All right, it's that time of the year (or at least the sports year). The Super Bowl is upon us and this year in Miami the New Orleans Saints will be facing the Indianapolis Colts for the Vince Lombardi Trophy. Before I get into what I think about the game itself, I need to go through and talk about the championship games and why the Colts and Saints are playing in the Super Bowl.

This is another post I'm syndicating that was first published at Sports Only. I hope you'll head on over there and check out some of the other posts if you're interested in reading about sports!

By and large, most people assume that the Lakers and Cavaliers are the top two teams in the league almost without question. Though the designation of the singular number one team will often switch between them, they are generally accepted as being the best teams featuring the game's two best players in Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. But from there, it gets interesting as the race for the NBA's third best team is very competitive, and that rank is very much up in the air. Orlando, Boston, Denver and Dallas can all make potential claims to the position, as perennial powerhouse San Antonio has had a bit of a down year this time around.

But I believe that not one of these teams can make the best claim to the spot as the NBA's third best team in the 2009-2010 season. My pick is one that not a lot of people are talking about in the national media, at least not as much as Dallas or Denver, and that is flying under the radar a little bit. I believe that, at this point in time, the NBA's third best team is the Atlanta Hawks. This season has been one where every team has shown certain weaknesses, even those at the very top. Thus, rather than making the case against all those other teams and showing why they're flawed, I want to instead focus on why the Hawks are better or "less flawed" than everyone else. This is going to involve a little statistical analysis, so stick with me...

The Hawks have quite a few good players, but no transcendent players like those other teams have. There is no Dirk or Carmelo or Dwight Howard or Paul Pierce and/or Kevin Garnett combo on the Hawks. Despite this lack of a true focal point that exists in one singular player, there is a consistency to the Hawks' lineup that is unmatched in the league right now. One of the statistics that best reflects this are their +/- numbers. Here is, according to NBA.com, what exactly the +/- numbers mean:

The AutoTrader.com +/- stat shows the power of teamwork. It's a way of showing the best-engineered/best combination of players on the court. The +/- stat is a statistic that looks at the point differential when players are both in and out of the game, to see how the team performs with various combinations. The +/- stat can look at a variety of combinations including the best two player, three player and even five player combinations for each game.

Looking over the +/- combinations for this season, the Hawks are responsible for many of the top combos. In terms of two player combinations, the Hawks make up almost half of the top ten, with pairings of Joe Johnson, Mike Bibby, Josh Smith and Al Holford. Only the Lakers can compete with the Hawks on this level. The Hawks also possess the top four "3-player" combinations as well as having the top "4-player" combo and fourth and fifth ranked "5-player" combinations. The Hawks also rank in the top 10 in John Hollinger's assist ratio statistic, with 15.5% of their possessions resulting in an assist, as well as having the fourth ranked offense in terms of efficiency according to Hollinger's calculations (which are way too complicated for me to explain here). This is due, in part, to their care for the basketball, as they have the lowest turnover ratio of any team in the league this year, which speaks to the smart and careful play of veteran PG Mike Bibby. What is amazing, and speaks to how well the Hawks play as a unit rather than a collection of players, is that Bibby and SG Joe Johnson each average about the same number of assists per game. Their game is not predicated on the point guard getting the offense going, as the shooting guard can get in the act as well and that reflects a great deal of depth and consistency to their offensive approach.

Where the Hawks are a little bit weak is on the defensive end. The Hawks give up 97 points per game, which is middle of the pack but for a contending team that's a little bit higher than you would like to see. They also rank fairly low according to Hollinger's Defensive Rebound Rate statistic and in the overall Rebound Rate category. Marvin Williams, the SF from North Carolina, underperforms a little bit and that seems like it would hinder their defensive performance a little bit. But what they lack in terms of size and defensive performance they make up for with offensive depth. The Hawks have Jamal Crawford coming off the bench, as he has made his presence known and is a contender for the Sixth Man of the Year Award. Crawford is their 2nd leading scorer, with 17.5 points per game coming off the bench while only playing 30 minutes per game. Joe Johnson puts up only 4 more points on average while playing 7 more minutes than Crawford. In addition, the Hawks have a potentially solid and explosive young point guard in Jeff Teague on the bench as well as Maurice Evans and Zaza Pachulia to take up minutes so the starters can rest.

