Updated: The Trips I Want to Take

I've written various variations of this list over the years. In that period I've also taken the trips of a good many of them as well, from South Korea, to the Baltics. It's an ongoing list - some trips happen, others take their place. So here's the latest in my list.

10.) Amazon Rainforest

I don't know if i'm lying to myself with this list, but as we'll soon see most of the list is now places known more for natural beauty, or at least not as city-centric compared to most of my actual trips. But anyway, let's start with the place that wass just out of reach. Before choosing to go to Foz do Iguacu, I was hoping to do a few days in the Amazon, but it was super hard to find anything that made sense. It seems it's easier to actually book a 4-5 day tour/ride in the world's biggest rainforest starting from say Peru. That's where I'll aim in future. I'm sure it will end up being humid, and the type of thing you may end up seeing too few actual animals, but much like the Sahara, or the Polar Regions, there is something cool about being in the world's largest rainforest, larger river and the site of so much abundance.

9.) Morocco

My parents have been to Morocco. In reality, they've been to a lot of these places. I'm still catching up. Morocco is one of them, with them doing a 14-day tour back in 2018. They really enjoyed it, and the pictures make me feel teh same way. As does the Somebody Feed Phil episode in Marrakech. The cuisine, the scenery, the feeling of being on the Northwest Corner of the giant African continent. All of it is quite appealing. Granted, not as much as the nine to come, but what makes Morocco probably not be higher up is that it is relatively easy to get to. Unlike some of them to come, this one is more on me for just not having done yet.

8.) Scandinavia (non-Finland)

Having been to Finland for a few days last year, if anything my desire to go to the more traditional locales of Scandinavia have only increased. I've been to Canada, to Patagonia, to Australia, but not to that scintillating bit of northern country-side. From people I know who've been there, both Copenhagen and Stockholm come well regarded, but I'm more interested in Oslo and rural Norway or Sweden, maybe even visit Faviken, of Chef's Table fame. I mean, when you go to an expensive place, may as well steer into the skids I'm sure to encounter in the snowy Scandinavian countryside.

7.) China

For a couple years there, of course it seemed a bit tough to ever consider going to China, but with Covid now five years in the past, the prospect seems brighter than in years. But even then, China seems so formidable a vacation spot, so large that it almost necessitates two weeks to do it any justice. There's clearly a ton to see, and all I've heard is the food is a lot better in China than we would think given the profligacy of stunningly average Chinese food in teh US. I want to experience that China, along with the pandas and the Yangtze River and Terracotta soldiers and what-not. 

6.) The Stans

To be honest, I really don't know enough about the varios stans to say which ones I would want to visit. Now, Turkmenistan is probably off the list for obvious reasons, but I've heard nice things about basically all the otehrs. The mountains, the scenery, the weird food, the great people. There's a lot of mystery and intrigue about really one of the stranger areas of the world - strange in its foreign-ness, it's remote-ness, it's staid exotic-ness. It isn't too easy to reach, to be honest, but of all the various two-week type vacations I schedule in my dreams, this is up there.

5.) Proper Safari

Another holdover from my initial list, the safari would be higher up if I could easily afford one, and if I didn't do a one-day safari in Chobe National Park. Certainly a proper, multi-day, rise at 5am type is better, but that one day sated me for now. From everything I've seen, these are damn expensive luxury trips, even if 'luxury' means sleeping in some godforesaken tent in the Serengeti. Of course, I would still love to do it one day. It's just more practical dream trips have overtaken it because at the end of the day, we still ahve zoos in this world, or even mini-safaris like Johannesburg's Lion Park.

4.) Namibia

I've had a few cousins go to Namibia and swear by it, both loving the extreme mix of dessert, grasslands, and everythign else in between. There are always struggles with traveling in Africa, and Windhoek is certainly not easy to get to, but the scenery again looks so amazing. After years and years of shuttling through museum and church in Western Europe, I've slowly grown to shift my travel love to the natural world. and places like Namibia are perfect to dive into that world. Namibia is also a relatively untouched pearl of Africa, somethign not destined to last long given its relative stability and breadth of sights and beauty.

3.) Russia

Truly, I think a lot of my yearning to go to Russia comes from not being able to go in 2007 with my school's Orchestra (went with my family to Turkey instead). We can have our issues with Russia the country as a political entity, but as the World Cup two years ago showed, Russia the people and the country is a beautiful, fascinating place. Food is probably better than people think. The drink and nightlife looks great. The sites are many and varied, from world-class museums and history, to beautiful scenery and nature. All of it seems so appealing. Openly, this is my other preferred option for after my sister's wedding. If only there was any security in planning an international trip in July 2021, but alas these are times for dreaming, not planning.

2.) Antarctica

This is one that is growing up the list, mostly from seeing videos of trips there and now knowing a couple people that have gone recently. I've loved "remoteness", particularly when it comes to the Southern Hemisphere, which by default is already fairly remote. I've loved it in Patagonia, in Cape Town. But nothing would ever beat Antarctica. Yes, it would be expensive. Yes, there are some rough, rough seas to deal with. But also... there would be penguins, and seals, and amazingly impressive mastiffs of glacial ice and rocks; oh, and did I mention penguins! of all shapes and sizes! I will do this once - probably a family trip for a big milestone or something. What's eyed up is my parent's 40th Wedding Anniversary in 2028 potentially. It will be a wait - I wouldn't be shocked if, despite its lofty ranking, this is one of the last trips I actually check off this list, but let's see.

1.) New Zealand

New Zealand still appeals to me as maybe the best combination of natural beauty and cuisine that I can think of. From the food perspective, I know there is amazing seafood, lamb and local produce. From the natural beauty - well come on. From the coastline, the caves, the mountains, the fields. New Zealand looks to be one of the great treasures in our world. Hopefully one day I can experience it so. The toughness is the specific time of year you reasonably have to go doesn't really line up to where I can easily take two weeks off. Now, I guess going over Christmas Break is an option at some point, and probably one I will take on, but for now it remains elusive. The scenery, the mysticism, the remoteness, the lambs - I want all of it some day.

The Pros and Cons of the Club World Cup

The FIFA Club World Cup 2.0 started over the weekend. I call it that because by it's name, this competition existed before, played annually between teams that won generally each confederation's Champions League. It was shoved in the winter break, and generally was made no mind, other than when one of the big European clubs won and wanted to pump up their annual total (e.g. Pep's Barcelona winning six trophies - this being one of them). Well, now we have a very different tournament - played once every four years, featuring 32 teams It is very different. It's still way to early to think or determine if this is a good thing or not. 

There's a vocal negative outcry, particularly coming out of Europe. I'll get to those reasons shortly. There's a less than vocal just nonchalance in teh US, the host country. There's a vocal loud love, so far, of this from South America, and Africa. On the whole, it's way too early to call success or failure, but let's get to some of the pro's and con's so far a few days in, and since i'm very much in the "pro" camp, this will be more me pushing back against the Con's and extolling the virtues of the Pro's.

Con's

5.) This is a fake tournament / cash grab

I mean, the fact that this is a cash grab is 100% true. But FIFA is a business. We've gone so far away from FIFA, or organized football, being anything but a cash-hungry, greedy business. The Club World Cup isn't even nearly as bad as say the rube goldberg-type logic to get the 2034 World Cup in Saudi Arabia. Or say LaLiga selling its Supercopa to, yet again, Saudi Arabia. Also, the fake tournament stuff is jsut stupid. All tournaments are fake, in that sense. Games are only as important as we give them importance. Of course right now there is no cache behind this tournament yet - but way back in 1934, people literally did say the same thing about the World Cup, which took over from The Olympics as the world's premier football tournament. That started out as a fake tournament / cash grab as well.

4.) These are glorified friendlies

This is tied a bit with the earlier one, but the logic is just dumb. Yes, the Atletico v PSG match seemed to be played at 80% pace, but that may have also had to do with the 100-degree day in Los Angeles. Most matches are clearly being played at a level above friendles - especially all of them involving South America and Africa so far. If the European teams are treating these like their old pre-season international tour friendlies, then that is their loss. And hopefully there are losses eventually for the UEFA teams. Friendlies have no meaning. These have meaning. The winning team will celebrate this. Let's take heed from the Nations League, which similarly replaced friendlies, and have turned into something pretty cool.

3.) The gap is too much - i.e. it will end up being all European teams

Again, if we think these are friendlies, or at least not being taken seriously by European teams, then this will eventually not be true. But right now, the point of this tournament is to show the gap. Yeah, Bayern hammering a semi-pro New Zealand team 10-0 was a bit much, but that was one of the more one-sided matchups. We've also seen Brazilian teams beat Portugeuse ones. We've seen African teams play well. There will invariably be upsets in the knockouts, but ultimately yeah it is likely most of the semifinalists and likely finalists and liekly winner all come from Europe. At the end of the day, those domestic leagues are just that much better for now.

