A Series of Unfortunate Events

Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.
- Andy Dufresne

I love the Minnesota Timberwolves. I also love what Andy said to Red up there. It stands to reason then that I love the NBA draft. Even a chronically disappointing franchise like the Timberwolves can hope for a savior-type talent through the draft because every lottery team has a shot at the top pick.

I was discussing the recent draft lottery results (in which the Timberwolves ended up with the 4th overall pick) with my friend, and he made the comment, "How did we go from 2nd to 4th?  We can't even lose right." That got me thinking. For a team as familiar with the draft lottery as the Timberwolves, it didn't seem like there were ever any celebrations; simply put, the Timberwolves never seem to be power brokers in the draft, and that is reflected in the fact that they have never picked higher than 3rd overall.

First, a quick introduction to how the draft lottery works. Every non-playoff team has a shot at getting one of the top 3 picks in the draft. The more losses, the bigger the chance. In the event of a tie in records, a coin flip determines which team gets priority (and a slightly higher probability). The probability weights have changed over the years (see here if you are really interested), but the fundamental concept has not. In every draft, unless a team "wins" one of the top 3 picks, they are assigned their pick according to the reverse order of finish in the standings.

 Pink ties are just a small part of what makes Timberwolves drafts great

I took a closer look at every Timberwolves opportunity in the draft lottery, only to find that the Timberwolves have never moved up in the draft. As in, they have never done better in 20 years of existence under the lottery system. They have had 14 chances in the lottery since their inception, and they have never been able to improve on their expected draft position.

* the Timberwolves had possession of the Nets pick as a result of the Marbury-Cassell-Brandon trade

The Timberwolves, in their 14 lottery chances, have been expected to get an average draft position of 4.79. In reality, they got an average draft position of 5.79, a full pick lower. This includes the year they had New Jersey's pick. In this entire span, the only time that you could characterize the Wolves as having even a moderately successful draft lottery experience was in 2008, when they won the 3rd pick while having the 3rd most ping pong balls.

The 2008 draft actually brings up another point about the Wolves draft history, in that they have been incredibly unlucky in their placements. Three times they have gotten the 3rd pick in a 2-player draft (1992 with Shaquille O'Neal and Alonzo Mourning, 2008 with Greg Oden and Kevin Durant, and 2010 with John Wall and Evan Turner). In all three cases (esp. 1992), the Timberwolves did the best they could with the hand dealt, despite the fact that their draft position represented a huge drop-off in talent.

Call me crazy, but I think I want the guy on the left

Finally, the Timberwolves have compounded the issue themselves by making poor decisions in the draft. There has certainly been analysis done on the poor drafting decisions (let us not revisit the logic of drafting Wally Z immediately before Rip Hamilton, Andre Miller, Shawn Marion, and Jason Terry), but it's still worth pointing out that outside of 1995, the organization has not drafted a player that would be even be considered for an All-NBA team. They've seemingly succeeded at outsmarting themselves a few times (Marbury over Allen and Foye over Roy to name a few examples).

The Timberwolves did not win the 2010 NBA Draft Lottery. In fact, they've been so incredibly unlucky that playing the draft lottery has not helped their expected situation one time. The team will be in the Draft Lottery again next year. DraftExpress currently says it'll be 6-8 forward Harrison Barnes (note: I am not at all excited about this guy; in general, unless you are drafting Lebron James, I think it's a bad idea to draft any position outside of Point Guard or Center at the number one overall).

As a rational person, I can't help but think that the long string of unsuccessful attempts will eventually even out. But, we are talking about the Timberwolves here - their fearless leaders have tended to inspire a lot of fear over the years.

No comment

Fight Club: Book Review

Fight Club is one of my favorite movies, and it's part of the short list (off the top of my head, that would be City of God, The Shawshank Redemption, Godfather I and II, Goodfellas, This is Spinal Tap, and Anchorman). Despite what some think, the movie is incredibly rewatchable for me. I had heard that the book is an even better story than the movie and finally got around to reading it.

