Remarkably, Romney's record on abortion is even LESS principled that I had originally thought. Romney is pro-choice in 1994. Then he thinks about moving to Utah and running for governor there. He writes a letter to the Utah paper telling them not to call him "pro-choice" because he rejects the label.........while in Utah at least. He then moves to Massachusetts and runs as someone who will always protect a woman's right to choose (note that he keeps saying "as Governor," thus foreshadowing the fact that he had already predetermined that to run for PRESIDENT he would need to be pro-life).
Given 5 minutes to equivocate or waver from his stated pro-choice position in 2002, Romney is insulted that anyone would possibly mention any chance that he would ever be against abortion rights.
By the way, Mitt -- much thinner in 2002.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Time to Call In Johnny Mathis and Deniece Williams
Yes, it's over, call it a day
Sorry that it had to end this way
No reason to pretend
We knew it had to end some day, this way
[Deniece:]Guess it's over, the kids are gone
What's the use of tryin' to hang on
Somewhere we lost the key
So little left for you and me and it's clear to see
[Both:]Too much, too little, too late to lie again with you
Too much, too little, too late to try again with you
We're in the middle of ending something that we knew
[Johnny:] It's over[Deniece:] Oh, it was over
[Both:]Too much, too little, too late to ever try again
Too much, too little, too late, let's end it being friends
Too much, too little, too late, we knew it had to end
[Deniece:] Ah, it's over[Johnny:] It's over
[Deniece:]Guess it's over, the chips are down (whoa)Nearly all our bridges tumbled down
[Johnny:]Whatever chance we try, let's face it why denyIt's over (It's over)It's over
[Both:]Too much, too little, too late to ever try again
Too much, too little, too late, let's end it being friends
Too much, too little, too late, we knew it had to end
[Johnny:] And it's over
[Deniece:] And it's over
Johan Santana -- Met
Santana leaves Minnesota to go to New York for 4 prospects (per Baseball America and ESPN, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th best prospects in the Mets organization).
Santana has always been a great pitcher for the Twins (2 Cy Young Awards, should have three) and Santana will now face 8 good batters a game rather than 9, but if the Mets prospects are any good, here is what should concern Mets fans:
1) Santana has always struggled early in the year. He likes the warmer time of year and it takes him a few starts to get his changeup sharpened up. Struggling into late May in Minnesota is one thing, struggling into late May in NYC is a whole different animal.
2) Santana is looking at making $100MM over 5 years. He doesn't throw 97-99 miles an hour. When going well, he is a 94 mile an hour pitcher but his fastball lacks movement. He has very good control, but his fastball is hittable. When Johan was with the Twins last year, he had days where the fastball was hovering around 91-92. He almost never throws a slider any more and he has no curveball. If Johan has lost his fastball, he is a 91 mile an hour pitcher who relies upon a changeup. Is that worth betting $100MM on?
3) Will Johan Santana Provide the Mets with 20 wins?? Johan likes his full rest and he throws a lot of pitches. In the National League he will not be able to get many wins pitching into the 8th inning of a 4-4 game. He will be pinch hit for (though he has been a great hitter in limited action for the Twins). So, let's say he goes 14-4 with a bunch of no decisions. Is that going to make Mets fans happy.
Oh, side note -- I am SO happy we sent him out of OUR league and NOT to Boston. I already have to watch ex-Minnesota athletes David Ortiz, Randy Moss, KG and Lawrence Maroney power Boston-area clubs. It is good to at least share the wealth.
Grade -- Twins: B Mets: B+
Santana has always been a great pitcher for the Twins (2 Cy Young Awards, should have three) and Santana will now face 8 good batters a game rather than 9, but if the Mets prospects are any good, here is what should concern Mets fans:
1) Santana has always struggled early in the year. He likes the warmer time of year and it takes him a few starts to get his changeup sharpened up. Struggling into late May in Minnesota is one thing, struggling into late May in NYC is a whole different animal.
2) Santana is looking at making $100MM over 5 years. He doesn't throw 97-99 miles an hour. When going well, he is a 94 mile an hour pitcher but his fastball lacks movement. He has very good control, but his fastball is hittable. When Johan was with the Twins last year, he had days where the fastball was hovering around 91-92. He almost never throws a slider any more and he has no curveball. If Johan has lost his fastball, he is a 91 mile an hour pitcher who relies upon a changeup. Is that worth betting $100MM on?
3) Will Johan Santana Provide the Mets with 20 wins?? Johan likes his full rest and he throws a lot of pitches. In the National League he will not be able to get many wins pitching into the 8th inning of a 4-4 game. He will be pinch hit for (though he has been a great hitter in limited action for the Twins). So, let's say he goes 14-4 with a bunch of no decisions. Is that going to make Mets fans happy.
Oh, side note -- I am SO happy we sent him out of OUR league and NOT to Boston. I already have to watch ex-Minnesota athletes David Ortiz, Randy Moss, KG and Lawrence Maroney power Boston-area clubs. It is good to at least share the wealth.
Grade -- Twins: B Mets: B+
Early Rasmussen Markets Breaking HARD Toward McCain
http://markets.rasmussenreports.com/
While the early day "markets" on who would win Florida were around 53-46 McCain/Romney, the recent market data paints an awfully bleak picture for Romney. It would currently cost you 80 cents to win a dollar on McCain and about 21 cents to win a dollar on Romney. "Romney to win U.S. Presidency" shares can now be bought for about 11 cents (win $1).
If this reading of the tea leaves is correct, look for talk radio hosts to take one of two tacks tomorrow: 1) implying that they have facts to establish that John McCain most likely assassinated JFK; or 2) determining that John McCain won Florida because he is, in fact, "a true conservative whom we should all get behind." I would say the market on that is about 50-50.
While the early day "markets" on who would win Florida were around 53-46 McCain/Romney, the recent market data paints an awfully bleak picture for Romney. It would currently cost you 80 cents to win a dollar on McCain and about 21 cents to win a dollar on Romney. "Romney to win U.S. Presidency" shares can now be bought for about 11 cents (win $1).
If this reading of the tea leaves is correct, look for talk radio hosts to take one of two tacks tomorrow: 1) implying that they have facts to establish that John McCain most likely assassinated JFK; or 2) determining that John McCain won Florida because he is, in fact, "a true conservative whom we should all get behind." I would say the market on that is about 50-50.
Dana Jacobson -- Anti-Jesus
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/01/23/espn-suspends-dana-jacobson-one-week-for-saying-f-jesus-at/
Let's summarize ESPN policy: stalk women a few times but eventually stop -- get to advance to where you do play-by-play on Monday Night Football. Get arrested in hotel rooms with cocaine and hookers -- get hired to be an NFL studio analyst.
Say something you obviously don't mean at a private "roast" function -- suspended.
Let's summarize ESPN policy: stalk women a few times but eventually stop -- get to advance to where you do play-by-play on Monday Night Football. Get arrested in hotel rooms with cocaine and hookers -- get hired to be an NFL studio analyst.
Say something you obviously don't mean at a private "roast" function -- suspended.
Um, What?
A Romney voter quote (from an actual news story):
Asked why he liked Romney, Fernandina Beach real estate broker Steven Traver said,
“First of all he looks like a president to me. I did one of those surveys on the web and you put down all your thinking and McCain came up first. But just watching him in the debate I think Romney has so much more of a presidential bearing and presence.”
“but I think Ann Coulter convinced me that just because he differs with me on a woman’s right to choose, that doesn’t mean he’s going to do it (restrict abortion), because he didn’t in Massachusetts. I wouldn’t want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.”
Summary -- Steven is an abortion rights Republican (1 of 17 still alive and not named Rudy) who believes he can trust Romney to keep abortion legal because
1) Romney (who has made a big deal about his conversion to "abortion is murder") didn't personally outlaw abortion in Massachusetts (I am sure that he received 100s of bills from the Dem. legislature asking him to do so); and
2) Ann Coulter convinced Steve that he could believe Mitt Romney wouldn't do anything on abortion (see #1).
Grand Summary -- Abortion-loving McCain Republican to vote instead for handsome Mitt Romney because Ann Coulter said it was OK.
Asked why he liked Romney, Fernandina Beach real estate broker Steven Traver said,
“First of all he looks like a president to me. I did one of those surveys on the web and you put down all your thinking and McCain came up first. But just watching him in the debate I think Romney has so much more of a presidential bearing and presence.”
Summary -- Steven agrees with the politics of the one guy, but he thinks the other guy is more ruggedly handsome.
He said there were a few issues on which he did not agree with Romney,“but I think Ann Coulter convinced me that just because he differs with me on a woman’s right to choose, that doesn’t mean he’s going to do it (restrict abortion), because he didn’t in Massachusetts. I wouldn’t want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.”
Summary -- Steven is an abortion rights Republican (1 of 17 still alive and not named Rudy) who believes he can trust Romney to keep abortion legal because
1) Romney (who has made a big deal about his conversion to "abortion is murder") didn't personally outlaw abortion in Massachusetts (I am sure that he received 100s of bills from the Dem. legislature asking him to do so); and
2) Ann Coulter convinced Steve that he could believe Mitt Romney wouldn't do anything on abortion (see #1).
Grand Summary -- Abortion-loving McCain Republican to vote instead for handsome Mitt Romney because Ann Coulter said it was OK.
Predictions On the Impact of the GOP Florida Primary
Subject to change, of course:
1) It spells the end for the ill-conceived campaign of Rudolph Giuliani. Rudy, you are a Republican who favors gun control, gay rights and abortion rights. You would be a great third-party candidate or even a formidable GOP candidate in the general election. But I am not sure how you ever felt you could get votes among the "abortion is murder" base or the "you will pry my gun from my cold dead hand" bumber sticker base of the party.
2) Recent polls show a 3-point increase for Huckle-Buckle, getting him up near 15 percent. This certainly has to give him some hope for even MORE fundamentalist southern states like Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas. He lost South Carolina by 3 points and I don't even want to know how badly he was outspent there by McCain. Imagine what this guy could have done had he had any money!! Then ask yourself this: how far away are we from having a charismatic religious leader become President of the United States? Had Huckabee simply said, "The key to all economic policy is tax cuts for the wealthiest people" he might have been the party nominee!!
3) Wouldn't It Be Ironic If McCain Were to Defeat Romney Based Upon a Flip-Flop Mitt Never Actually Made? I mean, Romney has a long history of being pro-abortion rights and pro-gay rights. Rather than nick Mitt with his mountainous pile of actual flip-flops, McCain goes after him for a stray remark Willard once made on Meet the Press that I don't think anyone could honestly say was a call for withdrawal in Iraq. AND IT IS WORKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4) Who Wins? The Insider Republican Establishment in Florida, or Talk Radio -- to hear Mitt Romney on the air with Bill Bennett this morning, one would believe that the two had taken a firm stand on gay marriage: they were for it because they already had consummated their gay marriage within the past week. All hard-core talk radio has been after McCain for a month now, yet people like Charlie Crist (FL governor) have endorsed McCain anyway.
Today represents a tipping point. Most believe that if Romney wins he will eventually start chipping away at McCain's leads in the bigger more moderate states. If McCain wins, it may be the beginning of the end for Romney (who leads in almost no states and who would have fought McCain in a closed primary and lost).
Should be very interesting.
HM
1) It spells the end for the ill-conceived campaign of Rudolph Giuliani. Rudy, you are a Republican who favors gun control, gay rights and abortion rights. You would be a great third-party candidate or even a formidable GOP candidate in the general election. But I am not sure how you ever felt you could get votes among the "abortion is murder" base or the "you will pry my gun from my cold dead hand" bumber sticker base of the party.
2) Recent polls show a 3-point increase for Huckle-Buckle, getting him up near 15 percent. This certainly has to give him some hope for even MORE fundamentalist southern states like Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas. He lost South Carolina by 3 points and I don't even want to know how badly he was outspent there by McCain. Imagine what this guy could have done had he had any money!! Then ask yourself this: how far away are we from having a charismatic religious leader become President of the United States? Had Huckabee simply said, "The key to all economic policy is tax cuts for the wealthiest people" he might have been the party nominee!!
3) Wouldn't It Be Ironic If McCain Were to Defeat Romney Based Upon a Flip-Flop Mitt Never Actually Made? I mean, Romney has a long history of being pro-abortion rights and pro-gay rights. Rather than nick Mitt with his mountainous pile of actual flip-flops, McCain goes after him for a stray remark Willard once made on Meet the Press that I don't think anyone could honestly say was a call for withdrawal in Iraq. AND IT IS WORKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4) Who Wins? The Insider Republican Establishment in Florida, or Talk Radio -- to hear Mitt Romney on the air with Bill Bennett this morning, one would believe that the two had taken a firm stand on gay marriage: they were for it because they already had consummated their gay marriage within the past week. All hard-core talk radio has been after McCain for a month now, yet people like Charlie Crist (FL governor) have endorsed McCain anyway.
Today represents a tipping point. Most believe that if Romney wins he will eventually start chipping away at McCain's leads in the bigger more moderate states. If McCain wins, it may be the beginning of the end for Romney (who leads in almost no states and who would have fought McCain in a closed primary and lost).
Should be very interesting.
HM
Monday, January 28, 2008
Final Score for The Season: LeBron 2 Kobe 0
I find it interesting that the article mentions that LeBron's closest friends in the league are all from the Olympic team, but that Kobe isn't one of them. No reason why LeBron should be any different from anyone else, I guess....
Now it is no secret how I come out on this debate (I call one guy "The Devil" and the other guy is my favorite player), but I have never really understood the constant statements by the people who should know better (Barkley, Walton, guys who played basketball) that Kobe is "the best player in basketball..." He is a relentless scorer, no doubt. But I fail to see how anyone who watches the two guys actually play can say that Kobe is a better overall player.
Defensive Effort and Ability
Kobe has REALLY picked up his defensive effort this year.
He is on a pace to have his most total steals plus blocks since 2002-2003 (248 that year, on pace for 187 this year, his other years where he played significant minutes: 114, 122, 168, 157, 153, 140, 139, 177, 147). At age 29 it is hard to add 40 extra steals+blocks to your last year.
That said, LeBron is on a pace for 213 (prior numbers 188, 229, 189, 180).
I mean, unless you are living back in 2002-03 (warning to those who are, sell your house around 2005), it is obvious that LeBron brings far more skills to the table defensively (bigger, stronger, as quick in a small space, faster over a long distance, younger). Kobe defenders tout his all-defense awards, but it appears to me that if Jason Kidd is your backcourt mate on the all-defense 1st team, your competition isn't real great.
Rebounds + Assists
LBJ has always outdone The Devil on rebounds and assists. Again, The Devil in 2002-03 had 1,055 rebounds+assists. He has never cleared 950 again and the last two years he went with 785 and 850 (although he may reach 950 this year). LeBron? 897 his rookie year, followed by 1156, 1077, 996, on pace for 1,074 this year.
Running the Offense
No contest. This is not Kobe's primary skill set. I won't even rip him for it.
Scoring
LeBron leads the league in scoring. He is 2 PPG ahead of Kobe with about 40 games to go. So that means over the last 40 Kobe will have to outscore LeBron by 80 points to be equal in this category. But getting equal in this category really doesn't do much for Kobe, it is one he has to win convincingly to be deemed the better player. So, he needs to put up around 160 more points the last 40 to make his case.
Games Won Head to Head -- LeBron
Playoff Performance From last Year -- LeBron
Again, I am in no way unbiased, but I just don't see the argument against LeBron....Plus he is younger and can log more minutes, plus his commercials are way cooler.