2.) No one is showing up

On one hand, this has been true in some matches. Particularly the emptiness in Atlanta for the LA Galaxy v Chelsea game. Now, that game was played in Atlanta at 2pm local time. And probably featured the two areas of the world that seem the least into thsi so far: Europe and North America. But we should critique FIFA here - mostly because they set frankly ridiculous prices for these games. They've had to slash them to sell tickets - but ultimately, I'm fine with that tradeoff - FIFA gets less money than their greed wanted, and we get solid atmosphere's at most games. And if Europe continues to not care, then so be it. A lot of the con's coming out of Europe around this wreak of European football exceptionalism.

1.) The football calendar is now even more full

More than any other con, this is the only one that really resonates. The football calendar is just stupid full right now, and it's really tied to the various levels of football not working together. FIFA had their World Cup (which of course they continue to expand). UEFA wanted something similar so made the Euros. Great. We've lived with that every other year thing for a while. But then UEFA had the Champions League. FIFA wanted in on the club action. UEFA also wanted even more, so made the Nations League. Every domestic league seemingly has 1-2 cup competitions. Brazil league plays like 70 games. Think about PSG. They finished the French season in mid-May. Then had to play Champions League final end of May. Then some of their players had the Nations League final the weekend after. And now they are back in this. By the time this tournament ends, it will be like only a few weeks until the league starts up again. There is no time off. There will be more injuries and shorter careers and what not. But still, this is not the fault of the Club World Cup.

Pro's

5.) The crowds are actually way better than been advertised

This whole lack of crowd thing is so stupid. Basically any game that features at least one non-European or American team has filled >80% of the stadium. Yes, FIFA had to cut prices, but again - fuck FIFA and all, but why should we care. And lastly, because I'm sure not fully sold out stadiums will be a thing next year too - let's just remember that the US will host games exclusively in NFL stadiums that seat 65,000 - 80,000 people. These are larger than most stadiums in prior World Cup host countries, which often mixed 2-3 stadiums of that size with more in the 40,000 - 50,000 rate. Lot easier to fill that. Anyway, PSG and Atletico filled most of the Rose Bowl. Boa and Benfica filled Miami. This is drawing well, just not from the elitist UEFA contingent.

4.) The passion from the non-European countries has been great

There have been great videos of Palmeiras fans milling about cities, same with Flamenco, Tunis, Boca, Benfica, others. Sure, maybe Londoners haven't made the trip. Let's see about Real Madrid later (though at least with them they have a giant US-based fanbase). The energy has absolutely been there. These matches mean so much to fans of clubs outside of UEFA, who don't get the spotlight. The idea of a South American team playing a top European team and potentially winning is something to rally around. The idea that tehre wasn't interest in this tournament is a pure fallacy. If anything, I'm shocked how quickly it's picked up steam.

3.) Seeing South American clubs play European ones are just fun

Again, these matchups are just fun, especially in a larger format than the earlier Club World Cup which featured effectively just one club per region. This is a lot more special. This is, in that way, just like the World Cup. It's just cool seeing matchups of two clubs in a meaningful setting in a way that never would have happened previously. The legacy of a whole continent is very much on the line here. 

2.) All FIFA tournaments start as cash grabs

Again, I can't reiterate this point enough, that somehow this tournament is the one that people feel is the tipping point is absurd. Also, the soccer world's whole MO is largesse, and always there's initially some push back, before people often realize things just work better. I already mentioend the example of the World Cup initially getting some complaints and pushback. That sounds absurd now, but was absolutely true at the time. Even the Champions League, which became an insane success, was initially seen as a sign of UEFA's greed by opening up the prior Cup Winners Cup (and then European Cup). More teams, diluting play, what-not. Well, dilution is not always a bad thing...

1.) This does help the game get more global

At the end of the day, football is becoming an increasingly global game. Maybe not in distribution of talent, but in distribution of dollars and interest. And let's take heed from the World Cup. In 1998, they expanded the World Cup to 32 teams - and people felt it was going to turn into a series of blowouts for those new eight teams. And that happened for a bit - say Germany's 8-0 win over Saudi Arabia in 2002. But surely but slowly, the "lesser" teams got better, culminating in 2018 when all teams scored at least one goal for the first time, and then in 2022, when no team won all its group games, and we saw the likes of Saudi Arabia, that same team that lost 8-0 to Germany twenty years earlier, beat eventual Champions Argentina. The world is smaller. Club football isn't, yet, but while it will probably take some act of God for any federation outside Europe to become the pre-eminent one, the idea that this will end up with eight UEFA quarterfinalists is just silly. And over iterations, I can see the world get smaller here too, and it is very much worth seeing that play out.

The Alcaraz v Sinner Rivalry and the State of Tennis

Carlos Alcaraz defeated Jannik Sinner in an epic French Open final. If anything, "epic" is still a wild understatement. Alcaraz came back from two sets down. He came back from 3-5 0-40 (e.g. triple match point for Sinner) in three fourth set. He finally won in 5:29 - the second longest slam final ever, only surpassed by Djokovic's 2012 Australian Open win over Nadal (5:53). It was thought few matches would ever get close to that length, and similarly few would get to that quality (or the quality of the 2008 Wimbledon Final, or so many other Big-3 matchups). Well, we got one that nearly caught both, and cemented really Alcaraz v Sinner as one of the great rivalries - thsi being their first slam final against each other.

On the one hand, this is a cause for celebration. Tennis from a sporting concern aiming to capture eyeballs and interest, persisted well longer than anyone could've expected on the backs of the Big-3. Put aside that Djokovic is still arguably the 3rd best player in the world, but the Big-3 essentially dominated this sport from 2004 - 2023. That goes from Federer's first rise to #1, the entirety of Nadal's career, and then Djokovic's last top season (2023, when he won three slams to get his total to 24). Djokovic remained good in 2024, even winning his long missing Olympic gold, but for the first time since 2002, none of the Big-3 won a major. Sinner and Alcaraz split all four of them - Sinner winning on hard courts, Alcaraz on clay and grass. Tennis should count itself absolutely lucky. The sport should've been facing down an abyss at the end of the Big-3. 

The Big-3 literally changed the sport, changed what it meant to consider the span of dominance, the lengths and heights a career could rise to. It reset the sports axis. Those three swallowed so much volume, but more than that so many careers. They won 64 of 81 slams played between Wimbledon 2003 and US Open 2023. The rest of the world one seventeen. Only three people managed to sneak in more than one - Stan Wawrinka, Andy Murray, and Carlos Alcaraz himself in that period. So many players that had they palyed in the 90s, or even early 00's were just left by the wayside. There was first the lost generation - the Dimitrov and Raonic types that came about in the early-00s but went away with nothing. If anything, they made the prior generation's second class of the David Ferrer's, Tomas Berdych's, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga's of the world seem downright consistent.

But the lost generation begat the "next generation" but with teh Big-3 just extending and extending their winning, they became if anything more lost. Alexander Zverev is a supremely talented player, who has won an Olympic Gold and two Year-End titles. He's made three Slam finals. Lost them all. Stefanos Tsitsipas was for years a top-5 player - made two slam finals himself, including once blowing a two-set lead to Djokovic in the 2021 French Open. Even the two "successes" of that generation leave us wanting more: first Dominic Thiem who seemingyl the day after his 2020 US Open Win hurt his wrist and was never the same, to Daniil Medvedev, who is somehow both a guy who beat Novak Djokovic to win his only slam, but also lost in memorable fashion 3-4 times in finals. This "next" generation got their careers lost as well.

Which brings us to Sinner and Alcaraz, who are both good enough to stake their ground completely, but also lucky enough to be just far enough younger than the Big-3 to catch the tail end. Sinner and Alcaraz had their run ins with Rafa - namely Sinner in the 2020 French Open, where Nadal swept him aside easily (Sinner was just 19 at the time). They've had theri run-ins with Novak - including Alcaraz being oddly inconsistent against Novak, save for the two Wimbledon finals (which granted, is quite the exception to draw). They were young enough to not pile up years of shrapnel and harrowing losses. And good enough to cut through anyway.

But here's where I have to think if tennis truly ever will be the same post Big-3, or will that nearly incomparable shadow still fall on these guys. Put it this way - Alcaraz just turned 22 years old a month back, and has now five slams. That's amazing. Guess who also did that almost exactly? Rafa Nadal. It is going to be a race to see if any of these guys can start outpacing the Big-3 - especially since at various stages each was at incomparable levels. Nadal the best say 19-23 of any of them (his 2005-2009), Federer the best 24-29 (his 2005-2010), and Djokovic the best 30+ (his 2018-present). Of course, who has the second best 30+... well that would be Rafa Nadal (his 2017-2022). They will almost always be behind in the chase.

The issue really is that the chase, the drama, the competing storylines where both the opponent and history are equally the competition, has been so everpresent in tennis since about 2008 (when Nadal beat Federer outside the French). From 2009 onwards, there was chasing of history, be it the slam record, or streaks at the French, or Djoko-Slam and Calendar Slams, and of course the slam record a 2nd time (Nadal in 2022 Oz) and a 3rd (Novak at 2023 French). Now it really will be many years until any of that is real (granted, I guess a Calendar Slam could still be a thing).

