred me that I'm rarely overdressed for any situation. The whole experience threw me for a little bit of a loop. I'm wondering, is it better to be overdressed or underdressed for a given, typical situation? Like, would you rather be in a Hawaiian shirt and shorts at a wedding, or wearing a tuxedo at someone's beach house? Annie said she'd opt for being underdressed, because it's embarrassing either way, but at least when you're underdressed, you're physically comfortable, which I think is a good way of looking at it. Eager to hear other thoughts on overdressed versus underdressed.

And in case you were wondering, my Cookie Doughn't You Want Some was tasty, but melted extremely quickly. It would have been a lot of wasted ice cream had I gone with the "Love It" instead of the "Like It".

NBA Playoff Thoughts - The West

People need to lay off this Tracy McGrady-never-got-past-the-first-round stuff. I know he's never advanced out of the first round, but I don't think that's really that big a deal. I don't buy the notion that some players are really good statistically, but the great ones "just make their teammates better". The guys who go deep in the playoffs? It's not because they make their teammates better - it's because they have better teammates.

There are really four ways a great player can "make his teammates better":

1) He scores a lot, commanding attention from the defense and away from teammates

2) He passes with imagination and precision, allowing his teammates to get better shots

3) He dominates the offense, allowing teammates to rest on certain possessions, improving both their offense and defense

4) He plays excellent defense, allowing his teammates to not worry about needing to double-team

How does McGrady fare? 1) obvious; 2) he's always been a very good passer, as evidenced by his 7.0 assists per game - if you play fantasy basketball, you know how impressive that is; 3) obvious; 4) probably the weakest part of his game, but in the playoffs, when not trying to rest his aching back, I'd say he's been a "good" defender, memorably shutting down Dirk Nowitski in Dallas for two games in the 2005 playoffs.

In the 2001 playoffs, McGrady averaged 34 points, 8.3 assists, 6.5 rebounds, 1.8 steals, 1.2 blocks with only 2 turnovers. There is no question at that point of "but did he make his teammates better?" He most certainly did. He did it by scoring 34 points and collecting 8.3 assists and 6.5 rebounds and 1.8 steals and 1.2 blocks. When you play well statistically, you make your teammates a hell of a lot better. It's just that when those teammates are Pat Garrity, Bo Outlaw, Andrew DeClercq, Darrell Armstrong, Michael Doleac, Jacque Vaughn and John Amaechi, you might still lose in the first round.

If the Rockets manage to beat Utah and advance, people will talk about McGrady breaking through, really stepping into his own as a leader. I prefer to say he was always a leader, now he just happens to lead Yao Ming and Shane Battier.

---

The Warriors-Mavs series has been the best first round series I've seen in some time, highlighted by the absolutely electric Games 3 and 4 in Oakland. Game 4, of course, was attended by Jessica Alba, whose boyfriend was a high school teammate of Baron Davis. You know, I think I sort of like Jessica Alba. Anyways, I haven't had so much fun watching a non-Laker team in a long time, and I really hope the Warriors close out in Game 6.

The upcoming Phoenix-San Antonio series looks like it's effectively the Western Conference finals - they both looked very impressive in their opening round. Amare has improved immensely defensively, and Phoenix has improved to a slightly above average defensive team, as opposed to the bad defensive teams of years past. They continue to yield a lot of points, but that's only due to their fast pace - per possession, they are playing decent defense, as a team with Raja Bell and Shawn Marion should. I think Phoenix's ability to improve their defense without slowing their offensive flow (versus when they play Kurt Thomas, and the offense looks a lot worse) will carry the day. San Antonio looks sharp, but my gut says this is the year Phoenix breaks through and wins the West.

NBA Playoff Thoughts - The East

Thought I'd jot down my thoughts on the NBA playoffs - we'll start with the East...

If you're not a fan of a specific Eastern Conference team, the conference is almost unwatchable, and frankly has been for like 7 or 8 years. An Eastern team may very well win a championship, but they play an unpleasant brand of basketball for a neutral fan. It's like a conference full of Baltimore Ravens.

You have the Pistons, whose devotion to fighting through picks and seamless switching on defense is impressive, but ugly. There's the Heat, who are fun to watch if you enjoy Shaq and Wade shooting forty free throws a game. Toronto is fun, but never on television. Cleveland is a disgrace to offensive play-calling - watching LeBron shoot 35-foot three pointers is pretty low on my priority list. New Jersey, once the most exciting Eastern team to watch, doesn't fastbreak too much anymore, and focuses more on Vince Carter in the halfcourt, which is exciting the one out of every five games Vince gives a shit. Then you have the Bulls, who despite being young and athletic, play Scott Skiles' ultra-disciplined system. At least this year we don't have to watch Rick Carlisle's Pacers - you know, I bet Skiles and Carlisle have both had the same thing for breakfast every day for the last 25 years. You could probably make a good buddy movie with them, call it "Carly and Sky". Two antagonistic buttoned-up, by-the-book accountants/free-throw contest champions have a bizarre day of wild accidental criminal hijinks. I'd watch it. If Jessica Alba is in it.

When Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler went down, the East lost its most genuinely fun team, leaving only Toronto to carry that mantle. So I've been pretty disappointed that Toronto has delivered a general stinkbomb in these playoffs. Even the games they won didn't have the same energy and spirit that's marked the second half of their season.

Cleveland basically got a bye, Detroit-Orlando had zero interesting moments, and Chicago swept an injured Miami team easily. Sometimes I don't know why I bother to watch Eastern Conference games - as a neutral fan, I never come away satisfied.

Anyway, nothing's happened yet to displace Detroit as the odds-on favorite to win the conference. The Bulls might be able to, if Luol Deng has his coming-out party, but realistically I think Tayshaun Prince reduces Deng to merely a good player and Billups and Hamilton should frustrate Gordon and Hinrich. I could be wrong though. That's happened in the past.