While there are some concerns about their defense, and I think the back end of their bench is a little thin, I think their offense (and their offensive efficiency) as well as the strength of their top 6 players make the Atlanta Hawks the NBA's third best team heading into the All-Star Break. Above all, I like the cohesion of this team, as it is clearly one where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The other teams in the conversation, Orlando or Dallas or Denver or Boston, may have the better singular players, but Atlanta frequently puts out the best combinations of players and players that can flourish when they are put together on the court. They might not have the best players who, as individuals, perform the best but the group of players they have together collectively perform about as well as anyone else in the league.

If you read this blog or know me at all, you know I spend a lot of time in various coffee shops/cafés. This approach has come about for many reasons-- I love coffee and many of my favorite writers (and thus, the figures who are very close to me) are associated with the café lifestyle. Though it’s not just out of mere emulation that I go to coffee shops, but another reason that’s a little more intriguing. What I like most about going to those places to work/read/write/whatever is that it’s a nice balance of being alone and being with people. On the one hand, you can go there by yourself and do what you want. You can sit there and listen to music or read or write and be in your own little world. But you are around other people, even if they aren’t communicating with you. You can be by yourself but you aren’t alone, if that statement makes sense. I find that I am able to work better under those conditions, where I can be doing my own thing yet I can sense life and movement around me. This is the problem, a lot of the times, with libraries because one has to remain quiet and thus you feel more “alone” than “by yourself.”

But enough of this, as this isn’t what I wanted to talk about with this post. What I have been thinking about is what, as someone who is a discerning patron of numerous coffee sops, I like about coffee shops. What do the coffee shops I enjoy frequenting the most do most often? If I were constructing my ideal coffee shop, what would I include? Since I know a lot of you out there are like me and enjoy the café “lifestyle,” I thought you might find this interesting.

I'm syndicating this post, which can also be read at a sports blog I'm participating in with some of my friends. We're just getting off the ground but head on over to Sports Only and take a look, check it out and tell us what you think!

The two all-star games that seem to captivate the fans of each respective sport are for the MLB and NBA. The NFL's Pro Bowl doesn't really get discussion going. I mean, I've never heard an argument started because one player was voted to the Pro Bowl over another. But with baseball and basketball, the discussions can be relatively contentious, at least over a game that ultimately doesn't matter (well, the MLB one determines what league gets home-field advantage in the World Series but you get the idea). People will debate the merits of one player over another and why that player deserves to be an all-star instead of another. These debates are usually exacerbated because the fans, in both instances, pick the starting lineups. And, to be honest, the fans don't have the best track record on picking the best players from the given season and instead picking the biggest or most well-known names. Since the NBA All-Star Game is right around the corner and it's fresh in our minds, I want to focus on it this year and what the cost is of all this.

If you look at the West's starting lineup, it seems like the fans got it right (Nash, Kobe, Carmelo, Duncan and Amare) but the East's starting lineup shows just how much the fans vote for the "name" rather than the performance from year to year. The fans selected Allen Iverson and Kevin Garnett to start the game, when there were clearly not deserving of a starting spot. Iverson has only played in 25 games while Garnett is only averaging 14.6 ppg and 7.4 rebounds per game. Meanwhile, the Hawks' Joe Johnson is averaging 21.4 points per game and the Raptors' Chris Bosh is putting up 24 points and 11 rebounds per game. Their biggest problem-- they either play in Toronto or they aren't Allen Iverson, one of the most recognizable basketball players of modern memory. If you put Bosh or Johnson on the Celtics, they would easily be in the starting lineup because people would know who they were since they played for one of the most well-known NBA teams.