The challenge is Sinner and Alcaraz are so good. They are lucky to be this much younger, but maybe also the Big-3, especially Djokovic, is lucky they are so much yougner - that there was that 2020-2023 period, because since 2024 they've split the six slams. They've lapped the field. They have great games with few, if any, weaknesses. They are relentless players, emotionally cool and calm as well. They can play blistering tennis five hours into a Slam Final. They bring out the best in each other. They'll hopefully do the same to the Joao Fonseca's and other sub-20-year olds that can make this a Big-3 or Big-4 in a few years. But for now, they are peerless, but deserving of that praise.

Yet is it still the same. That was a tennis match for teh decades, for the ages, but it wasn;t the same. Maybe that's more a position people like me, who grew up and lived through teh entirety of the Big-3 era will be taking - for the youngsters who've only heard tell of the 2008 Wimbledon Final but didn't experience it in the moment - this year's French Open final may just be the pinnacle. I just worry that for too many people, me absolutely included, the pinnacle passed us and it may be years before we can have a rational argument we've gotten back to there again.

Once Again, Can We Just Let Canada Win a Cup

I wrote a version of this before, just last year in fact. When we had the, let's see... Oilers play the Panthers in teh Stanley Cup Final. It didn't work out. The Panthers dominated three straight games, then decided to stop covering Connor McDavid for a few days, before grinding out a nice Game 7 win. It was a crazy series, leading to maybe the first time in decades that hockey was the biggest story in teh sports world - as it finished the season after the NBA, and had a Game 7 with one of the craziest preludes - team comes close to blowing 3-0 series lead. As mentioned though, the underlying premise on giving Canada a cup... and it didn't happen.

So yes, this might be a bit of a repeat, but then again, so is this series. On its face, I don't really like the fact of seeing the same two teams in the final two straight years. Hell, don't know if I like it even if there's a year or two in between. Case in point, the mindless Cavs v Warriors series were honestly just boring disasters come round 3 and 4, and of course unless a confluence of dozens of events in 2016 that conspired have the Warriors blow a 3-1 lead, it could've been four fairly staid years in a row.

But realistically, there is a chance here for something special. The matchup itself is great on paper - a deeper, better Oilers team than last year coming up against a Panthers team trying for semi-dynasty status (the reverse 2020-22 Lightning). But the real drama is again, can Canada just win the Cup.

When I wrote the piece last year I talked about the various stats - the various near misses for Canada, the slew of Game 7 losses - the '95 Canucks, the '04 Flames, the '06 Oilers, the '11 Canucks and of course now we add to that the '25 Oilers. I talked about the way Canada loves this sport in a way the US never will, the way the crowds sing O Canada so beautifully, the white-outs, the goal horns, the "eh's" of it all. This is Canada's sport, but we've stolen the top trophy for 32 years.

Of course, one year later, there are two components that swerve into geopolitics that we have to talk about - namely our awful President repeating the "51st State" line over and over and over again from February through May. Yes, that rhetoric has kind of gone away in recent weeks, as Trump has faced many other problems, and new Canada PM Mark Carney has fought Trump's lunacy head-on, but it is still an embarrassing undercurrent in this series. 

What makes it worse is the US team is Florida - the home state of Donald Trump, playing a stone's throw away from Mar-A-Lago. More than even that micro geography, si the macro-geography of a "Southern Expansion" team beating out a Canadian team for a Cup (much like not only last year, but the '04 Lighting, '06 Hurricanes, '21 Lightning as well). Canadians in many cases hate the fact that these teams exist in the first place. That's probably a bit too narrow a view - and does the NHL no good as it needs these teams to work out to build the game. But it is so pointed of how hard Canada has had it.

So, more than ever, I hope they get it this year. I hope they get it to stick it to Trump (not that he would care, but you know he would become a Panthers fan if they win the Cup over the 51st state). I hope they get it because Connor McDavid, Leon Draisaitl deserve a Cup (and yes, I realize Leon is not Canadian). I hope they get it because the Edmonton fans have gone 35 years without winning one. Yes, they won five of seven right before that streak began, but a high % of Oilers fans weren't alive for that run. I hope they get it because Canada deserves it - deserves it this year more than ever for putting up with Trump's bullshit, for putting up with American's jokes, and so much more.

The NBA's Age of Parity

Two amazing things happened this weekend, as the Knicks drummed the Celtics away in a riotous Game 6 blowout (a fun blowout), and the Thunder then blew past the Nuggets in their Game 7 (a less fun blowout - mostly because of how great the series has been before then). First, was the realization that this meant we would get a seventh different Champion over a seven year span - literally the first time that has ever happened in the NBA. Now, of course it should be noted that in those seven winners include the Celtics (18 titles), the Lakers (17 titles) and the Warriors (7 titles). But nevertheless, this was history and cementing this being the parity era of a sport so immune to it previously. 

The other thing was a bit darker, though very much linked, that people were losing their minds that we have a Final Four in the NBA of teams that either haven't won the title before (Timberwolves, Pacers), never won it in their current city (Thunder - having won it previously only in Seattle) or haven't won in 50+ years (Knicks). No matter the outcome, there would be a long awaited fanbase celebrating. Of course, three of those fanbases are the smallest media markets in teh NBA, and the second that was clear the jokes started piling in about how Adam Silver must truly hate the prospect of a Pacers/Thunder or Pacers/Wolves series. And tehre lies the NBA's issue - parity is good, but also potentially really bad.

The NBA was for decades designed for this not to happen - both the 7 winners in 7 years fact, or the success of teams in Oklahoma City, Minneapolis and Indiana. If there's any one primary factor it is the fact that because only five people are on the floor at any given time, and top players can play 80%+ of a game without breaking a sweat, the teamse with the best players generally won. And the NBA, more than any other sport, has long been dominated by stars seeking out the biggest adn brightest markets. Even in the days before real free agency we saw this with Kareem heading to LA. A move that has been repeated all the time. 

Of the various dynasties in the NBA, the reasons why we haven't ahd this spread of seven teams winning over seven years, have largely been teams in Los Angeles, Boston (a big market in NBA terms), San Francisco and Chicago dominating. The only real exception being the Spurs, which was a once in a lifetime (or maybe twice, if Wemby continues to develop) confluence of events. None of this is particularly novel, by the way. People are aware of this congregation of key stars. But I think what is being missed is how the NBA is on a precipice of disaster becauase for once this isn't the case.

The NBA is a star driven league but it is the only one that also ties itself to market. The easiest way to draw the comaprison is to the NFL. Much like the NBA, the NFL has long had dynasties - and many metrics can show you that the NFL really has no appreciable edge in parity. Much like in the NBA, a team in the NFL can be great becasue of one player - namely the QB. But unlike the NBA, great QBs in teh NFL can grow organcially in any market, and then almost always stay in that market. There is no "taking my talents to South Beach." There is no pushing your way to LA. Peyton stayed in Indianapolis. Mahomes stayed in Kansas City. Favre and Rodgers in Green Bay (until strange circumstances pushed them away). Great QBs can have as dominant an elongated run in the NFL as a great player in the NBA can, but that run can happen in any market. ANd that is the difference.

The NFL also knows how to market (no pun intended) small markets way more than the NBA does (or really any sport). Sure, the NFL will forever shove the NFC East down our throats, and generally ratings will improve when the Commanders are good, or the Bears, or Raiders, but they also were at their peak when one of the biggest draws in the NFL was in Indianapolis, or now when a team from Kansas City plays a team from Buffalo (two markets that would get laughed out of the room in the NBA). Hell, one of the biggest draws in the sport is in Green Bay, a town literally smaller than the size of its stadium.

There are myriad reasons why the NFL is a bigger, more popular league than the NBA. But I think higher up the list of reasons than people woudl think is the fact taht they can make big ratings and big stories and big interest out of small markets. Sure, we woudl get a few jokes about lack of ratings and Roger Goodell sweating bullets if there were a Falcons v Cardinals NFC Championship Game, but if those teams had a Mahomes type, or stayed good for a few years, that would all change. Case in point is the Lions - finally good and they've been the draw of the league for two years now.

The NBA has put itself in a very tough position - with draconian, complex cap rules and aprons and madness that necessitates the move away from superteams, coupled with the giant financial edge the team that drafts you can offer. Let'see if it pays off on continuing to raise parity leaguewide. The Final 4 this year is a clear step in that direction - the rise of a new guard in new markets where at least for the moment we can't really picture a Shai or Ant scrambling to a more prominent city. That's great.

What isn't is the NBA is the one sport not built on the marketing side to deal with this new reality. They need big stars in big cities. They need the incessant years of fake trades on getting Giannis to a big market (a win for the NBA on that one!). The way they've set themselves up is that there will be many more Oklahoma City v Minnesota type premium playoff series to come. The NBA just has to figure out a way to get people to care, and they're woefully unprepared on doing so. The NBA has created the monster of an era of parity that they are in no position to actually vanquish.

The NBA may not rig the lottery, but....