Friday, January 25, 2008
I Got Your "Stimulus Package" Right Here
Look, am I going to send back my $1,500 that the government will be sending me shortly? OK, I guess in a way I am since I will owe $1,500 in taxes (or more), but if not required to do so by law would I? Nope.
But let's examine all of the flaws with this whole idea:
1) What ever happened to "let the market decide." This has always been the big GOP selling point, right? When oil costs $100 a barrel -- fuck you consumers, it is the market that decides. When I can't get Target Corporation to act reasonably in customer service because I am talking to some guy going by "Heathcliff" or "Jonathan" in India (real name Kampur Kampur), that is too bad for the workers in Minnesota and elsewhere who have lost all of these jobs because.............it is the market that decides. Etc. Etc.
But if we have a GOP President who is getting heat from his party "Dear Lord, Idiot, there is an election 10 months away" then suddenly there is a great need to do something because the market has failed us.
2) We Hate The Welfare State and We Hate Government Programs and We Hate.............. But I tell you what -- you didn't pay any taxes, you still get a tax rebate. So, GC Boy (who is so rich it is scary) pays a gazillion dollars in taxes and gets a rebate of..............$0.
A guy collecting welfare in Mud Lick, Kentucky with 11 kids will get......$3,900.
So, let's not pretend that this is a "tax rebate" OK. If it were a tax rebate, then people who paid no taxes would get nothing and people who paid a lot of taxes would get at least something.
What we should call this is a "government spending program." That is what it is.
3) Is this really our best idea of what to do with $150,000,000,000??? OK. Every state government in the nation would really like to do some capital projects. Even wacked-out liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on some basic ideas: road repair, existing transit, colleges, heck, even stadiums for pro sports teams (since the bitch isn't that people don't WANT nice stadiums they just don't want to PAY to build them). So, since we insist on the idiocy of giving rebates to people who didn't pay taxes, let's just give Wyoming the same amount of money as California and just give every state $3,000,000,000. (It would be far better of course to give the money by population, but someone would bitch I am sure.) Here is the tag line, "You get $3 billion to build or fix stuff." If you don't build show significant signs of building or fixing the stuff in one year, you lose the money.
4) How About Just Dropping My Frigging AMT? As an almost-annual victim of the Alternative Minimum Tax, I make this plea: make it so the AMT just covers folks who make $300,000 and above. I'd settle for $250K or $200K, but there is no way I should be worried about AMT making what I make with a stay at home wife and three kids. I am not rich. If the Bush Administration needs proof, look at my bank records (oh wait, I am sure you have them under the Patriot Act already). If you just did this, it would put FAR more income into the pockets of the "middle class" than would this stiumulus package.
5) How about just letting me write it off my taxes? I mean, that is the point right? It is a "tax rebate"? So let me fill out my tax form and pay $1,500 less than is stated on the bottom line. Or let me reduce it from my 2008-09 withholding amount, right? Oh no. That requires forms and forms and well, forms and stuff and it would be an administrative nightmare.....But you can write a check to every single head of household in the U.S.??? Even to folks who have a social security card that says "Hoops Maven" but whose real name in their country of legal residence is something else entirely????
Anyway, just a thought. On a cheerier note, go to www.theputdown.com to see Andy's idea on how to spend the money.....
HM
But let's examine all of the flaws with this whole idea:
1) What ever happened to "let the market decide." This has always been the big GOP selling point, right? When oil costs $100 a barrel -- fuck you consumers, it is the market that decides. When I can't get Target Corporation to act reasonably in customer service because I am talking to some guy going by "Heathcliff" or "Jonathan" in India (real name Kampur Kampur), that is too bad for the workers in Minnesota and elsewhere who have lost all of these jobs because.............it is the market that decides. Etc. Etc.
But if we have a GOP President who is getting heat from his party "Dear Lord, Idiot, there is an election 10 months away" then suddenly there is a great need to do something because the market has failed us.
2) We Hate The Welfare State and We Hate Government Programs and We Hate.............. But I tell you what -- you didn't pay any taxes, you still get a tax rebate. So, GC Boy (who is so rich it is scary) pays a gazillion dollars in taxes and gets a rebate of..............$0.
A guy collecting welfare in Mud Lick, Kentucky with 11 kids will get......$3,900.
So, let's not pretend that this is a "tax rebate" OK. If it were a tax rebate, then people who paid no taxes would get nothing and people who paid a lot of taxes would get at least something.
What we should call this is a "government spending program." That is what it is.
3) Is this really our best idea of what to do with $150,000,000,000??? OK. Every state government in the nation would really like to do some capital projects. Even wacked-out liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on some basic ideas: road repair, existing transit, colleges, heck, even stadiums for pro sports teams (since the bitch isn't that people don't WANT nice stadiums they just don't want to PAY to build them). So, since we insist on the idiocy of giving rebates to people who didn't pay taxes, let's just give Wyoming the same amount of money as California and just give every state $3,000,000,000. (It would be far better of course to give the money by population, but someone would bitch I am sure.) Here is the tag line, "You get $3 billion to build or fix stuff." If you don't build show significant signs of building or fixing the stuff in one year, you lose the money.
4) How About Just Dropping My Frigging AMT? As an almost-annual victim of the Alternative Minimum Tax, I make this plea: make it so the AMT just covers folks who make $300,000 and above. I'd settle for $250K or $200K, but there is no way I should be worried about AMT making what I make with a stay at home wife and three kids. I am not rich. If the Bush Administration needs proof, look at my bank records (oh wait, I am sure you have them under the Patriot Act already). If you just did this, it would put FAR more income into the pockets of the "middle class" than would this stiumulus package.
5) How about just letting me write it off my taxes? I mean, that is the point right? It is a "tax rebate"? So let me fill out my tax form and pay $1,500 less than is stated on the bottom line. Or let me reduce it from my 2008-09 withholding amount, right? Oh no. That requires forms and forms and well, forms and stuff and it would be an administrative nightmare.....But you can write a check to every single head of household in the U.S.??? Even to folks who have a social security card that says "Hoops Maven" but whose real name in their country of legal residence is something else entirely????
Anyway, just a thought. On a cheerier note, go to www.theputdown.com to see Andy's idea on how to spend the money.....
HM
Signs of the Apocalypse
1) Timberwolves defeat Suns twice, both times rather easily.
2) Roger Federer's dominance may possibly be at an end. Federer loses in Aussie Open to Djokovic -- who looked younger, taller, stronger, faster, and (I struggle even to type this) better. Signs of trouble for Federer: a) in my opinion he has not played near his best level of tennis for over a year, he has won simply because his ceiling has been so much higher than other players' best level. b) once McEnroe defeated Bjorn Borg in the 1981 Wimbledon final, Borg never won a title of any kind off the clay -- none. Borg's age when defeated by McEnroe -- 25. Federer's current age -- 26. Number of major victories by Pete Sampras off the Wimbledon grass after age 26: one (2002 U.S. Open). The greatest late-career champions of our times, Jimmy Connors (3 major titles after age 26) and Andre Agassi (4) got their 2/3 to 3/4 of their titles at their preferred venues (Connors under the lights in NYC, Agassi in Australia). Clay certainly isn't Federer's surface (never won the French) and his languid play in Australia leads one to believe that hard courts are not necessarily where he is going to find any future edge. So that leaves Wimbledon, where Federer's array of slices and spins gives him an edge over most players. But Roger isn't in Sampras's league when it comes to pure serving dominance. So.....................have we witnessed the end of an era, a speed bump on the way to 20 majors, or something in between??????
3) It rained in Los Angeles -- hard. I was in San Diego a couple years back and it rained maybe a quarter inch. From listening to the TV and radio you would have thought that Martial Law was justified, "Before you go outside, JUST BE AWARE THAT IT IS RAINING and take the necessary precautions!!!!!!!!!!" LA already has 2.54 inches of rain and will probably be getting more.
HM
2) Roger Federer's dominance may possibly be at an end. Federer loses in Aussie Open to Djokovic -- who looked younger, taller, stronger, faster, and (I struggle even to type this) better. Signs of trouble for Federer: a) in my opinion he has not played near his best level of tennis for over a year, he has won simply because his ceiling has been so much higher than other players' best level. b) once McEnroe defeated Bjorn Borg in the 1981 Wimbledon final, Borg never won a title of any kind off the clay -- none. Borg's age when defeated by McEnroe -- 25. Federer's current age -- 26. Number of major victories by Pete Sampras off the Wimbledon grass after age 26: one (2002 U.S. Open). The greatest late-career champions of our times, Jimmy Connors (3 major titles after age 26) and Andre Agassi (4) got their 2/3 to 3/4 of their titles at their preferred venues (Connors under the lights in NYC, Agassi in Australia). Clay certainly isn't Federer's surface (never won the French) and his languid play in Australia leads one to believe that hard courts are not necessarily where he is going to find any future edge. So that leaves Wimbledon, where Federer's array of slices and spins gives him an edge over most players. But Roger isn't in Sampras's league when it comes to pure serving dominance. So.....................have we witnessed the end of an era, a speed bump on the way to 20 majors, or something in between??????
3) It rained in Los Angeles -- hard. I was in San Diego a couple years back and it rained maybe a quarter inch. From listening to the TV and radio you would have thought that Martial Law was justified, "Before you go outside, JUST BE AWARE THAT IT IS RAINING and take the necessary precautions!!!!!!!!!!" LA already has 2.54 inches of rain and will probably be getting more.
HM
A Distraught Dallas Cowboys Fan
Footage from right after the Giants loss. On the upside, the Cowboys at least re-signed T.O.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Ripping All Potential MVP Candidates
http://aol.nba.com/features/player_rankings.html
To have a little fun, I will do what I did with the first round of the last NFL draft and rip every single MVP Candidate (which would include, much to my chagrin, ripping my fave LeBron James). So, here goes. Remember, this is just for a fun read and I really do not, in fact, think (for example) that LeBron James sucks:
20. Jason Kidd -- real nice guy, tremendous husband and father, really knows how to toss boulders (both on and off the court). Is there any other sub-7 footer in the league who misses triple doubles because they can't find a way to eke out 10 points? On the other hand, he has powered the Nets to 18-23, so..........
19. Chauncey Billups -- 4th best player on his own team. His team is really good, but they play a lot of needlessly close games and he jacks up late 3 pointers that happen to go in once in a while.
18. Yao Ming -- Hey, when you can will your team to a 12-12 mark in conference, you are clearly MVP quality
17. Amare Stoudamire -- can jump out of the gym, so he is tearing down.............9.3 boards a game, look out! AND he has managed to get his assist-turnover ratio above (below? the point is that it is better than...) 1 to 2 for the first time in memory (he touches the ball almost exclusively on dunk attempts)!
16. Carmelo Anthony -- almost certainly a candidate due to his tenacious shut-down man-to-man defense, right? Or at 6'9" and 240 how he manages to provide great help defense and somehow block 0.5 shots a night.
15. Carlos Boozer -- second most valuable player on his own team
14. Tim Duncan -- if we are going to give people votes based upon past performance, how about adding Kareem to the list? Maybe if Tim could clear 19 PPG I would see how he ranks so high???
13. Chris Bosh -- somewhere Shareef Abdur-Rahim is wondering where his MVP votes were back in the day. If this were Iowa girls basketball from the 1960s, Bosh would be a perfect player. Gotta love how he has put them on his shoulders and carried them to a 10-11 road record.
12. Caron Butler -- because I don't know about you, but when I think "MVP of the Entire League" the first thing that comes to mind is "Well, first think Caron Butler and then branch out from there."
11. Baron Davis -- is this an award for finally staying healthy enough to play? Warriors could not win a game without Stephen Jackson, so yes, Baron is the MVP. I mean, listen to this -- the other day he ALMOST scored a late basket that would have beaten.......the Timberwolves!!! And he held Marko Jaric to just under a triple double!
10. Dirk Nowitski -- take him off this team and replace him with an average NBA forward, they win 5 fewer games. Real MVP-ish there.
9. Brandon Roy -- Criteria -- "Let's see, Portland is doing well, who is their best guy?" Real sringent test there.
8. Paul Pierce -- Hmmmmmmm, his team SUCKED before Garnett and Allen got there, but now that they are there the Celts are GOOD..... Conclusion -- Pierce is the MVP. Logic 101 grade: F.
7. Allen Iverson -- because it is obviously this undersized gunner who is leading them to 2nd place in the Northwest Division and a potential, what? 7th seed?
6. Steve Nash -- OK, I get it, I get it. He is white, from outside the U.S., his team has a lot of good players and he doesn't suck. Who is running the MVP balloting in the NBA the last few years -- David Duke? The guys who vote for the Golden Globes?
5. Dwight Howard -- Yes, when a guy is your 3rd option on offense and you are 4-6 in your last 10 games, I don't know how you keep him out of the top 5 in MVP balloting.
4. Chris Paul -- Really? Honestly? Chris Paul? Is it any drawback that he can't make a shot outside of 12 feet? Does that bother anyone? Or that the Hornets draw 238 fans a night at home?
3. LeBron James -- When your team has NO other options on offense, wouldn't you think that you would get 30-35 a night? I mean, you handle the ball every single time down. But I guess that shooting 70% from the line is, by itself, enough to rank you top 3 in the MVP balloting. Side note -- Nice losing road mark for your squad, LeBron.
2. Kevin Garnett -- Is there not SOME minimum criteria for getting MVP votes? I mean, 19 and 9 a game? Chris Kaman is having a MUCH more productive statistical year. At some point don't you actually have to produce positive STATS to get MVP votes? If not, why isn't Rajon Rondo getting more push for MVP? He starts for a winning team, too.
1. Kobe Bryant/The Devil -- Are you joking here? This guy wanted out of L.A. because his teammates sucked (ergo he knew he wasn't good enough to win on his own and he needed to get out). Recall the, "Go buy yourself a Bulls jersey" footage? So then Andrew Bynum becomes a beast, other guys improve, they pick up Derek Fisher for nothing and the Lakers are now a better team because.............Kobe is MVP? Wow. Let me re-think my criticism of Paul Pierce's candidacy...........
Saracastically yours,
HM
To have a little fun, I will do what I did with the first round of the last NFL draft and rip every single MVP Candidate (which would include, much to my chagrin, ripping my fave LeBron James). So, here goes. Remember, this is just for a fun read and I really do not, in fact, think (for example) that LeBron James sucks:
20. Jason Kidd -- real nice guy, tremendous husband and father, really knows how to toss boulders (both on and off the court). Is there any other sub-7 footer in the league who misses triple doubles because they can't find a way to eke out 10 points? On the other hand, he has powered the Nets to 18-23, so..........
19. Chauncey Billups -- 4th best player on his own team. His team is really good, but they play a lot of needlessly close games and he jacks up late 3 pointers that happen to go in once in a while.
18. Yao Ming -- Hey, when you can will your team to a 12-12 mark in conference, you are clearly MVP quality
17. Amare Stoudamire -- can jump out of the gym, so he is tearing down.............9.3 boards a game, look out! AND he has managed to get his assist-turnover ratio above (below? the point is that it is better than...) 1 to 2 for the first time in memory (he touches the ball almost exclusively on dunk attempts)!
16. Carmelo Anthony -- almost certainly a candidate due to his tenacious shut-down man-to-man defense, right? Or at 6'9" and 240 how he manages to provide great help defense and somehow block 0.5 shots a night.