This is what happens when you let the fans vote, and being able to vote multiple times (there's a cap, that you can vote like 10 times, but still that's a lot of times to vote). Yes, there are fans out there who vote based upon who is having the best year and has the superior numbers, but that's a very small minority. Not to get too political, but the same things happen during presidential elections. I like to imagine that people voted, like I did, because I listened to what the candidate had to say and followed them and firmly believed that their plan was the best for the country. But most people vote based upon one or two soundbites which might be accurate, but can also be misleading. If there isn't a real standout player (like LeBron or Kobe-- they're both big names but also deserve to start without a doubt), the majority of fans will go with a big name, even if it's faded, rather than someone who they would have to dig a little bit deeper to discover. Now, I don't have a problem with that on its own and I know the majority of people don't care as much about basketball as I do to really consider who is having the best season. But I believe our expectations about the All-Star game means that we need to take it a little bit more seriously.

Whenever one complains about these voting irregularities, someone playing in an all-star game because they have a greater name recognition even though they are statistically lacking, people point out that "the game doesn't count" and "it's just an exhibition." Well I think there are three reasons why that is a faulty approach to maintain. First of all, all-star appearances factor in when some of these guys are negotiating their contracts. It's used as one barometer for success and ability in the NBA, so we shouldn't be quite as flippant about its weight. One might also say "well, if he's not starting he'll be picked as a reserve so he'll make the team anyways." But then you're bumping out someone, like a David Lee or Paul Pierce this year, who is deserving and would get a reserve spot had the spots been more or less correctly distributed.  Secondly, if everyone is all right with big names winning out over smaller names with superior stats, we should really change the name from "All-Star Game" to "Big Name Game." If you're presenting this as a display of the NBA's best players playing together, you can't have players in who aren't playing on that same level. If the fans really want to see a game where all the big names play even if they aren't playing a lot or having good seasons, guys like Garnett or Iverson or Tracy McGrady or Shaquille O'Neal, then make it the "Big Name Game" and don't tell me it's a true "All Star Game." Finally, people who have no problem with the way things are now say the game is "just for fun" and "a show" or "entertainment." To be honest, a lot of these people are involved in television so things like ratings matter. But wouldn't it be easier to sell if you had truly the most talented players playing? The product will clearly be better if you have only players who are playing at a high level together. If it's just a show, I think having Joe Johnson or Chris Bosh starting and playing more minutes would make it a much better and inherently more watchable one.

I'm not quite sure what the solution to this problem is. I clearly don't think the fans always get it right, as this year proves that point, but I do think it's good for the fans to have some say in the matter. Perhaps the fan's vote needs to be weighted somehow, split 50/50 with basketball writers for the starting lineup while the coaches would choose the reserves for each squad. I think that would allow the fans to have some voice but the writers (who are, ostensibly, authorities on such things) could correct irregularities in situations such as the one we had this year. I know I'm making a big deal out of something that is an exhibition, but if it's an exhibition why should we, as fans, care this much about our vote? We should be concerned with getting to watch the best display of talent on the basketball court. And while the fans have shown the ability to get most of it right, they also are able to get certain parts horrendously wrong.

Yesterday, everyone was shocked... well, maybe not shocked but everyone was certainly startled with the news that J.D. Salinger, author of Catcher in the Rye and Franny and Zooey, had died of natural causes at 91. Mr. Salinger, with the novel Catcher in the Rye about alienated and cynical Holden Caufield, became something of a literary celebrity as he crafted a novel that was read by countless people, particularly young men and women in high school. I'm not going to try to sum up Salinger's career or provide an exhausting biography of one of the greatest and most well-known authors in 20th century America but I will point you towards his New York Times obituary and maybe quote a little about Catcher:

Though not everyone, teachers and librarians especially, was sure what to make of it, “Catcher” became an almost immediate best seller, and its narrator and main character, Holden Caulfield, a teenager newly expelled from prep school, became America’s best-known literary truant since Huckleberry Finn.