Chuck Palahniuk definitely has a very unique writing style. It's not quite stream of consciousness, but rather just a stunning display of randomness. In the movie, we hear the narrartor's thoughts, and they tend to be a confusing jumble of statements (I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species. I wanted to open the dump valves on oil tankers and smother all the French beaches I'd never see. I wanted to breathe smoke). The book is basically that, taken to the next level. Sometimes the quick read slows down as you try to make sense of the random thoughts from Palahniuk.

The focus of the story is also very different compared to the movie. The movie frames the true identity of Tyler Durden as a surprise and only very careful and astute viewers pick it up the first time through the movie. It also places a huge emphasis on the anarchy aspect in Project Mayhem, laying the rhetoric on thick (We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives).

The book, on the other hand, really focuses on the inner battle for the narrator. The reader should be able to realize about halfway through the book what Tyler Durden is. When the revelation is actually revealed in the book, it is more about how the narrator reacts to it rather than to surprise the reader. The anarchy aspect is also toned down in the book. Again, most of the focus is on the narrator and his thoughts; Tyler Durden actually has a small role in the book compared to the movie.

Other than differences, the two are pretty similar. The book is a very enjoyable read and highly recommended for anyone that liked the movie. It offers a different perspective from the movie and offers more than just the novelty of the plot. It also has a very clever ending (different from the movie) that I will not spoil.

Swan Lake

I meant to write about this much earlier, but I've only found time now. A few weeks ago, I saw the American Ballet Theatre do a production of Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake at the Civic Opera House. It was my second ever ballet (saw the Joffrey do Stravinsky's Rite of Spring last year, which was amazing). Unsurprisingly, the ballet was a completely different experience to watch on stage, instead of merely listening to the music.

Lots of swans

I have a slight history with the ballet in that the All-State Orchestra that I was in the sophomore year of high school played the suite. The fourth movement of the suite is the Pas d'action, the scene in which Siegfried falls in love with the half-swan Odette. It is a slow scene with a large violin solo. Near the end of the scene, the violin and the cello have solos together, and the intention is that each voice is playing one of the leads. It is a very poignant scene just from the music alone. At the time, I practiced that solo like crazy (I can still play the entire thing from memory). Ultimately, it didn't work out for me in the audition and I didn't get the solo or the first chair position.

The point is, I already love this scene. But having seen it acted out by world-class dancers was a complete revelation for me. The scene is so tender, esp. at the end when the violin and the cello are both going and the two lovers are draped all over each other.

As far as the actual performance itself, the dancing looked really good to me. I especially enjoyed the third act when different countries made their "pitch" for presenting a bride to the prince. Each dance number was pretty extravagant. The instrumental play was actually pretty poor. The Neapolitan Dance features a huge trumpet solo, and the one I heard was really subpar for the level of the performance.

I'm still really glad I got to see one of my favorite "musical" ballets. As an orchestral musician, I sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that the beautiful ballet music I play is just music; instead, it is oftentimes just artistic support for the main show of the ballet dancing. I will have a little more context for the next time I play Swan Lake. I'm also excited to see the other two big Tchaikovsky ballets, Nutcracker and Sleeping Beauty, at some point as well.

Itzhak and Yo-Yo

I just listened to the new album of Mendelssohn Piano Trios by Itzhak Perlman, Yo-Yo Ma, and Emanuel Ax. I got it mostly out of curiosity - I saw the album at the University Bookstore and was actually surprised to see Itzhak is still putting out recordings. His last few albums have mostly been re-issues (see here or here. The last album of his that I can remember that actually has new material is a Mozart one in which he plays Mozart 3 and then conducts the Jupiter symphony with the BPO (note that is off the top of my head - I could definitely be wrong about this). That one, to put it mildly, may not have seen Itzhak in the best light.

One of the three is not like the other

Not only was I surprised to see Itzhak recording again, but it was equally pleasantly surprising to see him paired with Yo-Yo. Since I really love the first Mendelssohn Trio (and the second is not so bad either), I really wanted to see how this would compare with my favorite recording (currently the Heifetz-Piatigorsky-Rubinstein one).