15. Carlos Boozer -- second most valuable player on his own team
14. Tim Duncan -- if we are going to give people votes based upon past performance, how about adding Kareem to the list? Maybe if Tim could clear 19 PPG I would see how he ranks so high???
13. Chris Bosh -- somewhere Shareef Abdur-Rahim is wondering where his MVP votes were back in the day. If this were Iowa girls basketball from the 1960s, Bosh would be a perfect player. Gotta love how he has put them on his shoulders and carried them to a 10-11 road record.
12. Caron Butler -- because I don't know about you, but when I think "MVP of the Entire League" the first thing that comes to mind is "Well, first think Caron Butler and then branch out from there."
11. Baron Davis -- is this an award for finally staying healthy enough to play? Warriors could not win a game without Stephen Jackson, so yes, Baron is the MVP. I mean, listen to this -- the other day he ALMOST scored a late basket that would have beaten.......the Timberwolves!!! And he held Marko Jaric to just under a triple double!
10. Dirk Nowitski -- take him off this team and replace him with an average NBA forward, they win 5 fewer games. Real MVP-ish there.
9. Brandon Roy -- Criteria -- "Let's see, Portland is doing well, who is their best guy?" Real sringent test there.
8. Paul Pierce -- Hmmmmmmm, his team SUCKED before Garnett and Allen got there, but now that they are there the Celts are GOOD..... Conclusion -- Pierce is the MVP. Logic 101 grade: F.
7. Allen Iverson -- because it is obviously this undersized gunner who is leading them to 2nd place in the Northwest Division and a potential, what? 7th seed?
6. Steve Nash -- OK, I get it, I get it. He is white, from outside the U.S., his team has a lot of good players and he doesn't suck. Who is running the MVP balloting in the NBA the last few years -- David Duke? The guys who vote for the Golden Globes?
5. Dwight Howard -- Yes, when a guy is your 3rd option on offense and you are 4-6 in your last 10 games, I don't know how you keep him out of the top 5 in MVP balloting.
4. Chris Paul -- Really? Honestly? Chris Paul? Is it any drawback that he can't make a shot outside of 12 feet? Does that bother anyone? Or that the Hornets draw 238 fans a night at home?
3. LeBron James -- When your team has NO other options on offense, wouldn't you think that you would get 30-35 a night? I mean, you handle the ball every single time down. But I guess that shooting 70% from the line is, by itself, enough to rank you top 3 in the MVP balloting. Side note -- Nice losing road mark for your squad, LeBron.
2. Kevin Garnett -- Is there not SOME minimum criteria for getting MVP votes? I mean, 19 and 9 a game? Chris Kaman is having a MUCH more productive statistical year. At some point don't you actually have to produce positive STATS to get MVP votes? If not, why isn't Rajon Rondo getting more push for MVP? He starts for a winning team, too.
1. Kobe Bryant/The Devil -- Are you joking here? This guy wanted out of L.A. because his teammates sucked (ergo he knew he wasn't good enough to win on his own and he needed to get out). Recall the, "Go buy yourself a Bulls jersey" footage? So then Andrew Bynum becomes a beast, other guys improve, they pick up Derek Fisher for nothing and the Lakers are now a better team because.............Kobe is MVP? Wow. Let me re-think my criticism of Paul Pierce's candidacy...........
Saracastically yours,
HM
Rich Wing of The GOP Finally Grinding Huckabee to Evangelical Dust
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/us/politics/23huckabee.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
As I stated weeks ago, http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2007/12/gop-torn-apart-by-presidential-field.html, it is never a good idea to bet against the rich wing of the Republican party. They generally tend to get what they want. So, despite doing a great job with very limited resources, Huckle-buckle has been abandoned by the monied side of the party (and ripped by their attack dogs on talk radio) and he is basically running out of cash.
Polls now show Huckle-buckle running 4th in Florida: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_republican_primary-260.html, albeit a close 4th, but Florida is "winner take all" so even moving up to 2nd won't help any when the rich wing of the party refuses to give you any cash.
So, with choice #3 of the rich side of the party quitting to enjoy his young wife's large...and sparkling personality, the three guys really left to battle it out are Romney and Giuliani (rich choices 1 & 2) and then compromise candidate McCain. Huckle-buckle fought hard, but unless he can get a late surge and win Florida I have to think that he limps through Super Tuesday and then just calls it quits while he can still pay his bills.
JSH
As I stated weeks ago, http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2007/12/gop-torn-apart-by-presidential-field.html, it is never a good idea to bet against the rich wing of the Republican party. They generally tend to get what they want. So, despite doing a great job with very limited resources, Huckle-buckle has been abandoned by the monied side of the party (and ripped by their attack dogs on talk radio) and he is basically running out of cash.
Polls now show Huckle-buckle running 4th in Florida: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_republican_primary-260.html, albeit a close 4th, but Florida is "winner take all" so even moving up to 2nd won't help any when the rich wing of the party refuses to give you any cash.
So, with choice #3 of the rich side of the party quitting to enjoy his young wife's large...and sparkling personality, the three guys really left to battle it out are Romney and Giuliani (rich choices 1 & 2) and then compromise candidate McCain. Huckle-buckle fought hard, but unless he can get a late surge and win Florida I have to think that he limps through Super Tuesday and then just calls it quits while he can still pay his bills.
JSH
American Idol 2008 to Use Recycled Talent?
http://www.votefortheworst.com/americanidol7contestants
I certainly see some merit to the argument that you shouldn't say "We are searching for undiscovered talent" when you really aren't, but let's be realisitic here.
Let's suppose that you were searching for a star professional baseball player in a reality contest. OK. Now would you be surprised if the final 50 included a bunch of guys who played college baseball or who played some in the minor leagues and washed out or who knew some major league players and played with those guys in high school? I wouldn't.
If you go back to Season 1, Kelly Clarkson wasn't some babe in the woods schlepping tables in rural Texas. Here is how Time Magazine described her pre-Idol situation:
but it's rarely noted that Clarkson already lived in Hollywood (she was only in Burleson because her apartment burned down), or that, as a demo singer for Gerry Goffin, the ex-husband of Carole King and co-writer of Up on the Roof and (You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman, Clarkson received high-level on-the-job instruction in songwriting and recording techniques. She even had the business sense to pass on two bad pre-Idol record deals. "They would have completely pigeonholed me as a bubblegum act," says Clarkson. "I was confident enough that something better would come along."
So, there are two potential explanations for this Internet item -- votefortheworst.com has a big axe to grind, or its operators are unbelievably naive. I vote for both.
I certainly see some merit to the argument that you shouldn't say "We are searching for undiscovered talent" when you really aren't, but let's be realisitic here.
Let's suppose that you were searching for a star professional baseball player in a reality contest. OK. Now would you be surprised if the final 50 included a bunch of guys who played college baseball or who played some in the minor leagues and washed out or who knew some major league players and played with those guys in high school? I wouldn't.
If you go back to Season 1, Kelly Clarkson wasn't some babe in the woods schlepping tables in rural Texas. Here is how Time Magazine described her pre-Idol situation:
but it's rarely noted that Clarkson already lived in Hollywood (she was only in Burleson because her apartment burned down), or that, as a demo singer for Gerry Goffin, the ex-husband of Carole King and co-writer of Up on the Roof and (You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman, Clarkson received high-level on-the-job instruction in songwriting and recording techniques. She even had the business sense to pass on two bad pre-Idol record deals. "They would have completely pigeonholed me as a bubblegum act," says Clarkson. "I was confident enough that something better would come along."
So, there are two potential explanations for this Internet item -- votefortheworst.com has a big axe to grind, or its operators are unbelievably naive. I vote for both.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Washington State Man Steals 93 pounds of bras and panties
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jH0XXkKx4erKeZJUI2uKMzwjgdmAD8UAVRQO2
Had he been a bit more careful, I am sure that Oprah would not have missed the 5 sets of her undergarments that he stole..............
Had he been a bit more careful, I am sure that Oprah would not have missed the 5 sets of her undergarments that he stole..............
Heath Ledger -- Dead at 28
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/actor-heath-ledger-is-found-dead/
Long rumored to be "the next Russell Crowe" I guess he will never get a chance to prove that prediction true.
RIP
Long rumored to be "the next Russell Crowe" I guess he will never get a chance to prove that prediction true.
RIP
Fred Thompson -- Quitter
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/01/fred_out.html I will agree with Fred that Jeri has done a lot for me during this campaign.
Where does Fred's 12% voter base go to now in Florida? If it all goes to any of the 4 remaining contenders, that will sway the Florida primary vote.
Where does Fred's 12% voter base go to now in Florida? If it all goes to any of the 4 remaining contenders, that will sway the Florida primary vote.
Obama-Clinton Exchange
I almost wish that I had watched!
In the debate, Clinton and Obama offered perhaps the most pointed criticisms of one another in the campaign. Obama went after Clinton during a discussion on economic stimulus by recalling his years as a community organizer in Chicago, adding: "While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."
And he brought up Bill Clinton's campaign surrogate role by chiding, "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."
Hillary Clinton, reacting to Obama's discussion of Republican ideas, struck back by saying: "I'm just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas. . . . Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor [Tony] Rezko in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago."
Obama has been dogged by his connections to Rezko, an indicted businessman; he recently returned $40,000 in campaign contributions linked to Rezko.
In the debate, Clinton and Obama offered perhaps the most pointed criticisms of one another in the campaign. Obama went after Clinton during a discussion on economic stimulus by recalling his years as a community organizer in Chicago, adding: "While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."
And he brought up Bill Clinton's campaign surrogate role by chiding, "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."
Hillary Clinton, reacting to Obama's discussion of Republican ideas, struck back by saying: "I'm just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas. . . . Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor [Tony] Rezko in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago."
Obama has been dogged by his connections to Rezko, an indicted businessman; he recently returned $40,000 in campaign contributions linked to Rezko.
Maria Sharapova
Saw Sharapova last night. 3 thoughts:
1) She has lost 10-15 pounds and is remarkably thin.
2) She is hitting the ball better than I have ever seen her hit the ball. She destroyed Henin 6-4 6-0. If she plays that well the rest of the way she will never lose a set.
3) It will be interesting to see how her new fitness regimen impacts her endorsements. She is playing better, but she does not look as good as she once did.
HM
1) She has lost 10-15 pounds and is remarkably thin.
2) She is hitting the ball better than I have ever seen her hit the ball. She destroyed Henin 6-4 6-0. If she plays that well the rest of the way she will never lose a set.
3) It will be interesting to see how her new fitness regimen impacts her endorsements. She is playing better, but she does not look as good as she once did.
HM
Monday, January 21, 2008
Favre Pisses Away Game -- Giants Advance Over Pathetic Packers
What was exposed yesterday on the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field is that Brett Favre's resurgence this year was NOT a product of any sudden improvement in his ability over this past year. Instead Favre's success was the product of the Packers' ability to run the ball and dominate on the offensive line. When the Giants took away the running game yesterday, Favre reverted to his form of 2003-2006 -- chuck it up while falling backward and hope it doesn't go to the other side.
It is sad that younger fans see NOT the Favre that was 3-time MVP and whom I once declared the Michael Jordan of football. What they see instead is a faded warrior who is hanging on endlessly to try to get a John-Elway-with-Terrell-Davis Super Bowl ring (which is made even sadder by the fact that Favre already has a ring that he earned). The awful NFC placed the Bears in the Super Bowl last year with Rex Grossman at the helm, but Favre could not lead his Packers there this year in what may have been an even worse NFC (the 2007-08 NFC champion lost at home to the Minnesota Vikings by 3 touchdowns). That, I think, is the unkindest cut of all. To repeat: Grossman -- good enough to reach the Super Bowl. Today's Brett Favre -- not good enough.
The good thing for Favre fans is that he will be back until he is 60 and the NFC isn't going to get any better any time soon (picture the 60 year old Brett Favre rolling out and lying down for a record-breaking career sack by the 55 year old Michael Strahan), so he will have more oppotunities to do well on the backs of other players (and if you watch the Packers, they have a LOT of good young players). But an impartial observer would have to wonder, could Aaron Rodgers have put up 35 points yesterday and put the game away easily? I guess Packer fans (and Aaron Rodgers) will never know.
Obama Praises Ronald Reagan
Barack simply cannot weather too many articles like this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It should be noted that, since 1980, what has made the GOP mostly election winners and rendered the Democrats mostly election losers is, well, the GOP acts like winners. Politics is, after all, a televised game/sport. The GOP understands this and recognizes that it is all a matter of counting votes -- let's see, I have the 20% of wealthy people, so I need to get 25% religious wackos and scare enough women into voting my way that I reach 50%. The Democratic party officials, on the other hand, treat politics as a way to a greater goal, which is why you have 10 books written by Democrats about how awful Bill Clinton was as a president. Guys, he is the only President you have had in the past 27 years. Period. Probably best for your party's image to BOLSTER his image.
So, what you have by way of political mythology is RONALD REAGAN (whom every Republican says was a god-like figure) versus, um, Dennis Kucinich (when hard-core Dems take on-line surveys to determine which candidate best represents their values, the computer invariably spits out Dennis Kucinich's name). Only the Democrats could struggle so mightily to replace the worst two-term President in the history of the United States.....
It should be noted that, since 1980, what has made the GOP mostly election winners and rendered the Democrats mostly election losers is, well, the GOP acts like winners. Politics is, after all, a televised game/sport. The GOP understands this and recognizes that it is all a matter of counting votes -- let's see, I have the 20% of wealthy people, so I need to get 25% religious wackos and scare enough women into voting my way that I reach 50%. The Democratic party officials, on the other hand, treat politics as a way to a greater goal, which is why you have 10 books written by Democrats about how awful Bill Clinton was as a president. Guys, he is the only President you have had in the past 27 years. Period. Probably best for your party's image to BOLSTER his image.
So, what you have by way of political mythology is RONALD REAGAN (whom every Republican says was a god-like figure) versus, um, Dennis Kucinich (when hard-core Dems take on-line surveys to determine which candidate best represents their values, the computer invariably spits out Dennis Kucinich's name). Only the Democrats could struggle so mightily to replace the worst two-term President in the history of the United States.....
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Dow Jones Industrial Average Up 15%!!
Ok, it is up 15% since the start of the Bush Presidency, when it started at around 10,500. So, in nearly seven years we have seen a scintillating stock market return in the Dow of about 1.5% compounded.
Now, that isn't exactly what anyone wants, but hey, it is better than the approximate return of 0% for the S&P 500 index over the same period of time!!
