As the NBA and NHL postseasons near their conclusion — and with the Eagles winding down their offseason program until training camp late next month — the Phillies are really the only show in town. And what a show they’ve been.

Since Rob Thomson has taken over for Joe Girardi, the Phillies have looked like an entirely different team, and their record tells you all you need to know about the change in play following the managerial shake-up.

Beyond the red-hot Phils and the end of Eagles OTAs this week, there was also the beginning of The Inquirer’s monthlong project looking at Title IX, which was signed into law 50 years ago. There’s also a new Philly sports movie out — Adam Sandler’s Hustle — that stars several members of the Sixers. Plus a Flyers coaching search that hasn’t shown any sign of ending soon.

As always, we’ve got you covered with a roundup of some of our best content of the week in case you missed it the first time around. We’ll start with a Phillies column from David Murphy …

Under new management: Phillies look to defy history in NL playoff chase

Given that the Phillies have been playing at a 162-win pace since making the switch to Thomson, it might be time to revisit a question that many raised when they announced Joe Girardi’s firing on Friday.

How often does a midseason managerial change actually work? ...

Since 1996, the first full post-strike season and the first year in our arbitrary sample, there have been 40 instances of teams that had multiple managers finish the year with at least 40 games at the helm. Of those 40 teams, only three ended up in the divisional round of the playoffs.

  • The 1996 Dodgers, who were 41-35 when Tommy Lasorda stepped down due to health concerns.

  • The 2009 Rockies, who fired Clint Hurdle at 18-28 and went on to finish with 92 wins under Jim Tracy.

  • The 2004 Astros, who fired Jimy Williams at 44-44 and then went 48-26 under Phil Garner.

Another way to read that is that only once since 1996 has a team with a losing record fired a manager at midseason and gone on to make the playoffs. — David Murphy

You can read the rest of his column, here.

What you need to know

These are some of the most important stories from the last week or so that you might’ve missed.

Worth the time

We’ll stick with “Hustle” for one more story, since you might be wondering if it’s just a regular sports movie or if it’s one that you can watch with people who aren’t necessarily sports fans. On that front, we have some good news. We asked entertainment columnist Elizabeth Wellington to sit down with yours truly and discuss the Philly-based flick, and whether we thought the love story or the basketball story was better.

Turns out, they’re both pretty good. Here’s more from our discussion (which looks a lot prettier if you view it in its original format).

Matt Mullin, digital editor, Sports: I thought the story was pretty good, but the basketball was exceptional. There were a lot of jokes in there about Juancho Hernangomez’s character, Bo, ordering porn in his hotel room, and I kept laughing because this movie was like porn for basketball fans. It’s hard to make sports look realistic in a movie — and this one was as good as I can remember. And beyond the actual basketball, there were so many references and cameos.

Elizabeth Wellington, entertainment columnist: The basketball was exceptional because the director, Jeremiah Zagar, took special care in how he shot the basketball scenes. It also helped that everyone who picked up a ball in the movie was an actual basketball player. The actors acted and the players played.

MM: It reminded me of He Got Game with then-Bucks star and future Hall of Fame sharpshooter Ray Allen, which helped the basketball scenes in that movie, especially the practice scenes in the park, look more realistic. I actually think that’s more important than having those roles be filled by people who can act.

On a related note, what did you think of the acting from the athletes in the movie? I’ve got to say it was better than I expected.

EW: Honestly, I don’t think they really acted. I think they were just being themselves. And that’s what made it so realistic. They were just doing what they do. As far as Bo’s acting. I think he was really good. He and the rest of the players who were playing roles like Anthony Edwards of the Minnesota Timberwolves, who played Kermit, used an acting coach. It really came through.

MM: There was a scene toward the end in which Bo cried — that’s impressive for an NBA player. And there were times he even had me laughing. That’s Steph Curry-esque range there.

You can read the rest of our convo, here.