I generally have avoided believing too many sports conspiracy theories Even the ones that I would love to agree with, like say the Spygate tapes being way more invasive than the short littel clips we've seen - so scarring that Goodell ordered them destroyed, lest they see the light of day. Of course, I would love this to be true. It isn't. It's far more likely that Goodell is just dumb and for whatever reason thought taht to be the best course of action. Same with all the various FIFA and UEFA refereeing scandals at the highest level. Most of those are just bad referees sucking. Not some conspiracy. But oh man is the NBA really testing this with having the Mavericks win the draft lottery.

We've seen teams make big jumps before in the latest itereation of the draft lottery odds structure - namely the Hawks just last year jumped up with nearly as low odds as this. The Hawks of course did so in a year with one of the least interesting draft classes in ages. This year obviously isn't like taht, with the presence of Cooper Flagg. But more than Cooper Flagg - the real noise is the Mavericks of all teams pulling this off.

The Mavericks have been laughing stocks of the league for three months now, from the second that Nico Harrison traded Luka Doncic at midnight on a Saturday to the Lakers. It was an inexplicable trade, one that over the weeks seem to be just a trade made of out pure spite fueling a rash, hasty decision by an executive over his head. It was so braindead, it brought out a whole bunch of other conspiracy theories - such as it was a way to intentionally tank fan interest so the Adelson family could move the team to Las Vegas. Again, that isn't true, but that even somehow seemed more plausible than Nico spite trading Luka. 

It continued to make less and less sense as the Mavs had Anthony Davis get hurt, as Kyrie tore his ACL, as Nico Harrison embarrassed himself time after time every time he opened his mouth - from his repeated "defense wins championships", to his bizarre rational that this was about making a 3-4 year window better. All of his explanations were junk. The trade was a mess. Dallas was rioting. And here we are, three months later, and the Mavs get Cooper Flagg to build around and build back to relevance. And while that shouldn't make Nico Harrison's decision any less stupid, but it makes the chance he survives a lot more realistic.

It was so ridiculous that the team that became a laughinsgstock, that was ruining basketball's reputation in a major market, just gets to now reset with Flagg. It's a lot more important he makes Dallas relevant again and saves a franchise spiraling into failure, than it is Flagg make a market like Charlotte, or Utah, more relevant. And I should note here, what I definitely do not believe is that the league somehow convinced Nico to trade Luka to the Lakers. No, I think Nico made that dreadful decision all by himself. But I do think there is like a 25% the league decided to give him a get out of jail free card.

There is just too many cases of this now. The Pelicans trade Anthony Davis to the Lakers - they get the #1 pick in the Zion Williamson draft that summer. How did the Pelicans get Anthony Davis? Oh, taht's because they got the #1 pick his draft year, which happened to be after they traded Chris Paul away to the Clippers. The Ewing thing has been covered enough - but how about the Bulls jumping up in the draft teh year hometown hero Derrick Rose is the #1 pick, or the Rockets getting it the year University of Houston legend Hakeem is the presumptive #1 pick. It goes on and on a bit - the generational prospects never end up the league's weirder outposts. Other than LeBron James ending up in Cleveland... where of course he is from that area.

Well, maybe you can count the Cavs winning the lottery in Kyrie's draft year as a superstar prospect going to an outpost, and of course that was the year after the Cavs lost LeBron. It just happens way too often to make sense. There are just too many cases of generational prospects ending up in big markets, or as "make goods" for downtrodden teams (but again, fuck off Charlotte and Utah - no handouts for you ever).

In the end, I'm probably wrong, but the NBA has a bigger problem because many are thinking like me. Hell, active players were tweeting out disgust, stopping just short from calling things rigged. This isn;t good for the league. Worst case, they rig the draft lottery. Best case, they've created a lottery odds system that just flatout doesn't work. The NBA can exist because stars will keep them relevant, but at the end of the day, they have a giant problem on their hands - one that Cooper Flagg making Dallas a good market again won't paper over enough.

Re-Post: Celebration of the Spurs, Pt. 3

59-22. What does that number represent? Oddly, it is one game off (59-23) to the average record of the Spurs five title teams (when adjusting their 37-13 record in the lockout-shortened 1999 season). No, but it also represents the run the Spurs went on.

They were down 22-6 just six minutes into Game 5 last night. The Heat were hitting everything and the Spurs hit nothing, including Parker missing shots, Green missing threes, and them looking very much like the team that couldn’t close out the Mavs in the 1^st round. Then came the run, punctuated by back-to-back-to-back threes, all but one in transition, built around a block of Dwyane Wade by Tiago Splitter, and built with neither Tim Duncan nor Tony Parker on the floor. When it ended it was 65-44. The Heat got no closer than 14, and capitulated sitting LeBron with seven minutes to go in the Game down 18. 59-22 might very well be the lasting image of the Spurs dynasty. Their Mangum Opus. This whole series felt that way. This was the crowning achievement, responding from their worst defeat (blowing Game-6 in a most un-Spurs like fashion) to dominate the 2-time defending Champs. It was their crowning achievement, one 17 years in the making.

The Spurs have been on those runs before, you know. They closed out both the Mavericks in and Nets in the 2003 playoffs with giant 2^nd half runs (42-15 over the Mavs in Game 6, 22-4 in Game 6 of the Finals). They all featured the same thing, a few blocks, and a lot of threes. It was Steve Kerr and Stephen Jackson in 2003. Nothing really encapsulates the Spurs quite like that, does it? The man who played the Patty Mills role for the 2003 Spurs is a man who retired, became an analyst, then became a GM, then became an analyst again, and has now been hired as a coach. He’s had a full post-player life… and the Spurs are still winning titles.

The Spurs never got the credit they deserved mainly because when they were on the game’s biggest stage, the Finals, they and the East champ always disappointed. They beat up on the woefully overmatched ’99 Knicks, and then beat the almost as woefully overmatched ’03 Nets, with only Duncan’s ridiculous stat-lines (21-20-10-8 in the clincher) fitting as a lasting memory. The played a dramatic 7-game series against the Pistons, but when you get the two best defensive teams of the past 15 years at their peak against each other, it won’t be too pleasing on the eyes. Then they beat up on the most over-matched of all the opponents in 2007. Of course, hiding behind their boring Finals’ dominance was a team that had to play in the better Conference year in and year out and was part of some memorable series.

Let’s remember the Spurs for being involved in probably the two most famous non-Finals series of the past 10 years, the 2006 and 2007 Western Semifinals against the Mavs and Suns. They played wildly entertaining games against those run-and-gun Suns and Mavs back in the day, often outscoring them instead of slowing the game down. The best example was the 2005 Western Conference Finals, when they beat the 62-20 Suns in 5 games, scoring 100+ each time. They won the first two games of that series, in the mad-house that was Phoenix at the time, 121-114 and 111-108. That was the brilliance of the Spurs, as that same season in the Finals, they won games 84-69 and 81-74. They could play all styles.

They still can. Lost in the talk of their incredible passing and pick-and-roll times ten offense that they run to symphonic perfection, was their defense becoming a Top-5 unit in the league again. In that epic 59-22 run the Spurs went on to close out the last vestiges of hope the Big Three had, the more impressive part was the ‘22’. They held the Heat, whose offense itself had been on a ridiculous roll in these playoffs, to 22 points over 24 minutes. They held them with great team defense. Duncan was everyone, looking like he did back in 2005. Kawhi Leonard was Bruce Bowen, but bigger and stronger. Ginobili was at his pestiest. Boris Diaw played the Robert Horry roll. On one end of the floor, they were the 2005 Spurs. On the other, they were the 2014 unit, a beautiful offensive machine.

While that win takes the bad taste of 2013 out of the mouth of many Spurs fans (and Heat haters), in a way it makes it worse. They were one play away from finally winning back-to-back titles last night, for Duncan and Popovich to tie the six titles that Phil and Michael won together. For the Spurs to tie the Bulls for 3^rd place for most titles. Five titles is nice, but five titles just matches Kobe. Six is a different planet. There’s only two player-coach pairings to ever get six. One was Russell and Auerbach, in a very different NBA with far fewer teams. The other was, as mentioned, Michael and Phil. Now, admittedly they did it in 8 years while the Spurs would have taken 16, but winning is winning.

The Spurs also did an amazing thing last night, they made the Heat seem pitiable. We are used to the Spurs doing that to the Western Conference minnows. When they blew the doors of Dallas in Game 7, or Portland in Games 1, 2 and 5, it was old hat. It was the Spurs playing perfectly against a team that couldn’t keep up anyway. These last three games? This was something we have never seen. It has been a long time since a Finals was this uncompetitive. The Heat weren’t an ordinary team. Sure, signs were there all season long that this was the worst version of the Heat since ‘The Decision’. They had the worst record and worst scoring differential, and Wade and Bosh had their worst seasons, and somehow the bench got increasingly worse as the years wore on. Still, this Heat team rolled through the East playoffs. They scored on Indiana, the league’s best defense, at an inhuman rate. They were still the Heat, the two time Champs. It was almost unsettling to see them outscored 59-22.