Now, that isn't exactly what anyone wants, but hey, it is better than the approximate return of 0% for the S&P 500 index over the same period of time!!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
NFL Hall of Fame Finalists
There are 17. The rules say you need 80% of the vote to get in. There is nothing that prevents the voters from putting all 17 in. Since it seems that they generally pick 5 or 6, I will pick 6. My picks are marked with asterisks.:
**********1. Cris Carter – Wide Receiver – 1987-89 Philadelphia Eagles, 1990-2001 Minnesota Vikings, 2002 Miami Dolphins
nope -- Fred Dean – Defensive End – 1975-1981 San Diego Chargers, 1981-85 San Francisco 49ers
nope -- Richard Dent – Defensive End – 1983-1993, 1995 Chicago Bears, 1994 San Francisco 49ers, 1996 Indianapolis Colts, 1997 Philadelphia Eagles
nope -- Marshall Goldberg – Back – 1939-1943, 1946-48 Chicago Cardinals
nope -- Randy Gradishar – Linebacker – 1974-1983 Denver Broncos
************* 2. Darrell Green – Cornerback – 1983-2002 Washington Redskins
nope -- Russ Grimm – Guard – 1981-1991 Washington Redskins
************** 3. Ray Guy – Punter – 1973-1986 Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders
nope -- Bob Kuechenberg – Guard – 1970-1984 Miami Dolphins
************** 4. Randall McDaniel – Guard – 1988-1999 Minnesota Vikings, 2000-2001 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
nope -- Art Monk – Wide Receiver – 1980-1993 Washington Redskins, 1994 New York Jets, 1995 Philadelphia Eagles
nope -- Andre Reed – Wide Receiver – 1985-1999 Buffalo Bills, 2000 Washington Redskins
nope -- Paul Tagliabue – Commissioner – 1989-2006 National Football League
************** 5. Derrick Thomas – Linebacker – 1989-1999 Kansas City Chiefs
nope -- Emmitt Thomas – Cornerback – 1966-1978 Kansas City Chiefs
nope -- Andre Tippett – Linebacker – 1982-1993 New England Patriots
************ 6. Gary Zimmerman – Tackle – 1986-1992 Minnesota Vikings, 1993-97 Denver Broncos
My vote puts in THREE Minnesota Vikings, so probably McDaniel and Zimmerman lose votes when Carter gets in, but they all clearly deserve to get in. Tagliabue shouldn't be on the ballot with players, he just shouldn't. So if there are guys who should have been in eons ago (Ray Guy) Tagliabue gets left out until that injustice is cured.
**********1. Cris Carter – Wide Receiver – 1987-89 Philadelphia Eagles, 1990-2001 Minnesota Vikings, 2002 Miami Dolphins
nope -- Fred Dean – Defensive End – 1975-1981 San Diego Chargers, 1981-85 San Francisco 49ers
nope -- Richard Dent – Defensive End – 1983-1993, 1995 Chicago Bears, 1994 San Francisco 49ers, 1996 Indianapolis Colts, 1997 Philadelphia Eagles
nope -- Marshall Goldberg – Back – 1939-1943, 1946-48 Chicago Cardinals
nope -- Randy Gradishar – Linebacker – 1974-1983 Denver Broncos
************* 2. Darrell Green – Cornerback – 1983-2002 Washington Redskins
nope -- Russ Grimm – Guard – 1981-1991 Washington Redskins
************** 3. Ray Guy – Punter – 1973-1986 Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders
nope -- Bob Kuechenberg – Guard – 1970-1984 Miami Dolphins
************** 4. Randall McDaniel – Guard – 1988-1999 Minnesota Vikings, 2000-2001 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
nope -- Art Monk – Wide Receiver – 1980-1993 Washington Redskins, 1994 New York Jets, 1995 Philadelphia Eagles
nope -- Andre Reed – Wide Receiver – 1985-1999 Buffalo Bills, 2000 Washington Redskins
nope -- Paul Tagliabue – Commissioner – 1989-2006 National Football League
************** 5. Derrick Thomas – Linebacker – 1989-1999 Kansas City Chiefs
nope -- Emmitt Thomas – Cornerback – 1966-1978 Kansas City Chiefs
nope -- Andre Tippett – Linebacker – 1982-1993 New England Patriots
************ 6. Gary Zimmerman – Tackle – 1986-1992 Minnesota Vikings, 1993-97 Denver Broncos
My vote puts in THREE Minnesota Vikings, so probably McDaniel and Zimmerman lose votes when Carter gets in, but they all clearly deserve to get in. Tagliabue shouldn't be on the ballot with players, he just shouldn't. So if there are guys who should have been in eons ago (Ray Guy) Tagliabue gets left out until that injustice is cured.
Brush With Greatness: SUNY Geneseo Named #1 Public School value in America!
http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/colleges/pubcollege.php?sortby=OUTRANK04&orderby=flip&states%5B%5D=ALL&myschool%5B%5D=none&outputby=table
Well, God bless Upstate NY!! SUNY Geneseo (where my older sister attended for two years before heading to pharmacy school) gets Kiplinger's #1 rating!
Geneseo is an excellent school, and, based upon walking around campus 10-20 years ago, it is particularly a good school for attractive young women seeking a liberal arts education. So, a great place for guys to visit (as we did for a great George Thorogood and the Destroyers concert in 1985 or 86).
Excuse me for this entry, but SUNY Geneseo (per mapquest) is only 32 miles away from where I grew up. We played Geneseo in all sports. So it is a pleasant change of pace for me to see that my home area ranks #1 nationally in some worthwhile positive category!
Geneseo is located in Livingston County: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livingston_County%2C_New_York. My brother was all-Tri-County in three sports as a high schooler (baseball, basketball, soccer). One of those tri-counties was Livingston County.
HM
Well, God bless Upstate NY!! SUNY Geneseo (where my older sister attended for two years before heading to pharmacy school) gets Kiplinger's #1 rating!
Geneseo is an excellent school, and, based upon walking around campus 10-20 years ago, it is particularly a good school for attractive young women seeking a liberal arts education. So, a great place for guys to visit (as we did for a great George Thorogood and the Destroyers concert in 1985 or 86).
Excuse me for this entry, but SUNY Geneseo (per mapquest) is only 32 miles away from where I grew up. We played Geneseo in all sports. So it is a pleasant change of pace for me to see that my home area ranks #1 nationally in some worthwhile positive category!
Geneseo is located in Livingston County: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livingston_County%2C_New_York. My brother was all-Tri-County in three sports as a high schooler (baseball, basketball, soccer). One of those tri-counties was Livingston County.
HM
How Can We Get LeBron Some Help?
So, LBJ goes for 51 last night in an OT win against Memphis. His other stats were down -- only like 9 rebounds and 8 assists and 3 steals and 1 block, so scoring that much obviously detracted from his overall game. Why do I say that? Because he recently went off against Charlotte for 31/19/8/4 steals and 3 blocks. These numbers came close to the extremely rare NBA stat of a "five by five" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-by-five_(basketball)
LeBron is leading the league in Efficiency. He is #6 in Efficiency per 48. He is #6 in the league in minutes per game. He is getting 7.7 rebounds a game and 7.5 assists per game. He still isn't a great free throw shooter (70%) and he makes about 1 of the 4 3-pointers he shoots a night (about 28% from 3), but he is having a sick season (witness the fact that he is shooting 53.2% from 2-point range). Kobe has picked up his overall game substantially this year, but he trails LBJ in points per game, rebounds per game, assists per game, and steals +blocks per game.
So, to the question at hand, how do we fans of LeBron not waste this amazing effort -- how do we get LeBron some help? Well, I think you need to assume that to help LeBron in the short term the Cavs would have to take on a bad contract of a decent player. That player needs to be a guard or swingman and that player needs to be able to take a wide open shot and make it.
I have determined three possible targets for the Cavs (and no I will not be the typical fan here and say, "Can't we trade Damon Jones and a low #1 for Steve Nash?"):
1) Mike Bibby -- Bibby has this year and next at a total of $28MM. A bad contract. He is coming off a thumb injury and hasn't played. If he can actually take the court and play, I say that based upon past experience alone, why not take a shot at Bibby.
2) Cuttino Mobley -- Now, the guy is owed $26MM over this year and the next two -- a bad deal. But he IS getting 12.7 ppg, 3 rebounds and 3 assists. He even (somehow) gets you 1.3 steals+blocks and shoots 38% from 3 (also his career average). At age 32, aches and pains are creeping in, but he still is an effective player. His Eff48 number of around 16 isn't good...........until you consider that Cleveland currently has SIX guards at 14.61 or lower!!! Not great, but a substantial upgrade.
3) Wally Szczerbiak -- Let's face it, the guy has never been regarded as a good teammate, his coaches have always screamed at him, and he is badly overpaid (this year and next left at $25MM total). His rebound/assist/steals/blocks numbers are flat-out embarrassing for a man his size with his basketball skills (2.5 rpg, 1.3apg, .2 steals, .1 blocks) But, no one can deny that Wally is one of the finest stand still shooters in the entire NBA.. His career numbers are 49% from the field and 41% from 3. He is actually UP to 43% from three this year and his overall number is still 45%.
AND he played at Miami of Ohio. Now, his absolute void in the non-shooting categories gives him a mediocre Efficiency number (9.70, 36th amongst Western Conference forwards), but he is getting 12.5 points per game playing 22.8 minutes a game.
Of players who play enough to qualify, Wally is the #26 player in the league in points per 48 minutes!!! http://aol.nba.com/statistics/player/Scoring.jsp?league=00&season=22007&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=9&splitScope=PER48&qualified=Y&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All%20Teams No one above him on the list shoots it as well from 3-point range. Of the top 50 scorers per 48 minutes, only Jason Richardson (barely) and Steve Nash have a higher 3-point percentage.
Wally and the Cavs would appear to be a match made in heaven.
LeBron is leading the league in Efficiency. He is #6 in Efficiency per 48. He is #6 in the league in minutes per game. He is getting 7.7 rebounds a game and 7.5 assists per game. He still isn't a great free throw shooter (70%) and he makes about 1 of the 4 3-pointers he shoots a night (about 28% from 3), but he is having a sick season (witness the fact that he is shooting 53.2% from 2-point range). Kobe has picked up his overall game substantially this year, but he trails LBJ in points per game, rebounds per game, assists per game, and steals +blocks per game.
So, to the question at hand, how do we fans of LeBron not waste this amazing effort -- how do we get LeBron some help? Well, I think you need to assume that to help LeBron in the short term the Cavs would have to take on a bad contract of a decent player. That player needs to be a guard or swingman and that player needs to be able to take a wide open shot and make it.
I have determined three possible targets for the Cavs (and no I will not be the typical fan here and say, "Can't we trade Damon Jones and a low #1 for Steve Nash?"):
1) Mike Bibby -- Bibby has this year and next at a total of $28MM. A bad contract. He is coming off a thumb injury and hasn't played. If he can actually take the court and play, I say that based upon past experience alone, why not take a shot at Bibby.
2) Cuttino Mobley -- Now, the guy is owed $26MM over this year and the next two -- a bad deal. But he IS getting 12.7 ppg, 3 rebounds and 3 assists. He even (somehow) gets you 1.3 steals+blocks and shoots 38% from 3 (also his career average). At age 32, aches and pains are creeping in, but he still is an effective player. His Eff48 number of around 16 isn't good...........until you consider that Cleveland currently has SIX guards at 14.61 or lower!!! Not great, but a substantial upgrade.
3) Wally Szczerbiak -- Let's face it, the guy has never been regarded as a good teammate, his coaches have always screamed at him, and he is badly overpaid (this year and next left at $25MM total). His rebound/assist/steals/blocks numbers are flat-out embarrassing for a man his size with his basketball skills (2.5 rpg, 1.3apg, .2 steals, .1 blocks) But, no one can deny that Wally is one of the finest stand still shooters in the entire NBA.. His career numbers are 49% from the field and 41% from 3. He is actually UP to 43% from three this year and his overall number is still 45%.
AND he played at Miami of Ohio. Now, his absolute void in the non-shooting categories gives him a mediocre Efficiency number (9.70, 36th amongst Western Conference forwards), but he is getting 12.5 points per game playing 22.8 minutes a game.
Of players who play enough to qualify, Wally is the #26 player in the league in points per 48 minutes!!! http://aol.nba.com/statistics/player/Scoring.jsp?league=00&season=22007&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=9&splitScope=PER48&qualified=Y&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All%20Teams No one above him on the list shoots it as well from 3-point range. Of the top 50 scorers per 48 minutes, only Jason Richardson (barely) and Steve Nash have a higher 3-point percentage.
Wally and the Cavs would appear to be a match made in heaven.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A Well Done Analysis of Romney's Michigan Win
If the exit polls are correct, Romney won mainly because: 1) he is from Michigan and his dad used to be Governor; and 2) he told people he would keep the auto industry jobs in Michigan.
I understand #1 -- it is one of my basic tenets of politics (see recent blog item), but if anyone voted for Romney because of Item #2, that is unfortunate. I am sorry, but that is like telling steel workers in Buffalo in 1974 that "steel will remain king in western NY and you will keep your $30/hour unskilled laborer jobs." It is a lie. But anyone voting for the Oven Mitt really isn't trying to locate a candidate with a great deal of sincerity anyway I guess....possible reason #3 for victory -- see similarity between an oven mitt and the lower peninsula of Michigan. It was fate.
Oh Lord -- Huckle-Buckle, I was TRYING to like you...
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/huck_we_need_to_amend_the_constitution_bring_it_in_line_with_god.php
We need to bring the Constitution in line with the word of God (sorry "the living God").
We need to bring the Constitution in line with the word of God (sorry "the living God").
Jared Jeffries, Marcus Williams and Darko Milicic
If you go to the top of my blog and hit "Search Blog" and look for items on Jared Jeffries, Marcus Williams and Darko Milicic, you will see that I have ripped these guys in the past only to have some irate fan of each respond with, "You are an idiot, my guy is great, you don't know what the hell you are talking about."
So, let's evaluate who has been correct on these players -- me or their fans.
Jared Jeffries -- 4 years, $25MM left from the Knicks. Signed because the Knicks felt he could really D up (despite watching LeBron light him up more than Clark Griswold's house at Christmas in the playoffs).
Efficiency of 4.39. 2.7 points, 2.9 rebounds, 41% from the floor and 47.6% from the line, plays 16 minutes a game for a terrible team. Out of 85 Eastern Conference forwards who qualify, he ranks 69th in Efficiency per 48 minutes.
Verdict Thus Far -- As I said -- he sucks and was an awful signing.
Marcus Williams -- After I was corrected that Marcus is not a "fat often-injured computer stealer" (he was a computer FENCER, much different), the statement was made that I couldn't use Marcus's piss poor stats against him, I had to watch him play. Well, if that argument holds true, it would be very difficult for me to ever argue against Marcus...........he doesn't play much. He gets 7.3 minutes per game for the Nets.
1.5PPG, 0.9 RPG, .8APG. Now we get even worse -- 23% from the floor, 27% from 3. So, he is UNDER 23% on 2-point shots!!!
Efficiency -- 1.0 -- 87th out of 88 qualified Eastern Conference guards. But if you adjust that number per 48, he skyrockets up to...............86th.......Take THAT Thomas Gardner!!
Verdict Thus Far -- Do we even have to say? I mean, as of now, he is one of the worst players in the entire NBA.
Darko Milicic -- Now, I was surprised at the venom spewed my way by Darko's agent, I mean, fan when I said that the Magic overpaid to get Darko and that he was a slightly better version of Mark Blount and could only HOPE that his career reached the level of Raef LaFrentz.
Again -- "You don't know crap, get your head out of your ass, etc."
OK, so Darko is playing 24.8MPG for a bad Memphis team. His numbers are 6.6/5.8/1.1/0.6/2.0 (blocks) 42.6% from the floor, 46.2% from the line.
Efficiency -- 9.45. 32nd best among NBA centers. Eff48 -- drops to 56th best (Kwame Brown and Scot Pollard are 4 and 5 spots better).
Verdict Thus Far -- Raef LaFrentz has had several seasons better than the season Darko is putting up this year. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lafrera01.html. So, yes, I am once again correct, you pay $21MM for a guy who you only HOPE gets as good as Raef LaFrentz. As far as Mark Blount goes -- Blount has had seasons where he has averaged 10 & 5
and last year in Mn averaged 12 and 6. Darko appears headed the wrong way if he intends to ever score 12 points a game.
Winner -- again, me.
HM
So, let's evaluate who has been correct on these players -- me or their fans.