With its cynical, slangy vernacular voice (Holden’s two favorite expressions are “phony” and “goddam”), its sympathetic understanding of adolescence and its fierce if alienated sense of morality and distrust of the adult world, the novel struck a nerve in cold war America and quickly attained cult status, especially among the young. Reading “Catcher” used to be an essential rite of passage, almost as important as getting your learner’s permit.

Like I said, I don't want to turn this into some re-telling of Salinger's career, because there are many other people that do a much better job of this. But this is one of those deaths that makes me personally think about things-- myself, where I am, what I've done, etc etc. It wasn't a death that was a big surprise, since I knew Salinger was very old and had famously been a recluse and out of the public eye for pretty much my whole life, and he hadn't published anything in many, many years. But it was still a shock and a sad thing for me personally, because Salinger is one of the authors who affected me and pushed me in the direction I've gone, and Catcher in the Rye is, was, and always will be one of those books that means a great deal to me.

When I was a young man, much younger than I am now, many people told me that I had to read Catcher in the Rye, that it was a book that I'd relate to and understand. So when I was in 7th grade I picked up a copy and read it and everyone was right. It did speak to me and it was the first book I felt like connected to me, to who I was, in some way. It stood as my unquestioned favorite book throughout middle school and into high school until I met a couple of fellows named Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald and a few of their novels and stories catapulted to the top of my list. But when I think about where my love of literature came from, and why I'm a graduate student studying literature, it all really starts with Catcher in the Rye, particularly getting to read and analyze that book during my junior year of high school, in my AP English class with one of the teachers who helped me to realize how much I loved literature and that it was something I wanted to focus on as I went on to college. Though I have moved away from him and become interested in other authors, it wasn't because I thought Salinger was not as good a writer or Catcher was an inferior novel. I just changed and realized other nuances about myself and became interested in Hemingway, Jack Kerouac and D.H. Lawrence and on and on. But that beginning period, those formative years when I realized that literature, and specifically modern literature and the modern novel, could capture and depict what things were like. It made me realize that, though I often felt alienated and alone that I wasn't alone in that and wasn't as strange as I thought I was.

Even though I've moved away from him and I'm not doing my thesis or any "academic work" on him, J.D. Salinger is very much the reason (or one of the reasons) why I'm a graduate student in English. He's someone I will always associate with a specific period in my life, though I don't say that as a disparaging thing. A lot of people say "Catcher in the Rye, that's just a high school book." While the subject matter might be grounded in adolescence and that kind of angst, that doesn't take away from that book's greatness and does not make it any less important or Salinger any less of an author. I also think that, like a lot of books associated with high school, they deserve some reconsideration beyond that. Salinger falls into that realm of authors who are immediately dismissed as being something you read at a certain time in your life and that's it. Sometimes we look past these works when we really need to revisit them and consider them through the new lens that life experience provides us. Books like Catcher, Sun Also Rises and The Great Gatsby are great books and should be considered beyond being "high school" books.

But no matter where or when you read him, J.D. Salinger will always stand as one of the greatest American authors and who contributed to our own literary landscape. He's someone who has had a profound impact on my life, as his works both showed me that I wasn't alone in the way I felt (being alienated or feeling like an outsider) and that literature was something that I cared a great deal about and that it was something I wanted to be a big part of my life. Those of us who have read Salinger's words will always remember the power and effect they had upon us. So thank you very much J.D. Salinger for sharing your gift with us. You will certainly be missed and remembered by us all.

Feel free to leave any thoughts/stories/memories you have about Salinger or any of his works.

Well, since I've made it this far I might as well see the entire thing though and thus here are my predictions for the championship round of the NFL playoffs.