I actually felt bad for the Heat. Champions should not go down this way. I may hate the Heat. I may still hate LeBron for choosing what I took as the easy way out back in 2010, for leaving Cleveland behind because he wanted a Championship given to him. But the Heat didn’t have it given to them. They faced many different points where they could have lost out on any titles. They were down 3-2 with a Game 6 to be played in Boston in the 2012 Eastern Conference Finals, and LeBron delivered one of the great performances in recent years. They were then down 1-0, losing late in Game 2, to the Thunder in the Finals before pulling it out and rolling a Thunder team that was the best in the Durant/Westbrook era (mainly because of the presence of that 3^rd guy, Mr. Harden). They had to play a Game 7 in the Eastern Conference Finals last year, and didn’t quit when in an almost impossible situation last year against the Spurs. And of course, they lost the Finals in 2011.

Even in those 2011 Finals, and I rewatched the super-entertaining Game 5 of that series, the Heat seemed to at least have answers. The Mavericks won that Game and the series because LeBron was passive, and because the Mavericks outplayed them in critical moments (Game 6 was the only game in which the Heat did not have a 4^th-quarter lead). The 2014 Finals were different. The Heat were just worse. There were no late-game situations that the Heat blew. In fact, discounting Game 1 because of the Cramps/AC-Gate, the Heat were the team that made plays down the stretch of the one game that was close in the 4^th quarter. They stole Game 2 because the Spurs missed 4-straight freethrows. The Spurs made sure they were never in that position again.

It is hard to really say what the best Spurs performance was of the last three games. Was it Game 3, with their 71 first half points? Was it Game 4, with their excellent play throughout on both sides of the ball against a team that had to win it? Or was it Game 5, with a slow start but a dominant middle the likes we rarely see? Who knows, really. The Spurs give so many moments.

In a weird way, a great comparison to the Spurs is Rafael Nadal in one sense: their ability to play a starring role in some incredible games and series. Despite being hailed by their critics as boring (and I’m talking about the 1999-2010 Spurs here), both are one-half of some of the best contests in their sport. I’ve already mentioned the 2006 and 2007 Western Conference Finals, but they also played a highly entertaining 6-game series against a good Sonics team in 2005, and a great series against the New Orleans Hornets in Chris Paul’s should-have-been-MVP season. The Spurs have played in some fantastic games, with flawless execution by highly skilled players. They may never get the credit they deserve because only a few have been in the Finals, but they’ve been the team that should be most associated with this post-Jordan era of basketball in every way, not just in their ruthless excellence.

We will never see a team like the Spurs again. We may see a team that wins five titles, or more titles. We may see a team that is this dominant, that strings together a long run of 50-win seasons, that can run a team off the court in the finals like that. We may see all those things. What we won’t see is a team do that in that particular way. We won’t see one of the Greatest Players Ever stay 17 years in one city, particularly a city that isn’t known for being the most exciting. We won’t see a team be able to nail late draft pick after late draft pick. We won’t see a team be able to keep their main stars in affordable contracts forever. And we won’t see a coach like Gregg Popovich come in and stay two steps ahead for the league for an entire decade.

The Spurs did things their way. That way included no one saying anything, staying out of the media spotlight (aside from Tony Parker’s extra-marital engagements); it included a coach who became more openly prickly yet more openly respected over time. It also included getting three players to subjugate themselves for the team for years and when the top guys buy-in, the lesser guys have no real option to not do the same. The Spurs did everything pretty close to perfect for the past 15 years. They got their ‘One for the Thumb’ to finish things as well.

I don’t know what the lasting memory of the Spurs will be. I guess it depends what you really think the takeaway message is. If you think it is how great Tim Duncan is, I guess it will be his 21-20-10-8 performance in Game 6 to close out the Nets in 2003 (or the half dozen other absurd games he had that postseason). If you think it is about their unending success on defense (which it was this year as well), maybe it will be their defensive masterpiece against the Pistons in '05. If you think it was about them being the scourge of basketball in the mid-2000's, maybe you think it was Robert Horry checking Steve Nash into the boards. If you think it was about beautiful basketball, maybe it was their tic-tac-toe possession that ended in a Diaw three in Game 6 against the Thunder.

There are endless supply of memories. The Spurs have supplied the NBA with more great games and great moments and 'Oh My God, How Good Are They' plays to account for 10 teams. But honestly, what I will remember is how the Spurs reacted to losing. Arguably their three worst playoff defeats were when they were beaten by eh 2002 Lakers (a team they were better than) losing the last two games ever at the Alamodome, when they fell victim to Derek Fisher's shot with 0.4 seconds left, when Ginobili fouled Dirk up 3 in Game 7 in '06, and the million things they did wrong in last year in Game 6. How did they follow up those disappointments: title, title, title and title.

In fact, the last four years of Spurs basketball are the best evidence. They surprised everyone by going 60-22 in 2010-11, but were knocked off by Memphis in the 1st round. They responded by going 50-16 in the lockout season, and winning 20 straight games heading into Game 3 of the Conference Finals. The Thunder then proceeded to run them off the court. How did they respond? By making the Finals. Then, they blow the Finals in teh worst way possible, and respond by winning it in such dominant fashion that Miami sat LeBron with half the 4th quarter left in Game 5.

The Spurs never repeated (they might next year), but they endured. They endured the game changing, the players changing, Super Teams getting built and then falling apart. They endured so many years of playoff losses (10 times they've lost in the playoffs in 15 years), but always came back stronger. That is what I'll always remember about the Spurs. They fought, they won, in any and every way possible.

Re-Post: Celebration of the Spurs, Pt. 2

What makes the Spurs so special? Of course, like most dynastic sports team, talent plays a role. Gregg Popovich is one of the 5 best NBA coaches ever, easily the best coach of the past 15 years (in that admittedly random period he has 4 rings to Phil's 5), and his influence pervades through that entire organization. They also employ Tim Duncan, who while he's 'regressed' into being a Top-5 Power Forward at age 38, he was the best Power Forward Ever good for a 10-year period from 1998-2007. They also employ two other future Hall of Famers in Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. Ginobili is the best South American basketball player in NBA history, and Parker is probably the 2nd best European player ever, with only Dirk outclassing what Parker has done. That all said, it is more than talent that has allowed the Spurs to stay competitive and relevant far longer than they should have. It is a system, and organization, a culture that works better than anything I have seen in sports.

A decade from now, when Popovich is retired and Duncan is retired and the Spurs are, most likely, just another ordinary small-market team trying to compete, people may finally start realizing what the Spurs did. When we know the breadth of their accomplishments, and when Popovich (and Duncan/Parker/Ginobili, but most importantly Popovich) is removed enough to open up honestly about what he accomplished and how, the Spurs will be studied in business schools around the country. The Patriots may have had a higher profile being in the NFL, and the Rays may provide a more interesting study given their success in an unfair, capitalist market, but to me no team matches the Spurs in terms of a case study. They are sports, they are business, they are where they meet.

Over the years, the Spurs have always managed to stay one step ahead. The only NBA trend they didn't see coming was the '7-Seconds or Less' era and the impact of faster pace, which they took a while to turn to, but they only didn't because they still had success, and success against it. They started shooting threes more and more before anyone else. They started going small before almost anyone else. They started focusing on eliminating layups and threes and allowing 15-20 footers before anyone else. They unlocked so many keys that the rest of the NBA copies, the only thing that comes close is the Oakland A's. In a weird way, what hurts them is the ridiculous, grinding, dominant and, sadly, boring success. They don't have a 'My Shit Doesn't Work in the Playoffs' moment like Billy Beane. The Spurs' shit did work, and work and work and work.

Now the Spurs have made their fair share of mistakes over the years. No team is perfect. I already pointed to a huge on-court mistake that cost them a likely title in 2006, with Ginobili fouling Dirk on a drive up three late in Game 7. They of course had myriad mistakes that cost them the Title last year. Change just two things (I'm less inclined to add Fisher's 0.4 second shot to this both because that was more the Lakers pro-actively making it happen, and there's less proof the '04 Spurs beat Minnesota or Detroit) and the Spurs win six titles already and they're being hailed as one of the Greatest Dynasties Ever.

The Spurs have also made some odd personnel decisions over the years, like sign Hedo Turkoglu in a miscast role, or way overpay for Rasho Nesterovic, or way overpay again for Richard Jefferson, but these are merely tiny mistrokes on a beautiful 16-year canvas. For every Torkuglo there was the signing of Stephen Jackson in 2003, or Fabricio Oberto in 2006, or swapping Hill for Leonard, or brining back Danny Green and Patty Mills from the dead. There is no NBA team that has had such a sterling record in offseason acquisitions.

Popovich created a culture more than he created a system, because the system has changed. There isn't much resemblance between the 2005 Spurs and the 2014 Spurs apart from Manu Ginobili driving to the hoop (of course, back then Ginobili had long flowing locks, not a hilarious bald spot). Those Spurs were a defensive force, these are a high-paced offensive machine. Popovich just created an atmosphere where players would by into the new way the Spurs were going to play. To seamlessly transition from a slower, defensive team to a fast one overnight and do it well without totally overhauling the roster takes a foundation that was already rock-solid, and that is all Popovich and Duncan.