Jared Jeffries -- 4 years, $25MM left from the Knicks. Signed because the Knicks felt he could really D up (despite watching LeBron light him up more than Clark Griswold's house at Christmas in the playoffs).
Efficiency of 4.39. 2.7 points, 2.9 rebounds, 41% from the floor and 47.6% from the line, plays 16 minutes a game for a terrible team. Out of 85 Eastern Conference forwards who qualify, he ranks 69th in Efficiency per 48 minutes.
Verdict Thus Far -- As I said -- he sucks and was an awful signing.
Marcus Williams -- After I was corrected that Marcus is not a "fat often-injured computer stealer" (he was a computer FENCER, much different), the statement was made that I couldn't use Marcus's piss poor stats against him, I had to watch him play. Well, if that argument holds true, it would be very difficult for me to ever argue against Marcus...........he doesn't play much. He gets 7.3 minutes per game for the Nets.
1.5PPG, 0.9 RPG, .8APG. Now we get even worse -- 23% from the floor, 27% from 3. So, he is UNDER 23% on 2-point shots!!!
Efficiency -- 1.0 -- 87th out of 88 qualified Eastern Conference guards. But if you adjust that number per 48, he skyrockets up to...............86th.......Take THAT Thomas Gardner!!
Verdict Thus Far -- Do we even have to say? I mean, as of now, he is one of the worst players in the entire NBA.
Darko Milicic -- Now, I was surprised at the venom spewed my way by Darko's agent, I mean, fan when I said that the Magic overpaid to get Darko and that he was a slightly better version of Mark Blount and could only HOPE that his career reached the level of Raef LaFrentz.
Again -- "You don't know crap, get your head out of your ass, etc."
OK, so Darko is playing 24.8MPG for a bad Memphis team. His numbers are 6.6/5.8/1.1/0.6/2.0 (blocks) 42.6% from the floor, 46.2% from the line.
Efficiency -- 9.45. 32nd best among NBA centers. Eff48 -- drops to 56th best (Kwame Brown and Scot Pollard are 4 and 5 spots better).
Verdict Thus Far -- Raef LaFrentz has had several seasons better than the season Darko is putting up this year. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lafrera01.html. So, yes, I am once again correct, you pay $21MM for a guy who you only HOPE gets as good as Raef LaFrentz. As far as Mark Blount goes -- Blount has had seasons where he has averaged 10 & 5
and last year in Mn averaged 12 and 6. Darko appears headed the wrong way if he intends to ever score 12 points a game.
Winner -- again, me.
HM
Very Basic Political Facts
I know that in this world we are taught to look for subtle things and to not stereotype and to search for a complex answer. But quite often the Occam's Razor is correct -- all things being equal, the simplest answer is generally the correct one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
So let me tell you, for your assistance in the ongoing political campaign, simple things that I have learned in my almost 44 years on this earth:
1) Young people, including poor-to-middle-class young white males, generally do not vote. So, if you think that Barack Obama is going to be swept into office by a tidal wave of 30,000,000 new voters, you are kidding yourself. To win he will need to fight Hillary Clinton for established Democrats, and particularly old, white Democrats -- you see, these people actually vote.
2) People Tend to Vote For Likeable People -- How could a nation that elected Bill Clinton for a 2nd term possibly turn around and elect George W. Bush? Seems impossible. Until you look at the alternatives: Perot (crazy munchkin), Bob Dole (1,000, very angry), and Al Gore (robotic, slave to political consultants). Say what you will about Clinton and Bush, but they were more likeable than the alternatives. Similarly, Bush defeated John Kerry whose ineffective manner made Bush seem less incompetent to enough people that it tipped the scales GWB's way. This factor is a HUGE negative for HC in the general election.
3) People Like to Vote For People Who Look and Act Like Them -- Who in Iowa has a friend like The Oven Mitt? Very few people. Everyone in Iowa knows a guy like Good Old Huckle-buckle. But move hayseed Huckle-Buckle to New Hampshire and his southern voice and Baptist ways just don't translate real well. Michigan has a lot of hicks, but they are generally URBAN hicks. Therefore, Huckle-buckle struggles and probably finishes in 3rd place.
This factor #3 is why it is ASTOUNDING to me that Romney (former Governor of Massachusetts) could not win NH when he was right next door for so many years! McCain (Old Man River), who has no discernible regional accent, fared much better in New Hampshire than did Huckle-Buckle or Fred Thompson.
Rudy Giuliani knows that his NYC attitude and behavior is so disquieting to IA, NH and SC voters that he moved his campaign start to Florida to get some votes from transplanted New Yorkers!!
Dem side -- Hillary's nasally off-putting voice and pushy way hurts in Iowa, not so bad in the northeast. I mean, look at our future contests - Obama leads in SC, Hillary in CA and FL. Real easy politics here.
4) Hard to bet against the monied interests -- Clinton won in 1992 because there was, basically, no one else acceptable and people figured Bush was a sure-fire winner. But since then, every party winner has been an incumbent or someone with a huge war chest. I still believe that the true big dollars are behind Clinton and Romney. But Obama can draw some solace from the fact that Mike Dukakis somehow won the nomination in 1988 (pre-tank ad).
5) Listen When People Say, "I Call Upon _________ to Step Aside" -- 95% of the time that means that the speaker is about done. Before the NH results, Edwards was whispering that Hillary should quit. Translation, "I am doing so poorly that the only way I can win is if someone lets me win." I would imagine that if Oven Mitt loses Michigan that Giuliani and Thompson will call upon him to step aside.
6) People Hate More Than They Will Let On -- a lot of people will never vote for a black man. A lot of people will never vote for a woman for President. A lot of people will never vote for a Mormon. Any poll that says, "10% or 20%" for these categories is understated by a large margin. It is just the way it is. I grew up around many people like this, and I am sure that 90% are all still alive and that they have nothing else to do on election day other than to vote their conscience. So, as long as the GOP doesn't nominate Romney, they have a huge built-in advantage by submitting a white male candidate.
HM
So let me tell you, for your assistance in the ongoing political campaign, simple things that I have learned in my almost 44 years on this earth:
1) Young people, including poor-to-middle-class young white males, generally do not vote. So, if you think that Barack Obama is going to be swept into office by a tidal wave of 30,000,000 new voters, you are kidding yourself. To win he will need to fight Hillary Clinton for established Democrats, and particularly old, white Democrats -- you see, these people actually vote.
2) People Tend to Vote For Likeable People -- How could a nation that elected Bill Clinton for a 2nd term possibly turn around and elect George W. Bush? Seems impossible. Until you look at the alternatives: Perot (crazy munchkin), Bob Dole (1,000, very angry), and Al Gore (robotic, slave to political consultants). Say what you will about Clinton and Bush, but they were more likeable than the alternatives. Similarly, Bush defeated John Kerry whose ineffective manner made Bush seem less incompetent to enough people that it tipped the scales GWB's way. This factor is a HUGE negative for HC in the general election.
3) People Like to Vote For People Who Look and Act Like Them -- Who in Iowa has a friend like The Oven Mitt? Very few people. Everyone in Iowa knows a guy like Good Old Huckle-buckle. But move hayseed Huckle-Buckle to New Hampshire and his southern voice and Baptist ways just don't translate real well. Michigan has a lot of hicks, but they are generally URBAN hicks. Therefore, Huckle-buckle struggles and probably finishes in 3rd place.
This factor #3 is why it is ASTOUNDING to me that Romney (former Governor of Massachusetts) could not win NH when he was right next door for so many years! McCain (Old Man River), who has no discernible regional accent, fared much better in New Hampshire than did Huckle-Buckle or Fred Thompson.
Rudy Giuliani knows that his NYC attitude and behavior is so disquieting to IA, NH and SC voters that he moved his campaign start to Florida to get some votes from transplanted New Yorkers!!
Dem side -- Hillary's nasally off-putting voice and pushy way hurts in Iowa, not so bad in the northeast. I mean, look at our future contests - Obama leads in SC, Hillary in CA and FL. Real easy politics here.
4) Hard to bet against the monied interests -- Clinton won in 1992 because there was, basically, no one else acceptable and people figured Bush was a sure-fire winner. But since then, every party winner has been an incumbent or someone with a huge war chest. I still believe that the true big dollars are behind Clinton and Romney. But Obama can draw some solace from the fact that Mike Dukakis somehow won the nomination in 1988 (pre-tank ad).
5) Listen When People Say, "I Call Upon _________ to Step Aside" -- 95% of the time that means that the speaker is about done. Before the NH results, Edwards was whispering that Hillary should quit. Translation, "I am doing so poorly that the only way I can win is if someone lets me win." I would imagine that if Oven Mitt loses Michigan that Giuliani and Thompson will call upon him to step aside.
6) People Hate More Than They Will Let On -- a lot of people will never vote for a black man. A lot of people will never vote for a woman for President. A lot of people will never vote for a Mormon. Any poll that says, "10% or 20%" for these categories is understated by a large margin. It is just the way it is. I grew up around many people like this, and I am sure that 90% are all still alive and that they have nothing else to do on election day other than to vote their conscience. So, as long as the GOP doesn't nominate Romney, they have a huge built-in advantage by submitting a white male candidate.
HM
Glen Rice -- "Get Out of The Closet!"
http://www.local10.com/news/15042555/detail.html
Go to K's Blog: www.k-line.blogspot.com for a nice pic of the estranged wife. You can see why Glen would want to discourage others from sampling that menu. Whoa!
Go to K's Blog: www.k-line.blogspot.com for a nice pic of the estranged wife. You can see why Glen would want to discourage others from sampling that menu. Whoa!
Australian Open
Aussie Open is up and running for the first Grand Slam of the year. Here is a pic of the 1999 and 2002 Aussie doubles champions Martina Hingis and Anna Kournikova.
Note the developing chemistry that eventually led to multiple........titles.
Court -- Jan. 15th
Just appeared in court for my real job (lawyer). For the first time in my career I was seeking dismissal of a case as a result of perjured answers to discovery by the other side.
Now, this is not an easy motion. But here is my opponent's argument:
Judge: Did you submit false answers?
Opponent: Well, the questions were very long and unnecessary and.......
Judge: And your answers?
Opponent: Well, we have the right to amend our answers up to the date of trial. That is what we did. Our answers weren't correct, so we amended them.
Judge: I am amazed at what I am hearing here. You are really taking the position that you can submit false answers and then change them after you are caught lying? It is OK to lie so long as you later amend?
Opponent: We have the right to amend, and we exercised that right.
Now, I will be one sorry attorney if I cannot win this motion based upon that defense. Wow.
Pictured -- a woman I wish would apply for a position at my firm....I can think of a few for her.
Friday, January 11, 2008
GOP SC Debate
Here is this guy's commentary saying Huckle-buckle won. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2008/01/barnett_a_big_night_for_huckab_1.asp
I was shocked! shocked! that Fox News gathered together a "focus group" of people (all of whom spoke without a trace of a southern accent -- couldn't they have found SOMEONE who sounded southern?) 90% of whom were just bowled over by the performance of Fred Thompson.
The Fox News text poll had as the winner....................Ron Paul. I laughed my ass off that Fox had to post that result.
I fell asleep on the couch and woke up to see most of the debate replay. I will grade each old white guy on a 1 to 100 scale:
6th -- The Oven Mitt -- 57 out of 100 -- I am not sure why people criticize the Oven Mitt for failing to be "aggressive" and not trying to "stand out." Look, he doesn't WANT to stand out. He has the big cash, he is content rolling up "silver medals" until it is just him and Huckle-buckle. But the true problem with Mitt in debates is that you know he doesn't really believe anything he says and that he would say that he had a threesome last night with Earl Butz and Phyllis Diller if he thought it would get him the elderly vote. So, it is not that he is lazy, it is just that he is a very poor actor.
5th -- The Notorious L-I-B (Giuliani) -- 71 out of 100 -- now, he shines compared to Romney, but his "me too" approach grows tiresome quickly. "Hey, I supported the surge too." Yeah, Rudy, so did some guy working the backhoe in Clarence, New York, but he had about as much influence on whether it occurred as you did.
4th -- Old Man River -- 73 out of 100 -- it appears to be a physical struggle for McCain to open his mouth or make any movement. Lowlight of the night was when McAmnesty claimed that he had always been a big believer in border security and that McCain-Kennedy failed because people were disappointed in the enforcement of the 1986 Act. Yeah, I know that when a guy in upstate NY says to me, "We gotta deport all the goddamned aliens who are taking our jobs" he really means, "I have technical issues with Congress's enforcement of the 1986 immigration act."
3rd -- The Guy With the Racked-Out Wife -- 84 out of 100 -- Freddy looked so alive last night that you would have actually thought he was a real candidate for office!! He actually made some points and appeared to be well informed. He just isn't real likeable. McCain is the grandpa you go to visit who never gets out of his chair but who is Ok if you are willing to spend the time and sit and chat some. Thompson is the grandpa whose house you visit and you hope that Grandma has chores for you to do so you don't have to pretend to have a conversation with him.
2nd -- Huckle-Buckle -- 85 out of 100 -- He is just a real likeable guy. He made some classic comment about "The Gates of Hell" and tossed in how we need to help Christian (OK, not Christian, but at least not Muslim) Israel. I think the guy is in the final analysis a completely empty suit, but I enjoy his folksy way and the fact that he is sticking a fork in the eye of Rush Limbaugh and the other commentators from the rich wing of the party. He actually used the "serve not only the fortunate" line last night and still escaped all assassination efforts.
1st -- The Guy They Don't Want Around -- 86 out of 100 -- Hey, Ron Paul can't win, but he is fun to watch. His style has now evolved (sorry, I mean, "intelligently designed its way") from "Angry guy whose grass you walked on" to "Confused by whether he IS Ross Perot or just plays him on TV." What I enjoy about Ron Paul is that he doesn't just allow all of the crap that is being spewed to go unchallenged. I mean, he offered up, "Seems to me we have a lot of border patrol in Iraq. I would prefer that they be back guarding our border." He ripped McCain for saying he would be OK with U.S. troops in Iraq for "100 years" leading McCain to offer up basically "Well, not if they are still dying or otherwise being blown up." And he got yelled at by Brit Hume for saying he really was getting tired of the other GOP guys wanting to invade/bomb Iran "we are broke, we don't have the money to do that." Also noted that we are, in his opinion, in a recession.
Hume's childish behavior toward Paul was embarrassing. The other debaters had all basically said:
"Yeah, the commander did the right thing by not firing.........BUT LET ME TELL YOU I
WANT TO BLOW THOSE DAMNED EH-RABBS ALL TO HELL AND I WILL!!!"
Paul starts out by saying that he is disturbed by this rhetoric and Hume goes all bonkers and yells at him. Way to be "fair and balanced" Brit....
HM
I was shocked! shocked! that Fox News gathered together a "focus group" of people (all of whom spoke without a trace of a southern accent -- couldn't they have found SOMEONE who sounded southern?) 90% of whom were just bowled over by the performance of Fred Thompson.
The Fox News text poll had as the winner....................Ron Paul. I laughed my ass off that Fox had to post that result.
I fell asleep on the couch and woke up to see most of the debate replay. I will grade each old white guy on a 1 to 100 scale:
6th -- The Oven Mitt -- 57 out of 100 -- I am not sure why people criticize the Oven Mitt for failing to be "aggressive" and not trying to "stand out." Look, he doesn't WANT to stand out. He has the big cash, he is content rolling up "silver medals" until it is just him and Huckle-buckle. But the true problem with Mitt in debates is that you know he doesn't really believe anything he says and that he would say that he had a threesome last night with Earl Butz and Phyllis Diller if he thought it would get him the elderly vote. So, it is not that he is lazy, it is just that he is a very poor actor.