Let me first start by saying the general atmosphere that the three establish is very restrained and prohibitive. The three never really hit highs or lows, but instead try to deliver an understated performance. Compared with the firecracker Heifetz-Piatigorsky-Rubinstein, this one is a lot slower and less energetic. These are not necessarily bad things. In the second theme of the first movement of the first Trio for instance, I really feel like I get time to savor the beautiful melody. I also really like that Perlman is not in a hurry. That's not to say that he was slow or slowing down, but it did seem like he was consistently behind the beat when he wanted to be; the effect is nice and in stark contrast to everything Heifetz ever played. Further, the piece is kind of melancholy anyway, and I think the strategy taken by the three performers is actually justified.

Yo-Yo is fantastic. His openness and warmth of sound are made for these pieces. Itzhak doesn't have quite the bright and powerful tone that he used to, but he does manage to keep up. I must admit that I very rarely notice the pianist in piano trios, but Ax seems to do all the right things. Overall, I like the recording very much, but it didn't blow me away. The best way to describe my reaction is that it surpassed my low expectations. Why low? Because I have seen Itzhak Perlman perform live recently, and I have seen the debilitation in his technique and sound. Mendelssohn's Trios are actually perfect for him at this point because they don't require technical fingerboard gymnastics, and the climaxes are almost always in unison with the cello part.

This leads (finally) to the main point of the post. We were totally robbed of Itzhak and Yo-Yo. These two should have found each other 30 years ago and recorded the entire catalog of Piano Trios and other chamber music with each other. They have similar styles - big booming voices with an eye toward the dramatic while staying more or less conventional. Given the right pieces (such as the Archduke Trio or the Ravel Trio, just to name a few), these two would have built on each other and transcended the genre.

Instead, because of record label contracts (Itzhak was an EMI guy for most of his career, Yo-Yo has been with some form of Sony for his whole career), these guys only hooked up one previous time, and that was only possible because it was on Barenboim's label. (PS. I loved that recording. Itzhak did some quirky stuff in the Mendelssohn because it was a live performance, and Itzhak and Yo-Yo more or less fought each other for the title of "biggest sound produced" in the first movement of the Brahms Double). It took this long for Itzhak (now in his mid-60's) to finally team up with Yo-Yo.

Now, admittedly, they started teaming up in the mainstream earlier this decade, with the 2000 Oscars performance and more recently the Obamauguration. But even then Itzhak was losing his fastball. Looking back, his career peaked in the 80's (see: the first Brahms recording with Giulini, or the Beethoven Sonatas set he did with Ashkenazy). Yo-Yo more or less peaked in the 90's, but he has sustained a lot of his tone and skills.

What's up with the white turtlenecks?

This also brings me to a huge what-if for me. The Tchaikovsky Piano Trio recording with Perlman, Vladimir Ashkenazy, and Lynn Harrell is one of my five favorite music albums of all time. It goes on the desert island, and I don't even know what goes with it as of right now. I just know it's there. The music is so passionate and the three do such a perfect job of give and take. It is also Itzhak at his absolute apex, when he could make a climax sound like a mountain crashing in on itself. The recording was made in the early 80's. I know Yo-Yo was a little younger then, but wouldn't he have at least matched Harrell's performance?

The same goes for Yo-Yo. He recorded quite a bit of chamber music with Isaac Stern when Isaac was nearing the end of his career. In those recordings, Isaac was clearly a step below his prime, as he often played out of tune and had a very muted sound with little vibrato.

I'm happy that they are playing together now. However, I can't shake this feeling that we could have had a treasure trove of chamber recordings with the greatest violinist and cellist of the past 50 years consistently teaming up. Imagine them doing the Beethoven Piano Trios with Ashkenazy, or the Trout, or the Ravel duo. Sadly, this will have to be filed under one of the better musical what-ifs: what if Itzhak Perlman and Yo-Yo Ma had been under the same record label?