New York at Indianapolis: Just like I thought they would, the Jets won against a highly favored Chargers team on the strength of their running game, with Shonn Greene went for 128 yards and a TD on a 53 yarder, and their powerful defense that intercepted Phillip Rivers twice and shut down the San Diego ground game. The Jets were also aided by a couple questionable coaching decisions by Chargers coach Norv Turner and having the Chargers placekicker Nate Kaeding miss 3 field goals, including ones from 36 and 40 that he would normally make during the regular season. The Jets, with first year head coach Rex Ryan and QB Marc Sanchez, were the perfect combination of lucky and good and with the upset victory they move on to face the Indianapolis Colts, who took care of business against the Ravens winning 20-3. In that game, Peyton Manning played all right, going 30 for 44, with 246 yards and 2 TDs with only one INT. The Colts defense had the big game, holding Ray Rice to 67 yards rushing and intercepting QB Joe Flacco twice. The key was the Colts ability to stop the Ravens in red zone situations, keeping them out of the end zone and only able to pick up one field goal. Coach Jim Caldwell's defense, led by Dwight Freeney, Gary Brackett and Robert Mathis, ruled the day and won the game for the Colts.

With the Colts and Jets advancing, we have the age old matchup of great offense versus great defense. The Colts boast one of the best offenses in the league, led by arguably the game's greatest QB, against its most punishing and hottest defense coached up by the fiery Rex Ryan. A lot of people are going with Jets because of that defense that was outstanding against the pass, only giving up 153 yards and 14.8 per game. The Jets are a blitz happy team that gets after the quarterback and boasts one of the game's star CBs in Darrelle Revis. Many people look at the Jets and reiterate the old football adage-- "defense wins championships." While I believe that is usually the case, I don't think it applies to this Colts team and its QB. In the past, these defenses would give Manning trouble as Manning's early career struggles against the Patriots have been well documented. But Peyton Manning has evolved into something even greater than the stat machine he was early on-- now he's someone who can win even when things aren't going his way and this is going to be the kind of game where Peyton has to play that way. Revis will certainly limit Reggie Wayne's ability to get open, and I think the Jets defense will get some pressure on Manning and he won't be able to find Austin Collie and Pierre Garcon every time. This won't be a vintage beautiful game for Manning, but I do think he will be able to make the throws when he needs to make them. TE Dallas Clark will be invaluable for the Colts, as I don't think the Jets have an answer for him. In addition, Manning is one of the best QBs against the blitz so I don't think Shaun Ellis and Bart Scott will be able to do everything they want. On the other side of the ball, seeing how the Colts were able to shut down Ray Rice leads me to believe they can do enough to stopp the Jets rushing attack of Greene and Thomas Jones, and I think the Colts pass rush will be able to get to Sanchez and force him to make some mistakes. The Colts defense is playing very well right now, and I think they will keep that going at home. It will be a close game, neither team will play a perfect game but  I like the Colts defense to force Sanchez to make a couple mistakes as well as slowing down the Jets rushing attack and I like Peyton Manning to make the throws in clutch situations, especially to Dallas Clark. I think Indianapolis takes care of business and advances to the Super Bowl.

Minnesota at New Orleans: Boy, was I wrong about the Vikings... They completely and utterly dominated the Cowboys at home, getting a massive pass rush on Tony Romo as well as taking care of business against the Cowboys defense with a great game for QB Brett Favre, who threw for 4 TDs and WR Sidney Rice, who had 141 yards and 3 TDs. Even though Adrian Peterson only had 63 yards rushing, the Vikings offense held off the DeMarcus Ware and Cowboys defense, while Ray Edwards sacked Tony Romo 3 times for the Vikings defense. It was a dominating performance by the Vikings and one that I nor many other people saw coming. Meanwhile, in the Big Easy, the Saints absolutely demolished the Cardinals 45-14. Things looked good for the Cardinals on their first possession, as Tim Hightower did his best Ray Rice impression and broke off a 70 yard run for a touchdown. But after that, the Saints marched down the field to score a TD and then on the next possession the Cardinals fumbled, the Saints capitalized and they never looked back. Cardinals QB Kurt Warner, coming off that outstanding performance against the Packers, was battered in this game and knocked out during another fumble recovery at the end of the first half, though he would return in the 2nd half. Warner's numbers were pedestrian, going 17 of 26 for 205 yards and one interception, while Larry Fitzgerald couldn't do much of anything either with 6 catches for 77 yards and no TDs. The Saints offense, however, was able to do just about whatever it wanted against the Cardinals defense and Drew Brees scored 3 TDs to 3 different receivers and Reggie Bush contributed one rushing touchdown and one 83 yard punt return for a TD.