5th -- The Notorious L-I-B (Giuliani) -- 71 out of 100 -- now, he shines compared to Romney, but his "me too" approach grows tiresome quickly. "Hey, I supported the surge too." Yeah, Rudy, so did some guy working the backhoe in Clarence, New York, but he had about as much influence on whether it occurred as you did.
4th -- Old Man River -- 73 out of 100 -- it appears to be a physical struggle for McCain to open his mouth or make any movement. Lowlight of the night was when McAmnesty claimed that he had always been a big believer in border security and that McCain-Kennedy failed because people were disappointed in the enforcement of the 1986 Act. Yeah, I know that when a guy in upstate NY says to me, "We gotta deport all the goddamned aliens who are taking our jobs" he really means, "I have technical issues with Congress's enforcement of the 1986 immigration act."
3rd -- The Guy With the Racked-Out Wife -- 84 out of 100 -- Freddy looked so alive last night that you would have actually thought he was a real candidate for office!! He actually made some points and appeared to be well informed. He just isn't real likeable. McCain is the grandpa you go to visit who never gets out of his chair but who is Ok if you are willing to spend the time and sit and chat some. Thompson is the grandpa whose house you visit and you hope that Grandma has chores for you to do so you don't have to pretend to have a conversation with him.
2nd -- Huckle-Buckle -- 85 out of 100 -- He is just a real likeable guy. He made some classic comment about "The Gates of Hell" and tossed in how we need to help Christian (OK, not Christian, but at least not Muslim) Israel. I think the guy is in the final analysis a completely empty suit, but I enjoy his folksy way and the fact that he is sticking a fork in the eye of Rush Limbaugh and the other commentators from the rich wing of the party. He actually used the "serve not only the fortunate" line last night and still escaped all assassination efforts.
1st -- The Guy They Don't Want Around -- 86 out of 100 -- Hey, Ron Paul can't win, but he is fun to watch. His style has now evolved (sorry, I mean, "intelligently designed its way") from "Angry guy whose grass you walked on" to "Confused by whether he IS Ross Perot or just plays him on TV." What I enjoy about Ron Paul is that he doesn't just allow all of the crap that is being spewed to go unchallenged. I mean, he offered up, "Seems to me we have a lot of border patrol in Iraq. I would prefer that they be back guarding our border." He ripped McCain for saying he would be OK with U.S. troops in Iraq for "100 years" leading McCain to offer up basically "Well, not if they are still dying or otherwise being blown up." And he got yelled at by Brit Hume for saying he really was getting tired of the other GOP guys wanting to invade/bomb Iran "we are broke, we don't have the money to do that." Also noted that we are, in his opinion, in a recession.
Hume's childish behavior toward Paul was embarrassing. The other debaters had all basically said:
"Yeah, the commander did the right thing by not firing.........BUT LET ME TELL YOU I
WANT TO BLOW THOSE DAMNED EH-RABBS ALL TO HELL AND I WILL!!!"
Paul starts out by saying that he is disturbed by this rhetoric and Hume goes all bonkers and yells at him. Way to be "fair and balanced" Brit....
HM
Youngest Legal Celebs
Since PAR is so upset with my "oldest" entries, and since Deb Lafavre got off yesterday (pun intended), as a tribute to both, I offer up the two youngest celeb chicks I could find who are non-jailbait, 18 year old Hayden Panettiere (black and white dress, posing with herself) and 18 year old Alyson Michalka (curly hair, on the right, jailbait sis AJ on left is still 16).
AOL Cheerleader Finals
Dallas versus Miami: http://sports.aol.com/hottest-cheerleaders
Total squad quality aside, how would you like to try to select between the first two cheerleaders pictured?
Total squad quality aside, how would you like to try to select between the first two cheerleaders pictured?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
20 Oldest Living Baseball Hall of Famers
1. Lee MacPhail
10/25/1917
Age 90
2. Bobby Doerr
4/17/1918
89
3. Bob Feller
11/3/1918
89
4. Monte Irvin
2/25/1919
88
5. Stan Musial
11/21/1920
88 this month
6. George Kell
8/23/1922
85
7. Ralph Kiner
10/27/1922
85
8. Red Schoendienst
2/2/1923
soon to be 85
9. Yogi Berra
5/12/1925
82
10. Duke Snider
9/19/1926
81
11. Robin Roberts
9/30/1926
81
12. Tommy Lasorda
9/22/1927
80
13. Whitey Ford
10/21/1928
79
14. Dick Williams
5/27/1929
78
15. Earl Weaver
16. Ernie Banks
1/31/1931
soon to be 77
17. Willie Mays
5/6/1931
76
18. Jim Bunning
10/23/1931
76
19. Hank Aaron
2/5/1934
soon to be 74
20. Sparky Anderson
2/22/1934
Soon to be 74
10/25/1917
Age 90
2. Bobby Doerr
4/17/1918
89
3. Bob Feller
11/3/1918
89
4. Monte Irvin
2/25/1919
88
5. Stan Musial
11/21/1920
88 this month
6. George Kell
8/23/1922
85
7. Ralph Kiner
10/27/1922
85
8. Red Schoendienst
2/2/1923
soon to be 85
9. Yogi Berra
5/12/1925
82
10. Duke Snider
9/19/1926
81
11. Robin Roberts
9/30/1926
81
12. Tommy Lasorda
9/22/1927
80
13. Whitey Ford
10/21/1928
79
14. Dick Williams
5/27/1929
78
15. Earl Weaver
16. Ernie Banks
1/31/1931
soon to be 77
17. Willie Mays
5/6/1931
76
18. Jim Bunning
10/23/1931
76
19. Hank Aaron
2/5/1934
soon to be 74
20. Sparky Anderson
2/22/1934
Soon to be 74
Why I May Support Fred Thompson
Because he is a sharp dresser and demonstrates good judgment on certain things.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Famous People (Whom I Recognize) Who are at Least 92 Years Old
Earl Butz
98
07/03/1909
Politics
Anita Page
97
08/04/1910
Entertainment
John Wooden
97
10/14/1910
Sports
Mitch Miller
96
07/04/1911
Music
Karl Malden
95
03/22/1912
Entertainment
Studs Terkel
95
05/16/1912
Literature
Art Linkletter
95
07/17/1912
Entertainment
Robert Mondavi
94
06/18/1913
Business
95
05/16/1912
Literature
Art Linkletter
95
07/17/1912
Entertainment
Robert Mondavi
94
06/18/1913
Business
W. Mark Felt
94
08/17/1913
Politics
Sammy Baugh
93
03/17/1914
Sports
Irwin Corey
93
07/29/1914
Entertainment
Jack LaLanne
93
09/26/1914
Other
Richard Widmark
93
12/26/1914
Entertainment
Harry Morgan
92
04/10/1915
Entertainment
Herman Wouk
92
05/27/1915
Literature
Les Paul
92
06/09/1915
Music
David Rockefeller
92
06/12/1915
Business
94
08/17/1913
Politics
Sammy Baugh
93
03/17/1914
Sports
Irwin Corey
93
07/29/1914
Entertainment
Jack LaLanne
93
09/26/1914
Other
Richard Widmark
93
12/26/1914
Entertainment
Harry Morgan
92
04/10/1915
Entertainment
Herman Wouk
92
05/27/1915
Literature
Les Paul
92
06/09/1915
Music
David Rockefeller
92
06/12/1915
Business
I tossed in the Erin Andrews pic just to brighten up the post.
McCain Wins -- Um, So What?
McCain beats Romney with Huckle-buckle a poor 3rd (11%) and Giuliani barely edging Ron Paul for 4th. Fred Thompson? Um, no.
So where does that leave the GOP?
Front Runner -- still Mitt Romney. Hard as it is to believe (and hard as it is to stomach his constant references to losses as "getting the silver"), he is still the guy to beat. Why? He has money. He will spend money. He is seen by the rich wing of the party as the only plausible candidate.
Chances Improved -- Huckle-buckle -- hey, look, the guy is running on a shoestring and he is still beating Giuliani in a northeastern state. When he gets a chance to talk to "his people" in FL and SC and even western Michigan, he almost certainly finishes first or second in those states. Problem -- $$$$. The rich wing hates him, so he will have to get his money from the collection plate (if you will).
Still a Chance -- Giuliani, Thompson -- just like in a football season when you start out poorly you hope no one else starts out hot.
Who Knows? -- McCain -- name one state where he actually should be favored.
So where does that leave the GOP?
Front Runner -- still Mitt Romney. Hard as it is to believe (and hard as it is to stomach his constant references to losses as "getting the silver"), he is still the guy to beat. Why? He has money. He will spend money. He is seen by the rich wing of the party as the only plausible candidate.
Chances Improved -- Huckle-buckle -- hey, look, the guy is running on a shoestring and he is still beating Giuliani in a northeastern state. When he gets a chance to talk to "his people" in FL and SC and even western Michigan, he almost certainly finishes first or second in those states. Problem -- $$$$. The rich wing hates him, so he will have to get his money from the collection plate (if you will).
Still a Chance -- Giuliani, Thompson -- just like in a football season when you start out poorly you hope no one else starts out hot.
Who Knows? -- McCain -- name one state where he actually should be favored.
Big Girls Do Cry -- Hillary Wins
http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/clinton-mccain-win-in-new-hampshire/20080107211209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Advantages for Clinton in NH versus IA:
1) secret ballot -- (my "hold your nose, look away and vote for Hillary" theory);
2) grating personal style/voice/personality not viewed as being as obnoxious in the Northeast as it was in the Midwest;
3) near nervous breakdown worked -- watch the episode of Seinfeld where George bawls like a baby to get his wedding postponed; same deal here (at least among women voters).
I guess this means good-bye to the Old Competent Hillary and hello to the new earth-tones-I-love-the-young-voter Hillary.
I will not miss OCH "like a child misses its blanket" but I don't care much for the new one either.
John Edwards vows to fight on, which is bad news for Obama. What is Bill Richardson's role in this play? To switch drippy pop tunes here, he needs to Get Out (Leave)!
HM
Advantages for Clinton in NH versus IA:
1) secret ballot -- (my "hold your nose, look away and vote for Hillary" theory);
2) grating personal style/voice/personality not viewed as being as obnoxious in the Northeast as it was in the Midwest;
3) near nervous breakdown worked -- watch the episode of Seinfeld where George bawls like a baby to get his wedding postponed; same deal here (at least among women voters).
I guess this means good-bye to the Old Competent Hillary and hello to the new earth-tones-I-love-the-young-voter Hillary.
I will not miss OCH "like a child misses its blanket" but I don't care much for the new one either.
John Edwards vows to fight on, which is bad news for Obama. What is Bill Richardson's role in this play? To switch drippy pop tunes here, he needs to Get Out (Leave)!
HM
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Why Jim Rice Isn't In the Hall of Fame
Because nobody nerds like Keith Law and Joe Sheehan have the right to keep him out:
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3186736&categoryId=2521705
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3186736&categoryId=2521705
Good Blog Item on How Hillary Can Still Win
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/01/clintons_plan_b.html
The best fact in the article is that Dems hand out delegates in proportion to votes received, so while Hillary is "losing" she isn't losing as much as she would in a "winner take all" world.
Another good entry at realclearpolitics.com (a strong GOP-leaning site) is the national poll showing that there are 5 guys who are polling between 21 and 10 percent nationally for the GOP (Huckle-buckle, the Pro-Choice-and-Pro-Gay Guy, Old Man River, the Oven Mitt and the Sleeping Actor Guy).
The best fact in the article is that Dems hand out delegates in proportion to votes received, so while Hillary is "losing" she isn't losing as much as she would in a "winner take all" world.
Another good entry at realclearpolitics.com (a strong GOP-leaning site) is the national poll showing that there are 5 guys who are polling between 21 and 10 percent nationally for the GOP (Huckle-buckle, the Pro-Choice-and-Pro-Gay Guy, Old Man River, the Oven Mitt and the Sleeping Actor Guy).
Monday, January 07, 2008
A Plaintiff's Lawyer's View of Roger Clemens' Defamation complaint
http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/080107/mlb_clemens.pdf
Certainly not the best Complaint I have ever read. You'd like to see the horrific lies laid out in a more compelling manner:
My suggestion -- Brian M. says "________________" regarding steroids. This is defamatory to RC because RC has never, on any occasion is his life, taken steroids or any performance enhancing drug."
You'd also like to see a stronger allegation of damages, for example:
My Suggestion on Damages -- RC is a 100% clean athlete who has never taken PED of any kind in his entire life, yet now, due to the lies of Brian M., Clemens's legacy as an all-time great pitcher (and possibly the greatest pitcher of all-time) is tarnished in the eyes of those who believe that he took PED to achieve some or all of his success.
Instead we get to read about where Clemens grew up and how he didn't initially get a scholarship at the University of Texas and how his 20-strikeout performance was ("reportedly") described by some unnamed manager of the Red Sox as being a better pitched game than Mitt Witt's perfect game. Well, that clinches it for me. If he is a better pitcher than Mike Witt, award punitive damages all you want!
Legal Claims
While I certainly do not purport to be an expert on Texas defamation law, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that Texas law is as stated in the RC Complaint. Under the common law in most states, a defamatory statement is defamatory "per se" if it falls under one of 4 categories: 1) it falsely accuses someone of having a loathsome disease; 2) it falsely accuse a woman of a lack of chastity; 3) it falsely states that a person lacks integrity or honesty in his trade or business; or 4) it falsely accuses a person of criminal conduct. So, Brian's false statements regarding RC are, in fact, defamatory per se under elements 3 and 4.
But that is not what RC's lawyer pleads. Instead he says that the statements are defamatory per se because they are false and because they have subjected Clemens to ridicule, hatred, contempt and financial injury. Um, these are the elements of basic defamation, not of any special defamation per se claim of which I am aware. It is possible that Texas law is so screwed up that this is proper pleading...........but I am skeptical.
The case will certainly be removed within 30 days from Texas state court to Texas federal court. Then I would imagine that McNamee would ask that venue be transferred to the Southern District of New York where all of the witnesses are (rather than Texas where apparently only Clemens and his lawyer are). He may win that motion. If so, Roger gets to go into court in New York City!!! Ask Isiah Thomas how that media coverage worked out for him.
So there ya go.................
HM
Certainly not the best Complaint I have ever read. You'd like to see the horrific lies laid out in a more compelling manner:
My suggestion -- Brian M. says "________________" regarding steroids. This is defamatory to RC because RC has never, on any occasion is his life, taken steroids or any performance enhancing drug."
You'd also like to see a stronger allegation of damages, for example:
My Suggestion on Damages -- RC is a 100% clean athlete who has never taken PED of any kind in his entire life, yet now, due to the lies of Brian M., Clemens's legacy as an all-time great pitcher (and possibly the greatest pitcher of all-time) is tarnished in the eyes of those who believe that he took PED to achieve some or all of his success.
Instead we get to read about where Clemens grew up and how he didn't initially get a scholarship at the University of Texas and how his 20-strikeout performance was ("reportedly") described by some unnamed manager of the Red Sox as being a better pitched game than Mitt Witt's perfect game. Well, that clinches it for me. If he is a better pitcher than Mike Witt, award punitive damages all you want!