Tim Duncan is a Top-10 player All Time. He is. There's really no good argument against it. He's also most likely the most humble player on those lists, and he's the one who carries himself the least like a Top-10 player. He receives coaching, he's never chased stats, he willfully takes less minutes, he's allowed Pop to bench him late in games when the situation calls for it (and even, as we saw in Game 6 last year, when the situation didn't). He's rarely demanded anything from his team. He only once even thought about leaving San Antonio. He's quietly re-upped instead of having long drawn out contract negotiations. When the best player on the team, and one of the All-Time Greats carries himself like that, it sets the tone for the entire franchise, and the rest of hte Spurs took note.

The success of the Spurs is more than just Popovich and Duncan, but it is nice to have those two constants to look on. They also both exemplify why the Spurs are slow to get the credit they deserve, as outside of NBA-nerds it took until their success became too much to avoid that they gained general acceptance. It doesn't help when Duncan rarely gives long interviews, when he shies away from teh public light. It doesn't help when Popovich's public persona is a gruff, ironically short-answering, caustic genius. Sure, most media members will tell you when the cameras are off Popovich is one of the most engaging and open NBA personalities out there, but that doesn't help him with the people who aren't there when the lights turn off. But all of that is part of the Cultural Brilliance. Everything is about the team, not the media, not the spotlight, but the team.

There have been great stories the past few years about how the Spurs treat former Spurs. It seems like anyone who passes through the Spurs organization becomes a Spur for life. Guys like Robert Horry and Bruce Bowen are legends in teh Spurs Organization. If Avery Johnson is in town he'll have dinner with teh Spurs, same with Michael Finley, or Brent Barry, or Mario Elie, or Sean Eliot. The Spurs are a family, they are an organization in teh old-school sense of the word.

The rest of the NBA should take notice, but what the Spurs have done is basically impossible. It is not easy to get an All-Time coach, win the lottery in a year when an All-Time talent like Tim Duncan is there, and then nail late pick after late pick, but the Spurs did it. They changed the way NBA teams could be constructed, but they also changed the way NBA teams are built and run. The Spurs were dominant, but they've been dominant in wildly different NBA's. They were dominant in the iso-heavy, defense era, in the run and gun era, and in today's analytically savvy era. They've been the best example of Organizational Culture in sports in the 21st Century and it is hard to see any team coming close to repeating what they have done short of putting together a Big-3 like Miami did. The Spurs made the NBA a more cultured sport but also a changed sport. 

Re-Post: Celebration of the Spurs, Pt. 1

When Gregg Popovich called it a career over the weekend, I wasn't surprised. It definitely seemed like his stroke, will not life threatening, was "mild" in the sense that any stroke for a 75-year old can't really be "mild." From the day that happened, and it was clear he wasn't going to mend quickly, I assumed he was done. At that point, I started thinking about what I shoudl write when it came to that day. I started this blog in 2009, and since then saw every one of my tentpole athletes and coaches retire - from Manning, to Nadal, to Brodeur, to Oswalt (hey - the people on my site wallpaper!). In the coaching ranks, saw Pat Burns lose his life to cancer (wrote a nice poist about it). Gregg Popovich held out though, long enough to draft Victor Wembanyama, impart his wisdom on him for 1.25 seasons, and now can exit. 

I could write a career retrospective, but for Popovich, he wouldn't ever want any of that. And then I thought about it - I basically did write a tome, when writing it about hte Spurs, leading up to their legacy defining 2014 romp through the playoffs - capped with three straight games that collectively, given their competition (the two time defending Champs), are the three best games of basketball played ever. That was Pop, the end result of his adjsuting to the times - teh whip-around offense that the Spurs so calmly introduced that the rest of the league woudl soon copy, with a defense that was back amongst the leagues five best. Popovich's Magnum Opus was that run, and to toast him becomign El Jefe, I figure I'll return to that. So, reprinting eleven years later (fuck, I'm old) - here is the Celebration of the Spurs

**********************************************************************************

How to best define what the Spurs just did? There are so many ways, really. It's not only that they've made NBA finals 15 years apart with the same coach and same legendary player. It's not that they repeated trips to the Finals for the first time in their franchises history even as their players got older. It's not that they became the first team since the 1998 Utah Jazz to make it back to the Finals the year after losing it. It's that they did all of that when their 3rd best player, Kawhi Leonard, was about to turn 8 when this run started.

The Spurs have defined a generation of basketball. You can count on two hands the players that were active when the Spurs first won a title in 1999 that still play today. The Spurs also defined a generation by molding to many different ones. They won NBA Titles in defense-first eras, in the start of the 'Seven Seconds or Less' era, and now are competing for them in the Super Team era. They've won titles scoring under 100 points a game but limiting the opponents to scoring under 90, and now are reaching the finals with the best, most exact offense in the NBA. And they've done it all with a bunch of low picks, cast-offs, and random players, all gelling to create a beautiful system with even more beautiful results. I doubt that we will ever see something like this ever again, especially in basketball where transendant talent generally trumps systems, so we should treasure it all the more now.

In truth, the current version of the Spurs are four years old. The true Spurs Dynasty, built off a commitment to brilliant team defense, timely shooting, and Tim Duncan being awesome, peaked from the 02-03 season through the 06-07 season, where they won three titles and came alarmingly close to possibly winning five in a row (Fisher's miracle 0.4 second shot keeping them from a 3-2 lead in the '04 Conference Semifinals, and Ginobili's idiotic foul on Dirk keeping them from beating the '06 Mavs). They hung on for three more years with aging players, role players that were old as well, and while showing flashes of brilliance, like their Game 7 win on the road in New Orleans in 2008, or their first round win over the 2nd seed Mavs in 2010, they were pretty much done. It all ended when they were swept by a team whose offense resembles a lot of what the Spurs do now, as Steve Nash's Suns finally got one back in 2010.

Those three years where the Spurs were hanging on for life with their slower, more technically exacting style, they still managed to win 56, 54 and 50 games. Of course, when you consider they won 58, 58, 60, 57, 59, 63 and 58 games in the seven years prior, this was a sign of the times ending. And it would have been a naturally timed end. Duncan was 35, Ginobili was 33, Parker reached 30. Time was not on their side. The rest of the league wasn't yet clustered the way it is now, and the Celtics and Lakers dominated those three years. LeBron joined the Heat the next season (2010-11). Durant and Westbrook hit their stride the next season. Blake Griffin started playing the next season, as did Chris Paul joining him in Los Angeles. Derrick Rose won an MVP with Tom Thibadeau's defense running the Bulls the next year. The NBA landscape was about to get harder. So, of course, the Spurs won 61, 50 (in just 66 games), 58 and 62 games in the proceeding four years. How? That's the real mystery behind the Spurs mysticism, being able to start their run all over again.

If you look at the adjusted stats for the Spurs over all these years, three things stand out. First, is that their offense was always better than people remember. We remember their absolute slog of a Finals against the Pistons in 2005, but let's remember those Pistons themselves were utterly brilliant defensively. Early in their run, in the pre-Parker and Ginobili days, they were average offensively, but even then they never dropped below 12th in Offensive Efficiency (points per 100 possessions). The nadir of their offense came, as expected in that post Title window before the Great Conversion of the 10-11 season.

Second, their defensive proficiency is ridiculous. That defensive consistency in their true dynasty is staggering. The defensive dip doesn't match up totally with the offensive dip which makes sense as even when they were losing their post-title effectiveness in that three year stretch they remained good defensively.

The most important takeaway when trying to understand how the Spurs reinvented themselves and extended their reign of awesomeness is that last column, their pace. Pace is essentially just a measure of how many possessions a team will play on average over a 48-minute game. The Spurs were consistently slow, if not plodding, back when they were defensively dominant and winning titles. In a weird coicidence, the three year malaise from 08-10 matches up with two of their slowest years. This is the only area where there is an obvious shift from the title-winning Spurs, the three year malaise Spurs and the reinvention. Right when they started being tops of the league again is when they started to play faster. From 1999 to 2010, they never ranked higher than 19th in pace. In 2010-11, they went to 14th, and were Top-10 each of the last three years. There's the conversion.

Pace is not a new technique. Teams today are still slower than in the 1980's, but isolation basketball killed pace off in the 90's and early-2000's. The Spurs capitalized on it, but they built off what their most infamous rival started. This all goes back to those Suns, the team the Spurs beat in 2005, 2007 and 2008. The Suns unleashed pace on the NBA in 2004-05, with Mike D'Antoni correctly realizing that the best times to score in a 24-second shot clock is early or very late. They chose early, and they made it work. The Spurs agreed, and while they aren't as fast as those Suns teams, they're downright sprinting compared to what they were. It hurt their defense initially as the players weren't used to having to expend that much quick energy on offense, hence their two lowest defensive efficiency years in 10-11 and 11-12, but they've seemed to correct that problem the last two years.

