Did anyone else feel that these finals weren't nearly as exciting as the earlier rounds? The Suns-Clippers, Suns-Mavs, and Mavs-Spurs series were some of the most exciting and fun basketball I've seen in many years. The finals? myeh. My three reasons why: 1. The Suns are the most fun team to watch in basketball. 2. I'm tired of watching Shaq play. He slows the game down and turns it into bruising, fouling trench warfare. How much more exciting was game 7 when Mourning was in? 3. Once the World Cup started, the NBA seemed kind of ponderous and provincial in comparison. (And I was never much of a soccer fan before the US-Germany match in 2002.) Did anyone else laugh as hard as I did during game 4 when ABC did one of those "the world is watching the NBA finals" bits where they trumpeted all the countries that were broadcasting the finals.

Double-Teaming Dirk

I agree that Dirk didn't step up in the 4th quarter, but the Heat did a great job of defending him. They aggressively double-teamed him the second he touched the ball every time. Of course a clutch player would find a way to fight through and at least get to the line, but give the Heat credit for taking him out of the game, while the Mavs weren't nearly as aggresive doubling Wade.

Why does ESPN have to be so damn serious about everything? Their draft coverage was all sober analysis interrupted by Dick Vitale and Steven A. Smith screaming at us. When Dan Patrick and David Stern had their little banter, Patrick ended it on an awkwardly vicious note with his "I liked Tagliabue better" comment.

Please Mr. Stern, take it personally and give the draft back to TNT. Their relaxed, friendly, joyful coverage made the draft worth watching. It wasn't so much a draft as a welcoming party for the 20-30 guys lucky enough to join the most exclusive club in sports: NBA players.

King's brilliant metaphor of the NFL draft being "like sitting in a two-day offsite meeting at someone else's company" could apply to everything on ESPN--like their World Cup coverage. On ESPN the Cup is serious trench warfare, while on Telemundo, it's a party.

J.J. Redick and Stuart Scott: And what did everyone make of the exchange between Scott and Redick where Scott asked what it meant to have North Carolina coach, Roy Williams, compliment him? Redick said "It's a huge compliment coming from him, he's a Carolina guy. I don't think you've ever complimented me." Was that just good natured Duke-UNC trash talking (Scott is a UNC grad), or does Redick actually have a beef with Scott?

Maybe I went into it with low expectations, but I enjoyed the game while TiVoing through the fluff. The pitchers went after the hitters, and the game had a nice crisp pace with only one walk and four double-plays.

And one of Fox's gimmicks--the in-game manager interview--actually proved interesting when we got to hear Phil Garner's reactions to the bottom of the third, most action-packed half inning.

It included the moment that made me laugh about the "this time it counts" hype: when Beltran stole 3rd with two outs and Albert Pujols at the plate! The announcers and Garner also had a good laugh about that, especially when Beltran scored on a wild pitch.

Finally, how about Trevor Hoffman choking away the lead in the top of the 9th? One of the announcers mentioned in passing that Hoffman's career all-star game ERA is over 10, but they didn't bother to give us any more details.

Why don't people pay more attention to blown saves and save percentage? I just went on a google hunt for them, and all I could find was the top ten save blowers in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_(baseball_statistics)

And ESPN has blown saves on their player pages, but no totals. I'm not much of a sabermetric geek, but it seems like these numbers should be out there somewhere. So here's a list I cobbled together showing save success percentage and total saves.

Eric Gagne 96.4% - 161

John Smoltz 91.7% - 154

Trevor Hoffman 89.7% - 460

Joe Nathan 88.9% - 104

Mariano Rivera 88.1% - 400

Billy Wagner 86.0% - 302

Troy Percival 85.9% - 324

Armando Benitez 85.4% - 274

Jason Isringhausen 85.2% - 242

Derrick Turnbow 84.9% - 62

Brad Lidge 84.5% - 93

Keith Foulke 84.4% - 190

Jose Mesa 83.3% - 320

Lee Smith 82.3% - 478

Francisco Rodriguez 81.8% - 81

Danny Graves 81.6% - 182

Eddie Guardado 81.0% - 175

John Franco 80.9% - 424

Bob Wickman 78.9% - 228

Roberto Hernández 77.8% - 326

Jeff Reardon 77.6% - 367

Rollie Fingers 75.8% - 341

Dennis Eckersley ? - 390

Randy Myers ? - 347

John Wetteland ? - 330

How dominant is (was?) Gagne? This list pretty much backs up what King says about Rivera and Hoffman being studs. There's actually a pretty narrow range. It looks like 85% is the threshold for elite closers, and maybe below 80% is when your job is in danger.

I couldn't find stats for Eckersley, Myers, or Wetteland.

My biggest problem with televised football is the traditional camera angle. It's great for running plays, lousy for passing plays. The networks should take a look at video games. You simply can't play a football video game with the traditional, perpendicular to the line of scrimmage camera because it cuts out half of the action. It seems ludicrous to me that we only see the receivers and secondary on replays.

Why not use a camera on a wire behind the quarterback pointed down the field on obvious passing downs? No fancy zooming or panning or flying cameras, just a clear shot of the quarterback looking down the field, the pass rush coming at him, and all of the complex, exciting action in the secondary.