Legal Claims
While I certainly do not purport to be an expert on Texas defamation law, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that Texas law is as stated in the RC Complaint. Under the common law in most states, a defamatory statement is defamatory "per se" if it falls under one of 4 categories: 1) it falsely accuses someone of having a loathsome disease; 2) it falsely accuse a woman of a lack of chastity; 3) it falsely states that a person lacks integrity or honesty in his trade or business; or 4) it falsely accuses a person of criminal conduct. So, Brian's false statements regarding RC are, in fact, defamatory per se under elements 3 and 4.
But that is not what RC's lawyer pleads. Instead he says that the statements are defamatory per se because they are false and because they have subjected Clemens to ridicule, hatred, contempt and financial injury. Um, these are the elements of basic defamation, not of any special defamation per se claim of which I am aware. It is possible that Texas law is so screwed up that this is proper pleading...........but I am skeptical.
The case will certainly be removed within 30 days from Texas state court to Texas federal court. Then I would imagine that McNamee would ask that venue be transferred to the Southern District of New York where all of the witnesses are (rather than Texas where apparently only Clemens and his lawyer are). He may win that motion. If so, Roger gets to go into court in New York City!!! Ask Isiah Thomas how that media coverage worked out for him.
So there ya go.................
HM
Ohio State Outclassed Once Again
So, Ohio State gets up 10-0 this year and basically still should have lost by 3 touchdowns. Was ANYONE watching last year's game where an Ohio State team with a LOT more talent on offense (two first-round wide receivers; a somewhat mobile QB) was absolutely destroyed by an SEC squad? I mean, did anyone really believe that Ohio State was one of the best two teams in the nation? If you had an 8 team playoff would you pick them as a top 4 seed? I sure as hell wouldn't. Would Ohio State have reached the SEC title game? Doubtful.
So, why do they get in year after year only to embarass themselves and the Big Ten? Because they are today's version of the Buffalo Bills of the early 1990s -- the best that a bad conference has to offer. Why does the Big Ten office so consistently oppose a playoff? Because in an 8-team playoff arrangement its champion Ohio State would be sitting home every January with its ass handed to it well before the national title game. Today however, beat Michigan -- you are in, congrats. Miracles even occur and (with sufficient key blown calls) you might win a game once.
The AFC in the early 1990s HAD to send Buffalo to those last three Super Bowls. The BCS doesn't HAVE to keep sending Ohio State every frigging year. I mean, I would have preferred to see two SEC teams go at it where I knew each had a fair chance to win............but no..........another Big Ten failure. Great. Well, I am sure Ohio State can boost its record again against the Minnesotas and Northwesterns in 2008 so we can see them lose in the 2009 national title game to??? Maybe Georgia? Maybe we can just pre-set the National title game so that every year a different SEC club gets the right to kick Ohio State's ass and call itself "champion"???
So, why do they get in year after year only to embarass themselves and the Big Ten? Because they are today's version of the Buffalo Bills of the early 1990s -- the best that a bad conference has to offer. Why does the Big Ten office so consistently oppose a playoff? Because in an 8-team playoff arrangement its champion Ohio State would be sitting home every January with its ass handed to it well before the national title game. Today however, beat Michigan -- you are in, congrats. Miracles even occur and (with sufficient key blown calls) you might win a game once.
The AFC in the early 1990s HAD to send Buffalo to those last three Super Bowls. The BCS doesn't HAVE to keep sending Ohio State every frigging year. I mean, I would have preferred to see two SEC teams go at it where I knew each had a fair chance to win............but no..........another Big Ten failure. Great. Well, I am sure Ohio State can boost its record again against the Minnesotas and Northwesterns in 2008 so we can see them lose in the 2009 national title game to??? Maybe Georgia? Maybe we can just pre-set the National title game so that every year a different SEC club gets the right to kick Ohio State's ass and call itself "champion"???
Hillary Clinton -- Almost Cries
"Some people see this as a game" she noted in the 3rd or 4th tone of voice her handlers have trotted out for her this election cycle before reverting immediately to the set in stone themes her handlers have told her to drive home against Obama.
The Clinton moment and the Romney choking up moment have one thing in common -- they are spoiled people crying because they thought they were going to win and now it looks like they are going to lose. This is hardly admirable.
Timberwolves' Career Record With and Without Kevin Garnett
Minnesota Timberwolves Record With Kevin Garnett On The Team: 501-451 (52.7% winning percentage).
Minnesota Timberwolves Record With Kevin Garnett NOT On the Team: 130 and 395 (24.8% winning percentage).
Best Record With KG: 58-24
Best Record Without KG: 29-53
Worst Record With KG: 26-56 (***Garnett's rookie year, age 19)
Records Worse Than That Without KG: 15-67, 19-63, 20-62, 21-61, 22-60, (***current pace -- 10-72).
By the way, here is an old article about the inability of Garnett to overcome the pantheon of awfulness Kevin McHale saddled him with for 12 years: http://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/speeding-up-time-for-bill-simmons/ The response is to a big KG detractor ------- Bill Simmons!
HM
Minnesota Timberwolves Record With Kevin Garnett NOT On the Team: 130 and 395 (24.8% winning percentage).
Best Record With KG: 58-24
Best Record Without KG: 29-53
Worst Record With KG: 26-56 (***Garnett's rookie year, age 19)
Records Worse Than That Without KG: 15-67, 19-63, 20-62, 21-61, 22-60, (***current pace -- 10-72).
By the way, here is an old article about the inability of Garnett to overcome the pantheon of awfulness Kevin McHale saddled him with for 12 years: http://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/speeding-up-time-for-bill-simmons/ The response is to a big KG detractor ------- Bill Simmons!
HM
Celtics 29-3 -- What Do They Need to Catch the 1995-96 Bulls?
At 29-3, the Celtics' winning percentage is .90625. Multiplied by 82, that gives you 74.3 wins, so 74-8, better than the 1995-96 Bulls.
But you will see from the Game log of the 1995-96 Bulls: http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamscores.htm?tm=CHI&yr=1995&lg=n that they were undefeated in January. So they were 39-3 on the morning of February 1. The Celts have to win 10 straight to reach that point.
The Bulls went 33-7 the rest of the way (11-3, then 10-2, then 10-2 for the remaining months).
So, if the Celtics are going to make a good run at the Bulls while also not destroying the bodies of their aged Boston Three Party, they need to go something like 21-1 and get ahead of the Bulls' pace by two games going into the final 24 tilts of the year.
I honestly never thought I would see a team challenge the 1995-96 Bulls' mark while I was alive. The Bulls won so easily all year long. Some stats from that year -- Rodman got almost 15 boards a game playing 32 minutes a game. Jordan, Harper and Pippen combined for 418 steals. The NBA keeps track of a stat called "Rebound Rate" which estimates the percentage of missed shots that you personally get while you are on the floor. Rodman's Rebound Rate that year? 26.7% If you take the rebound rate of Jordan/Pippen/Rodman and add them together, you get about 47% (the Bulls' bench other than Kukoc was mediocre at best and overall the Bulls brought in 54% of the total rebounds -- still an amazing number -- but Jordan/Pippen/Rodman playing together could be expected to get 47% of all rebounds and Jordan/Pippen/Harper playing together would get you 5 steals a game)
The Celts? Well. They appear to be doing it with defense. Garnett/Pierce/Rondo are getting 4.83 steals per game (nearly the same as the Chicago trio). The Celts are shooting 47% and holding opponents to 41%, and are outrebounding their opponents 42-38 each game.
This all despite the fact that Kevin Garnett is having a down statistical year for him. His rookie year in Minnesota was clearly less productive than this year, but even at age 20 KG was 17/8/3 and had a steals+blocks number of 3.5. He right now is 19/10/3.5 with a steals+blocks number of 3. So, he is SLIGHTLY more productive than he was at age 20. He had TEN years in Minnesota where he produced numbers equal to or better than what he is doing now.
Even Garnett's free throw numbers (long a subject of concern in MN -- he always chugged in at around 6 attempts a game, everyone wanted 10 a game), have actually DECLINED in Boston (he shoots less than 5 a game).
But you will see from the Game log of the 1995-96 Bulls: http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamscores.htm?tm=CHI&yr=1995&lg=n that they were undefeated in January. So they were 39-3 on the morning of February 1. The Celts have to win 10 straight to reach that point.
The Bulls went 33-7 the rest of the way (11-3, then 10-2, then 10-2 for the remaining months).
So, if the Celtics are going to make a good run at the Bulls while also not destroying the bodies of their aged Boston Three Party, they need to go something like 21-1 and get ahead of the Bulls' pace by two games going into the final 24 tilts of the year.
I honestly never thought I would see a team challenge the 1995-96 Bulls' mark while I was alive. The Bulls won so easily all year long. Some stats from that year -- Rodman got almost 15 boards a game playing 32 minutes a game. Jordan, Harper and Pippen combined for 418 steals. The NBA keeps track of a stat called "Rebound Rate" which estimates the percentage of missed shots that you personally get while you are on the floor. Rodman's Rebound Rate that year? 26.7% If you take the rebound rate of Jordan/Pippen/Rodman and add them together, you get about 47% (the Bulls' bench other than Kukoc was mediocre at best and overall the Bulls brought in 54% of the total rebounds -- still an amazing number -- but Jordan/Pippen/Rodman playing together could be expected to get 47% of all rebounds and Jordan/Pippen/Harper playing together would get you 5 steals a game)
The Celts? Well. They appear to be doing it with defense. Garnett/Pierce/Rondo are getting 4.83 steals per game (nearly the same as the Chicago trio). The Celts are shooting 47% and holding opponents to 41%, and are outrebounding their opponents 42-38 each game.
This all despite the fact that Kevin Garnett is having a down statistical year for him. His rookie year in Minnesota was clearly less productive than this year, but even at age 20 KG was 17/8/3 and had a steals+blocks number of 3.5. He right now is 19/10/3.5 with a steals+blocks number of 3. So, he is SLIGHTLY more productive than he was at age 20. He had TEN years in Minnesota where he produced numbers equal to or better than what he is doing now.
Even Garnett's free throw numbers (long a subject of concern in MN -- he always chugged in at around 6 attempts a game, everyone wanted 10 a game), have actually DECLINED in Boston (he shoots less than 5 a game).
Timberwolves Futility Versus 76ers Historic Futility
By going 4-29, the Wolves have put themselves at a .121 winning percentage. Multiplied by 82 games, that gives you 9.921 wins for the year, so 10-72, which will only be good enough for SECOND worst team of all time.
But wait, of course there is more. (No one analyzes futility more throroughly than I.) Actual 1972-73 Sixers' game log: http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamscores.htm?tm=PHI&lg=N&yr=1972 (amazingly, this exists on the Internet -- just type in 1972-73 Sixers game log, takes you right there).
That game log shows that the Sixers were 4-51 on the morning of February 1. Four and flippin' 51! So the Wolves would have to go 0-22 to reach that point. (It appears that the NBA season started and ended earlier back in the day -- the Sixers were 0-9 in October games and did not play in April).
Similarly, the worst NBA team I ever saw in person -- the 1992-93 Dallas Mavericks -- were 4-48 before winning 7 of their last 30 games to go 11-71. http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamscores.htm?tm=DAL&yr=1992&lg=n
What history teaches us is that the Wolves will need to REALLY go into the tank in January to stand any chance of getting this record. Even the awful Sixers and Mavs chalked up over half of their wins after game 52 on the schedule. Not to say that Randy Wittman CAN'T manage to achieve history, but the odds are currently stacked against him.
HM
But wait, of course there is more. (No one analyzes futility more throroughly than I.) Actual 1972-73 Sixers' game log: http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamscores.htm?tm=PHI&lg=N&yr=1972 (amazingly, this exists on the Internet -- just type in 1972-73 Sixers game log, takes you right there).
That game log shows that the Sixers were 4-51 on the morning of February 1. Four and flippin' 51! So the Wolves would have to go 0-22 to reach that point. (It appears that the NBA season started and ended earlier back in the day -- the Sixers were 0-9 in October games and did not play in April).
Similarly, the worst NBA team I ever saw in person -- the 1992-93 Dallas Mavericks -- were 4-48 before winning 7 of their last 30 games to go 11-71. http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamscores.htm?tm=DAL&yr=1992&lg=n
What history teaches us is that the Wolves will need to REALLY go into the tank in January to stand any chance of getting this record. Even the awful Sixers and Mavs chalked up over half of their wins after game 52 on the schedule. Not to say that Randy Wittman CAN'T manage to achieve history, but the odds are currently stacked against him.
HM
Friday, January 04, 2008
The Strange Case of Joe Marcus Johnson
I am a huge Joe Johnson fan. When most folks said that the Hawks overpaid by dealing two #1s and Boris Diaw to Phoenix to get Joe and sign him to a 5 year $70,000,000 deal, I was of the opinion that it was worth a try for the Hawks (an abysmal club with little chance of signing a top-end guy most years) to get Johnson. Diaw was doing nothing for them and one of the #1s was another team's pick (so, a low #1, a guy who never played for you, and a possibly high #1).
Diaw started out scorching for the Suns, but has now languished after getting a big contract. The first #1 was tossed away by the Suns. And the second #1 will come next year -- probably giving the Suns a #1 somewhere around #10 or #11.
But the question remains -- "Just how good is Joe Johnson"? He draws high-level starter pay (about $42MM remaining in this year and 2 more), so is he really a high-level starter?
His comparables? Jamal Mashburn, Michael Finley and Jalen Rose are the names most commonly arising: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsjo02.html
His straight numbers -- 22/4/5.5 -- those are obviously very good stats. His shooting stats of 41.5% and 32% from 3? Not so great. He rarely gets a steal or a block.
http://aol.nba.com/playerfile/joe_johnson/index.html?nav=page
On a per game basis, Joe gives you an Efficiency at the #52 spot in the league. So, his production per game is a VERY high-end starter's production. But on a per-48 basis, Joe is #178 in the league, just behind Aaron Gray (the white center, not the pictured Buck Rodgers hottie of days gone by). That is a low-level starter or a bench player's Eff48 number.
Of guys ranked #50 through #100 in the league in overall Efficiency, there are only 4 guys who do worse on a Eff48 basis:
Jamal Crawford, Ben Gordon, Rashard Lewis, Steven Jackson (it is worth noting that Ray Allen just edges Joe out).
Joe plays about 41 minutes a night, so his stats are inflated by his ability to play big minutes.
The guys whom he compares with (Finley, Mash, Rose, Crawford, Gordon, Lewis, Jackson) are all shameless gunners who generally give/gave their team very little other than scoring.
So???????? Joe is obviously a decent NBA player -- an all-star last year and a borderline all-star while with a bad Hawks team. Every guy on the comp list is a very good NBA player. The key to evaluating Joe's career at the end of the day will be whether his team wins and whether he is regarded as a good enough defender (Finley was, Jackson is, Allen is, most of the others are not).
I like Joe, but reach your own conclusion on whether playing for a poor team skews his numbers upward and makes him appear better than he is........
Diaw started out scorching for the Suns, but has now languished after getting a big contract. The first #1 was tossed away by the Suns. And the second #1 will come next year -- probably giving the Suns a #1 somewhere around #10 or #11.
But the question remains -- "Just how good is Joe Johnson"? He draws high-level starter pay (about $42MM remaining in this year and 2 more), so is he really a high-level starter?