For the Spurs, the way they effortlessly changed from a slow team to a fast one is ridiculous. Overnight, they replaced old, defensive players with young shooters. Quite a few of the early members of the conversion are gone, like George Hill, Gary Neal and (essentially given his low minutes) Matt Bonner. They started the experiment. Kawhi Leonard, Patty Mills, Marco Belinelli and Boris Diaw are perfecting it.

The Spurs aren't the only high profile sports club to do something like this. There are too many parallels between the Spurs and the Patriots to write them all down, but one of the most interesting one is how they've reacted to when their title winning stopped. For the Patriots, this happened earlier, as their conversion you can point to won game. Oddly enough, just like it was losing to the Suns that killed the old Spurs, losing to the Colts in 2006 AFC Championship Game ended the dynastic Patriots, and they reinvented themselves as an offense-first team built on capitalizing on what the NFL didn't value at the time, underneath routes, YAC and Tight Ends. Like the Spurs, it has worked incredibly well, but while the Patriots have changed their personnel apart from Brady, the Spurs took it a step further, they changed the system, changed their mindset, but were able to keep their core personnel and still make it all work.

Gregg Popovich is still a defensive coach at heart. Just like Pat Riley won a lot with run-and-gun teams in the Lakers but showed his true colors in New York, Popovich showed his true colors from 1998-99 through 2008-09. Those 11 years the Spurs were so absurdly good at defense year in and year out, no matter who was alongside Duncan, Parker and Ginobili. And you can see Popovich's defensive inclination appearing the last two seasons. Their offense was for two years the best in the NBA. In 2010-11 and 2011-12, they had the best offense in the NBA, better than what they have now. They moved the ball just as beautifully as now, shot as many threes, and it was a joy to watch. But the defense suffered. The defense killed them in their shock 6-game loss to the Thunder in 2012.

Popovich and the Spurs sacrificed some of that offensive brilliance to recommit to defense and the results are there in full, as their offensive efficiency has dropped but the defense has returned to Top-5 levels. The Spurs results make it easy to see where it all came from and how it happened. They pushed the pace and took the league by storm offensively, and now settled and are starting to take it by storm defensively too.

The Spurs have been so good at their faster-pace, more offensively proficient, aesthetically beautifully style for enough years that it is hard to remember when they were sloggers, when they were playing 85-78 Games against the Pistons, or when people called them boring. Of course, I'm grateful for this as it has been easier for the Spurs brilliance to be nationally revered when they became more fun to watch, but it also obscures that a conversion happened. It comes down to mainly pace, but it happened. It was a concerted effort by a team wanting to stay one-step ahead of the league without having to overhault its roster (something a lot more complicated in the NBA than any other sport) and it did just that.

My 20 Favorite TV Comedies, #10 - #1

10.) I Think You Should Leave (NETFLIX)

I really struggled where to rank this. I added sketch shows to my rankings mainly for one sketch show still to come way up the list. But I Think You Should Leave (ITYSL) really is that good, and more than that, it is that original. There is no show that reaches its level of abject silliness and hilarity. There is no show that I've seen that can mine so much out of being propestorous, and awkward, and weird. There is an underlying weirdness that surrounds everything about ITYSL. It has some of the greatest sketches of all time - seriously. At its best, in can compete with that sketch show to come. I don't feel that it is heresy to say that. The Darmine Doggy Door, the 55 burgers...., the Dan Flashes. And of course Coffin Flop. It also has this incredible core of returning characters and returning actors, creating this little, mystical, stupid little world for us all to enjoy sketch after sketch for years.

9.) What We Do in the Shadows (FX)

Comedies in general have really disappeared in recent years. Every show ahead of this premiered in 2014 or earlier. None made it to 2020 (except for one grandpa show - I think you know which). What We Do in the Shadows was the one holdout keeping true to comedy. This wasn't a drama hiding behind a few laughs (cough** The Bear**cough). This was an out and out comedy, that took an amazing premise - what if Vampires existed, but they were basically just normal people that could only really live at night - and made it into something so beautiful. The characters so well acting out just amazing material (Matt Berry's line readings - "New Yorkkk Citaaaay"). Everyone playing absurd so straight. The incredible moments like the running gag of the other vampire crew, to the best use of Kirsten Schaal ever. I do worry this is about as good as comedy would get in the 2020s.

I don't know if any show in the last ten years has been funnier than the final season episode where they create teh fake Rail company to cheer up a neighbor. It was taking a normal What We Do premise to 11, and running it so straight, so earnest, that it still remained so beautiful. Also, everything about Colin Robinson being an energy vampire was played so well also. I loved that there wer no real stakes, that they would just figure out some Deus ex Machina to bring the core group all back together again - a vampire version of Seinfeld if you will. Gone is What We Do in teh Shadows. Hopefully something can take its place as a true comedy great for the back half of the 2020s.

8.) Bojack Horseman (NETFLIX)

A few years back, Alan Sepinwall ranked his top shows to come out of the Streamers - probably say at the 10-year mark of Streaming Services. His #1 was Bojack Horseman - a show he called the only true out and out classic a Streaming service created. Now this was before AppleTV really started in earnest (though I'm not really a watcher yet), but I would still argue that likely remains true (though admittedly I have a NETFLIX drama at a higher spot). Bojack was just so damn creative, so incredibly shart, smart and emotionally weighty. It took advantage of its ridiculous premise of a world where anthropromorphic animals lived with humans, and mined that for visual gag after verbal gag after outright dialogue gag for season after season. And of course, it was one of teh more emotionally weighty shows on TV as well.

Much was written about how sad, somber, introspective and, well, dramatic Bojack was at its best, but at the end of the day, it was never not a comedy. The intention was you would laugh - even as it tackled mass shootings, abortion, homelessness and depression in about ten different ways. It would keep you laughing by some pun (no show used puns better), some line, and some delivery by a truly amazing cast of voice actors. I don't know if this was Will Arnett's best role (GOB will be hard to top) but the fact that it comes close says something. Amy Sedaris is brilliant, and this is up there. Aaron Paul was amazing. Everyone was amazing dammit - maybe no one moreso that Raphael Bob-Waksberg the creator and the other writers who used every inch of background cartoon space to tell side jokes (e.g. while an Americrane Airlines flight was "delayed", a Turkish Airlines flight was "deflated"). Bojack was sad at times, but it was funny at all times. And for that, I truly love it.

7.) Nathan For You (Comedy Central)

Because of The Rehearsal, and the Curse, and the general stickiness of the best episodes, it is hard to remember that Nathan For You aired a long, long time ago - mostly in the first half of the 2010s. Probably for the best, because the internet became even more omnipresent that he probably couldn't rope unaware small business owners by 2018 or so. Hell, even by its final season it was clear he couldn't given how more episodes turned into examining the mystery of Fielder's own psyche and imperfections, than the zaniness of its central conceit. But let's not forget just how amazing that conceit was - how so many of these ideas actually kind of made sense on paper (start a moving company with 200 employees to be able to pack up a house in as little time as possible). You can basically split Nathan For You into two parts - one being the true fake zany business consultant, and the other as introspection into human psychology, and both were amazing.

They were both amazing from Day 1 by the way. On the introspection side, while that got more notoriety as the show went on (e.g. episodes like Finding Frances to end the show period), that was at the heart of the much ballyhooed Season 2 episode focused on the gas rebate voucher and the extent people would go - to revealting secrets on a midnight hike - to save a few bucks. Of course, the other sketch in that episode was him convincing a beach caricaturist to draw exceedingly offensive caricatures as a marketing campaig. There's your ying and yang in the fourth episode of the show period. Nathan Fielder has increasingly revealed himself to be a genius, but also a deeply weird individual who appears to be more and more not acting but just playing himself. The dials were optimized with Nathan For You however.

6.) Everybody Loves Raymond (CBS)

There were many great 90s sitcoms - or ones at least believed to be great at the time. One of them is higher up the list - and I think you know which one that is. Everybody Loves Raymond was fantastically popular at the time, but probably took a backseat to both Seinfield and Friends. And as we'll see, I think it still has a backseat to Senifeld, I think it's aged so well - mainly because it was a perfect hybrid show - it was absurdist, it was sharp, it was caustic, but within traditional grounds. Parading within the context of an old timey sitcom of a man, his wife, his kids, his siblings and his parents, was a show that was so much more glorious and sharp than that. They portrayed the familiar, but put a whole new slant, a whole different energy behind it.

Years later as we've seen Ray Romano really shine as an actor, it makes sense that he was super strong at this point already. But what makes the show really sing is all the other people that were just magnetic. Frank and Marie are two of the great sitcom characters ever. Debra was far funnier than just being the token wife to annoy Raymond (it is amazing how many times they made her outright more funny and more right than Ray). Of course Brad Garrett was a revalation. The side characters were great. This was a 21st Century sitcom hiding within the foundation and structure of a mid-20th Century one. The best natural progression from the Honeymooners or some shit. Just a gem of a family sitcom. The absolutely apex of that genre.