Thus we have the matchup between number one and two in the NFC, two dome teams with strong offenses. Each of these teams boast prolific offenses, ranking numbers one (Saints) and two (Vikings) in points per game this season. The Vikings have better singular players at RB and WR with Adrian Peterson and Sidney Rice, but the Saints have more talent spread out over the players at those positions, with Bell, Thomas and Bush rushing and Colston, Meachem and Henderson at WR. In addition, the Saints have the better option at TE in Jeremy Shockey. The Vikings come in with a much better defense, especially against the run. The Vikings give up only 87 yards on the ground, while giving up 218 yards through the air. The Saints defense is nowhere near as strong as the Vikings, ranking near the bottom in both passing and rushing. The one thing the Saints defense does well is intercept the ball, as they intercepted opposing QBs 26 times, which was 3rd best in the league. While Favre has been good with the football this season, only throwing 7 INTs, he is prone to make mistakes and throw INTs and I think that Saints FS Darren Sharper could capitalize on Favre trying to force a throw in a big situation. In addition, Jabari Greer is a solid CB and should be able to play well against Sidney Rice and slow him down though probably not totally shutting him down. The Vikings are also susceptible to good pass rushes, and I think the Saints Jonathan Vilma could cause some problems in the backfield for the Vikings. Meanwhile, I like the Saints offensive line to slow down Jared Allen and Ray Edwards (if he plays, since he was injured in the Dallas game). This game is shaping up to be a shoot-out between two of the best gun slingers in the league right now-- Brett Favre and Drew Brees. I think both teams will be able to do what they want offensively, by and large, and there will be a lot of points scored in this one. I believe that setup favors the Saints slightly, but I don't think that is what puts the Saints over the top. This game is being played at the Superdome, and that place is going to be ROCKING. The Saints are a franchise that has a long suffering fan base in addition to the way they bonded with this team after Hurricane Katrina and they are looking for a reason to celebrate. The Saints fans will give them a home field advantage unlike any that the Vikings have ever seen. Yes, the Vikings also play in a dome but... this is going to be very different. I know it's an intangible thing and something that can't be measured on the stat sheet, but I really think the crowd is going to play a role in this game. They will be loud and thus preventing Favre from clearly making audibles at the line of scrimmage and the Saints offense will feel much more comfortable playing on their home turf with those fans cheering them on. The Superdome crowd and the fact that I really like Drew Brees in this kind of situation leads me to pick New Orleans to move on to Miami and play in their first Super Bowl.

Thoughts? Comments? Leave them here! And don't forget to ask me those questions!

I'm blatantly borrowing this meme from Ashley who did a post like this a week ago, but I'm going to a post where you out there can ask me questions. Unlike Ashley, I haven't really seen this in the blogs I read (except for her blog) but I still think it's a good idea. Maybe I need to expand my blog readership and branch out a little more, but that's another story for another time. Above all, I want to try to find and reach more readers my little ol' blog and thus I want to craft content that other people really want to read. Hearing from the people who are reading my blog is extremely important to achieving this so comment, and use this as an opportunity to connect via a question.

Anyways, please leave me your questions on whatever you'd like to know about me. I want to hear from the people who know me fairly to pretty well and who will come up with very deep questions, or maybe people who don't know me that well, who read this blog but don't comment much and want to know just a little bit about me. I also hope that maybe some of the people who read but don't comment will use this as an opportunity to comment for the first time. But comment here with your questions for me and I will answer them in a later post.

Ask away!