5.) Veep

What's weird about Veep is it started in Obama's first term. Granted, it was in 2012, so only a few months before his re-election, but it was at a time where for the people watching teh show, they probably were pretty happy with how politics were going, all things considered. It ended in the Trump term, where real news of the administration probably makes early seasons of Veep seem quaint. But Veep never lost its plot, never lost its drive, its focus, its causticness, even as it turned the ridiculousness up to 11, because reality turned itself to nine. But let's move away from politics, because this show wasn't really about that. It was about insulting people over and over and over again in the best ways possible.

Of course, it was also about Julia Louis Dreyfus getting a role just perfect for her skills. Granted, everyone in the cast was perfectly placed and perfectly graet at reciting biting, filthy, cutting commentary and barbs from the twisted mind of Armanda Ianucci. Also, and i'll never stop giving Veep credit for this, it somehow get better and more funny when it elevated Selina to being President in the end of Season 3 and through Season 4-5. It somehow became funnier when the actual plot beacme, in a way, more meaningful (let's remember a long running point in the first two seasons was how of little import a Vice President really well). The show get better for it. Selina got better for it. Dan and Amy having to become failing lobbyists were better for it. And of course anything with Jonah Ryan, and the dueling brilliance of Ben and Kent. Veep was truly just a masterpiece of a show, that at its best (that same S3-4 stretch) was easily one of the best things on TV, period. 

4.) It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

What can you even say about this show - I only jumped on board watching live episosdes in Season 6. For most shows that would be coming in late. For this one, it is coming in in what will liekly be its first third when it's all said and done. Yes, the show in later years is a bit more forgettable - I can't name at gunpoint what episodes were in season 13 or Season 15 vs my ironclad memory of what was in Season 5. But still, the fact there is a Season 13, a Season 15, a soon to be Season 17, and in reality there will be as many seasons as Rob, Charlie and Glenn want there to be at this point. They've solved TV in a sense - this is their world until they want to relinquish it.

There was a study a few years ago that revealed that It's Always Sunny has the smartest viewership of any sitcom, and why not? Because behind the sophomoric hijinks hides a show that has been far smarter, far more caustic, far more satiric than people think. Recent years have highlightted that more and more, as they've turned Mac into a proudly openly gay man, and Charlie finally found his dad and whatnot, but hell the second episode they ever did took a spear to the abortion debate. They were never afraid of trying to give their take on any type of situation. They skewered reality TV, gay marriage, curse words, north korea, politics, gang violence, and so much more - keeping it with these four idiotically brilliant people and a small cast of rotating geniuses.

Always Sunny in simultaneously the most underground, low budget show of all time, and the grand-daddy of sitcoms that has literally set records for its longevity. It first aired in literally 2005. It's going to release its 17th season in 2025 - a good sign that it rarely took years off. It's also far more scripted than you think - the amazing shouting, insults, yells, boisterousness, all a part of a strange brew that works in the heads of these three guys in Rob, Charlie and Dennis that will hopefulyl never really abate. It sounds morbid, but I truly hope that Always Sunny ends with Danny DeVito's death - it means they wrang every last drop of brilliance out of the folks at Paddy's before calling it a day.

3.) Chappelle's Show

Dave Chappelle is such a prolific standup, and at this point such a notorious standup, that it may be hard to remember that years ago he was the centerpiece of an all time great sketch show - a completely different medium than standup. He had help, of coruse - from co-creator Neal Brennan, to a host of recurring actors that were just brilliant (Charlie Murphy, Donell Rawlings, Paul Mooney, etc.). But Chappelle's Show was about Dave (and Neal) and it was just amazing. Very few episodes really focused on race relations - it focused on just lampooning everything - from Making the Bad, to Rick James, to the Jury Selection Process, the Reparations, to so much more. The best way to describe the shows intentions is that it was literally their first episode that the Clayton Bigsby black white supremacist sketch aired. They came out the gates swinging, and didn't stop for 2.25 seasons.

Dave ended the show at in theory the right time, when he felt the world was focusing on the wrong parts of his amazing creation. He did leave behind three or so half baked Season 3 episodes that were stitced together with Charlie Murphy and Donell Rawlings playing the Dave MC role - and even in those episodes, it was so clear that Dave was far from done. Case in point: the now oft rememberd Tupac song palys in a club sketch ("I wrote this song in '94...") was in those half baked episodes. 

But it was the amazing second season, the incomparable second season, that locked Chappelle's Show place in history. Of course, there's the two Charlie Murphy True Hollywood Stories sketches, including the Rick James one which while oft cited, is absolutely the funniest ten minutes ever filmed. But there's so much more as well, from I Know Black People, to The Racial Draft, to Making the Band, to the amazing Black Bush - the final sketch aired with Dave MC-ing. The show was great because it didn't always need to lampoon politics, or race. Some of the best sketches were just pure comedy for comedy's sake - like much of Rick James, or The Playa Hater's Ball, but as it opened with Clayton Bigsby and closed with Black Bush, it was so clear when it wanted to take about race, about politics, it could do that as well as anyone ever as well.

2.) Arrested Development

Technically, I'm including the two NETFLIX seasons, the second one (fifth season overall) being really forgettable. I'll always say the 4th Season, especially when watched in the recut 22-episode version, is 

almost underrated at this point. But at the end of the day, this is about this first three seasons, to me the greatest contained stretch of comedic television ever. My one show ahead of it beats it on longevity - and that show should be patently obvious at this point. Bit in terms of peak, you could easily argue this is the best sitcom ever. Honestly, I feel that way. No show combined everything you want out of a smart comedy. Straight funny punchilnes, visual gags, incredible physical work, incredible wordplay, all-time level of callbacks and references taht paid you off for watching week to week. It was a master of the form in every way, and it starts with two things it did better than basically any other show: it's tone, and it's long list of characters.

The characters are the more obvious areas - you had one of the all time great straight men in Michael Bluth. You had two of the better goofball characters in Tobias and GOB (and add Buster to that too). You had maybe the funniest single sitcom character of all time in Lucille Bluth. You had so many more as well. There was no weak link in that main cast (basically the people introduced in the intro), and the recurring characters go 20 deep of excellent performances, excellently written without blinking - you can just rattle them off, from Maggie Lizer, to Barry Zuckerkorn, the Warden Gentiles, to Marta, to J. Walter Weatherman, to Kitty Sanchez, to Rita Leeds, to so many more. Only maybe the show at #1 wrote guest / recurring characters better.

And then there's the tone - the weird quasi-mockumentary of it all. The never ending narration from Ron Howard. The incredibly straight way the zaniness was played out. I normally don't like the fact that sitcoms put a lot of clear punchlines in the script but the characters don't realize they're being funny. For whatever reason, it works in Arrested Development, especially since the few times they almost break the 4th wall and laugh at themselves, it becomes teh most effective laugh track ever. Just like my top dramas, my top comedies set a specific tone and point of view basically 20 seconds into any given episode, and Arrested Development is no difference at all. It is the greatest modern comedy, to which all should be compared.

1.) Seinfeld

At the end of the day, Seinfield keeping up that insane level of quality, consistency over 22-24 episodes a year, for nine years, is just too overwhelming to pass up. Combined that with the show's insane legacy, insane reach, insane level of influence across the next few decades of comedic television, it is rightfully revered. But you know why it keeps its spot at #1, and probably will always have it is because it is also so damn funny. Yeah, at the end of the day, how much a comedy show makes you laugh is ultimatley the #1 criteria. There are others, but lose me with shows that are so pointed, or so of its time, but aren't at the end of the day all that funny - the Fleabags, and Community's of the world. Seinfled isn't any of that. It is a comedy show. The actors know it is. They were given the funniest of material by Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld, and the other writers, for nine seasons and delivered episode after episode.

I say that I think the peak of Arrested Development is higher, but in all honesty even that may not be true. If we look at Seinfield's say third through fifth season, it is right up there. Just take this stretch of 15 episodes in its 3rd season - starting with The Library (5th episode), ending with The Limo (19th) - in that stretch you have The Parking Garage, The Tape, The Nose Job, The Stranded, The Red Dot, Teh Subway, The Pez Dispenser, and The Boyfriend. Hell, the three or so episodes I skipped that stretch are all world beaters in their own right. No show perfected the 22-minute sitcom format better than this one - inventing a whole style of having 3-4 interconnected storylines that somehow always coalesced in the final segment. It seems quaint now with how wide the format has been stretched, but the underlying ethos of Seinfield is still unparalleled.

Seinfeld gets some criticism for becoming a bit broader once Larry David left - if anything that is an overstatement, but it did become slightly more plot driven. It was never a show about nothing, but it was closer to that than in the years after Larry left. That said, the show was still just as funny, just as zany, and even if the plots got more contrived - well lucky for them the characters were already cartoons in teh best way in George, Kramer and Elaine. In the end it is that - you have the best female character ever (other than maybe Lucille Bluth), the best phyiscal comedy character ever, and maybe the single funniest character ever period. That was so good, even Jerry's clearly average at best acting chops couldn't really dent it. Seinfeld was the best show when it was on. And it remains the best show all these years later. Likely nothing in my lifetime of ingesting TV will really unseat it.