His comparables? Jamal Mashburn, Michael Finley and Jalen Rose are the names most commonly arising: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsjo02.html
His straight numbers -- 22/4/5.5 -- those are obviously very good stats. His shooting stats of 41.5% and 32% from 3? Not so great. He rarely gets a steal or a block.
http://aol.nba.com/playerfile/joe_johnson/index.html?nav=page
On a per game basis, Joe gives you an Efficiency at the #52 spot in the league. So, his production per game is a VERY high-end starter's production. But on a per-48 basis, Joe is #178 in the league, just behind Aaron Gray (the white center, not the pictured Buck Rodgers hottie of days gone by). That is a low-level starter or a bench player's Eff48 number.
Of guys ranked #50 through #100 in the league in overall Efficiency, there are only 4 guys who do worse on a Eff48 basis:
Jamal Crawford, Ben Gordon, Rashard Lewis, Steven Jackson (it is worth noting that Ray Allen just edges Joe out).
Joe plays about 41 minutes a night, so his stats are inflated by his ability to play big minutes.
The guys whom he compares with (Finley, Mash, Rose, Crawford, Gordon, Lewis, Jackson) are all shameless gunners who generally give/gave their team very little other than scoring.
So???????? Joe is obviously a decent NBA player -- an all-star last year and a borderline all-star while with a bad Hawks team. Every guy on the comp list is a very good NBA player. The key to evaluating Joe's career at the end of the day will be whether his team wins and whether he is regarded as a good enough defender (Finley was, Jackson is, Allen is, most of the others are not).
I like Joe, but reach your own conclusion on whether playing for a poor team skews his numbers upward and makes him appear better than he is........
First Butt of 2008
Jennifer Aniston. I am concerned about the bulge in photo #2, but I will just assume it is a bathing suit issue.....I hope.
What Do The Results In Iowa Tell Us
1) GOP Result -- Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain, Paul, Giuliani -- what this tells us is that there is a LOT of appeal amongst GOP voters (the ones I refer to as the "poor GOP voters" but now we'll go with the "Huck-voters") for a candidate like Huckabee who would NOT cut taxes but who would protect them against gays, abortionists and people who want to take away their guns.
The Huckabee win scares the excrement out of the other wing of the party (I heard a "conservative" talk radio guy this morning, almost apoplectic, calling Huckabee "a closet socialist"), but the muddled mess that wing has to compete with the Huckster inspires no one.
Per Fox News (***anyone who wants to know the pulse of the rich GOP wing MUST watch Fox News, so I do so on nights like last night as a service to you folks***), Romney outspent Huckleberry Hound 15 to 1 in Iowa and yet almost lost by double digits! This tells you that the Oven Mitt (great Arby's ad campaign, I miss Tom Arnold) holds little appeal with Huck Finn's voters. The ultimate question at the end of the day is, "If it were Romney/Obama, would the evangelicals vote Romney?" I am not sure they would.
Giuliani didn't campaign here, but come on -- 4%? That doesn't bode well.
Ron Paul is a joke -- stop analysis there.
So what you have left is McCain and Thompson. I don't think the non-Huck wing of the party is going to rally around a 72 year old nicknamed "McAmnesty" so you are left with...........Fred Thompson.
Congrats, Fred. You will eventually win by default. Please stay awake to make your victory speech.
2) The Democrats -- look, a lot of people didn't like Bill Clinton and still don't. But if he were able to run against this field he would have things wrapped up by mid-January and would be easily on his way to the White House.
Then you have his wife. People are wondering how Hillary loses the women's vote in Iowa. Very easy. Many women in the U.S. don't care for loud, shrill agressive women. Exit polls showed that women said they were LESS likely to vote for Walter Mondale in 1984 because he had Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate. Elizabeth Dole -- fine. Hillary Clinton? Um, no thanks.
Obama was helped, of course, by people who probably generally vote GOP and who showed up just to stick a fork in the eye of Hillary Clinton. The flood of "independents" into the caucus included at least a trickle of these folks. Turning away from Huckabee, the mood at Fox News picked up considerably when they were able to abuse Hillary's 3rd place showing.
John Edwards gets second and lives to fight another day, but while his campaign song for the next two weeks should be Daughtry's "It's Not Over" it will be followed shortly thereafter by Boz Scaggs' "It's Over." Edwards is the logical candidate for an easy Dem victory in November, but unlike the GOP, the Dems are not winners or logical thinkers. While Thompson may sleepwalk his way to the nomination, Edwards will need to inspire someone -- he hasn't done so for at least 6 years.
Obama's victory speech was Clinton-esque (the good Clinton, not the bad one). I was genuinely inspired by his imagery and his talk of bringing people together. History tells us, of course, that that will never happen, but in a victory speech it is nice to hear someone at least able to present a positive vision in a voice that doesn't sound like they have been chewing broken glass (again, like Bill, unlike Hillary).
Interestingly, Obama's theme of bringing people together is very similar to Huckabee's theme that the country is for all inhabitants, not just the fortunate. This apparently is a popular theme in Iowa!
The Good News For Hillary -- she is out of the Midwest where they obviously hate her and up into New Hampshire where her nasally screeches will fit in slightly better (so long as she keeps the responses to questions under 9 words). She also escapes the caucus system where people actually need to sit around and justify why they support her. It is far easier to go into a voting booth, hold your nose and say, "No one will ever know" than it is to show up and try to justify your love (**Madonna reference***).
Similarly, the more Obama wins, the more likely it is that the Clinton campaign will find ways to leak/state bad stuff about him. The strength of negative ads is not always that they change votes. Often the benefit of negative ads is that they keep people from voting. So, if 100,000 people generally vote and you know 42,000 will vote for you, no matter what, you want to drop that vote total down to 83,999 or lower. You sure as hell don't want 20,000 NEW folks coming in to vote for Obama. The only real answer for Hillary is to go negative and go negative hard. She has a NATIONAL negative number of 48%!!!!!!!!!!! So she has to keep a bunch of these folks away from the polls. Look for ads showing Obama saying "where da white women at?" or snorting coke or burning an American flag or saying how much he hates Christianity. Something to keep his potential voters at home.
The Huckabee win scares the excrement out of the other wing of the party (I heard a "conservative" talk radio guy this morning, almost apoplectic, calling Huckabee "a closet socialist"), but the muddled mess that wing has to compete with the Huckster inspires no one.
Per Fox News (***anyone who wants to know the pulse of the rich GOP wing MUST watch Fox News, so I do so on nights like last night as a service to you folks***), Romney outspent Huckleberry Hound 15 to 1 in Iowa and yet almost lost by double digits! This tells you that the Oven Mitt (great Arby's ad campaign, I miss Tom Arnold) holds little appeal with Huck Finn's voters. The ultimate question at the end of the day is, "If it were Romney/Obama, would the evangelicals vote Romney?" I am not sure they would.
Giuliani didn't campaign here, but come on -- 4%? That doesn't bode well.
Ron Paul is a joke -- stop analysis there.
So what you have left is McCain and Thompson. I don't think the non-Huck wing of the party is going to rally around a 72 year old nicknamed "McAmnesty" so you are left with...........Fred Thompson.
Congrats, Fred. You will eventually win by default. Please stay awake to make your victory speech.
2) The Democrats -- look, a lot of people didn't like Bill Clinton and still don't. But if he were able to run against this field he would have things wrapped up by mid-January and would be easily on his way to the White House.
Then you have his wife. People are wondering how Hillary loses the women's vote in Iowa. Very easy. Many women in the U.S. don't care for loud, shrill agressive women. Exit polls showed that women said they were LESS likely to vote for Walter Mondale in 1984 because he had Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate. Elizabeth Dole -- fine. Hillary Clinton? Um, no thanks.
Obama was helped, of course, by people who probably generally vote GOP and who showed up just to stick a fork in the eye of Hillary Clinton. The flood of "independents" into the caucus included at least a trickle of these folks. Turning away from Huckabee, the mood at Fox News picked up considerably when they were able to abuse Hillary's 3rd place showing.
John Edwards gets second and lives to fight another day, but while his campaign song for the next two weeks should be Daughtry's "It's Not Over" it will be followed shortly thereafter by Boz Scaggs' "It's Over." Edwards is the logical candidate for an easy Dem victory in November, but unlike the GOP, the Dems are not winners or logical thinkers. While Thompson may sleepwalk his way to the nomination, Edwards will need to inspire someone -- he hasn't done so for at least 6 years.
Obama's victory speech was Clinton-esque (the good Clinton, not the bad one). I was genuinely inspired by his imagery and his talk of bringing people together. History tells us, of course, that that will never happen, but in a victory speech it is nice to hear someone at least able to present a positive vision in a voice that doesn't sound like they have been chewing broken glass (again, like Bill, unlike Hillary).
Interestingly, Obama's theme of bringing people together is very similar to Huckabee's theme that the country is for all inhabitants, not just the fortunate. This apparently is a popular theme in Iowa!
The Good News For Hillary -- she is out of the Midwest where they obviously hate her and up into New Hampshire where her nasally screeches will fit in slightly better (so long as she keeps the responses to questions under 9 words). She also escapes the caucus system where people actually need to sit around and justify why they support her. It is far easier to go into a voting booth, hold your nose and say, "No one will ever know" than it is to show up and try to justify your love (**Madonna reference***).
Similarly, the more Obama wins, the more likely it is that the Clinton campaign will find ways to leak/state bad stuff about him. The strength of negative ads is not always that they change votes. Often the benefit of negative ads is that they keep people from voting. So, if 100,000 people generally vote and you know 42,000 will vote for you, no matter what, you want to drop that vote total down to 83,999 or lower. You sure as hell don't want 20,000 NEW folks coming in to vote for Obama. The only real answer for Hillary is to go negative and go negative hard. She has a NATIONAL negative number of 48%!!!!!!!!!!! So she has to keep a bunch of these folks away from the polls. Look for ads showing Obama saying "where da white women at?" or snorting coke or burning an American flag or saying how much he hates Christianity. Something to keep his potential voters at home.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
American Spectator Guy -- Um, No Fan of Huckabee or McCain
http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12512.
What I most enjoy about the column is its virulent personal attacks on McCain (and to a lesser extent Huckabee -- "bizarre propensity for letting criminals return early to freedom"), through which the author reaches the conclusion that McCain is too angry and mean!
And ultimately he determines that.........Rudy Giuliani is a conservative??????? See my earlier review of the rift in the GOP between tax-cutters and social conservatives....
What I most enjoy about the column is its virulent personal attacks on McCain (and to a lesser extent Huckabee -- "bizarre propensity for letting criminals return early to freedom"), through which the author reaches the conclusion that McCain is too angry and mean!
And ultimately he determines that.........Rudy Giuliani is a conservative??????? See my earlier review of the rift in the GOP between tax-cutters and social conservatives....
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Thebratwurst.com -- Charlie Bell Headed For Worst Shooting Percentage Ever
http://thebratwurst.com/?p=247
Excellent work on this. I only wish I had uncovered this amazing factoid of suckiness myself.
While Bell apparently (as my dad would say) "cannot hit a bull in the ass with a barrel of full of nickels," his per-48 OVERALL statistical production is STILL superior to the production of 7 mostly-former Timberwolves so far this year. Bell is #370 in the NBA in efficiency per 48, better than:
Darrick Martin -- 380
Mark Blount -- 394
Juwan Howard -- 395
Trenton Hassell -- 398
Richie Frahm -- 400
Troy Hudson -- 401
Mark Madsen -- 413
Narrowly missing out (he is just too damned good): Donyell Marshall -- 355
Excellent work on this. I only wish I had uncovered this amazing factoid of suckiness myself.
While Bell apparently (as my dad would say) "cannot hit a bull in the ass with a barrel of full of nickels," his per-48 OVERALL statistical production is STILL superior to the production of 7 mostly-former Timberwolves so far this year. Bell is #370 in the NBA in efficiency per 48, better than:
Darrick Martin -- 380
Mark Blount -- 394
Juwan Howard -- 395
Trenton Hassell -- 398
Richie Frahm -- 400
Troy Hudson -- 401
Mark Madsen -- 413
Narrowly missing out (he is just too damned good): Donyell Marshall -- 355
George Costanza for the McDLT
Oh....my....God.....
The hot stays hot, the cool stays cool..........because we put it all under a heat lamp to keep it warm, so, there ya go!!
Mike Huckabee -- Mitt Romney, Yes, Is "Dishonest"
Lest anyone doubt what Mike is saying, here is definition #1 from dictionary.com:
DISHONEST: not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief: a dishonest person.
Reflections of a Timberwolves Season Ticket Holder
It is quite clear that the Garnett Trade has worked out very well for Boston (something like 26-3). From the Wolves' perspective, the Wolves should at least be able to challenge the all-time futility mark of 9-73. Here are the key elements in the Wolves' ability to suck at a potentially historic level:
1) Terrible coaching. I may soon begin to side with Steve Aschburner who last year asserted that Randy Wittman and not Mike Woodson is the worst coach in the NBA. Wittman's bench demeanor (screams as refs for utterly meaningless calls 65 feet away and does not challenge more objectionable calls right in front of him) is comical. He appears to have no rapport with referees or his own players. He says things like, "We really need to mix things up somehow. I don't know how yet, but we need to mix things up." Um, OK. Then his "mixing it up" consists of replacing Chris Richard at center with Michael Doleac and then stating that "it didn't make any sense" to mix things up very much.
Wittman added another unintentionally comical statement over the weekend when he stated that his team needed to "find" some leadership from the guard position. Well, you went into the year with Marko Jaric and Sebastian Telfair at PG. What exactly did you expect? This is akin to Del Griffith telling Neal Page that "I had no idea those beers were going to blow like that." Page, "You left them on a vibrating bed, what did you think was going to happen?"
2) A Complete Lack of Player Evaluation Skills -- You traded a guy in Garnett who, according to the Wages of Wins, was worth 25-30 wins a year all by himself. You were able to acquire Al Jefferson (probably because Boston had no one else but Pierce to trade and they wouldn't give Pierce). Then you got -- Gerald Green, Ryan Gomes, Telfair and Theo Ratliff and a 2009 #1.
You immediately gave up on Green (by not extending his contract for one lousy year -- a move I will not understand until my dying day). Ratliff went down with an expected injury. Telfair has been better than expected........but still not any good......Gomes is having trouble finding a role. So. Exactly what the hell are you trying to do? Who knows?
Even Craig Smith and Rashad McCants seem to be unable to understand what they are supposed to be doing. Antoine Walker? Some games he plays 35 minutes, some he plays 0 minutes.
While we could pin this on Wittman as well, I think that management has to come out and tell the coach, "You are going to win 10 to 20 games. Play these guys: A, B, C, D, E, F, G so we can figure out what they can do and possibly re-ink them."
3) Complete Lack of Intensity -- Al Jefferson is a great player.......on the scoring side of halfcourt. No one is afraid to bring the ball inside against Al. When your star busts his ass on both ends (Garnett) you are a better team. When your star busts his ass on one end (Jefferson), you are a worse team.
With a number of young players under 27 years old, the Wolves should be a defensive buzzsaw that opposing teams fear. Pressure, defend, run. Instead, the Wolves are a pathetic defensive club whom no one fears. Blame the players or blame the coach, but if you are a young team, there is no excuse for not playing harder than the bored veteran teams you are playing.
4) The Draft May Not Be The Answer -- Look at the available players in the draft.
http://www.nbadraft.net/ I have seen Michael Beasley 5 times -- very good, not great. O.J. Mayo is actually a better fundamental player than advertised, but he is NOT explosive. Eric Gordon looks like Vinny Johnson to me -- great bench player. There is a 7 footer out of Texas A&M who shoots like 25% from the line. Um, OK. Derrick Rose was completely shut down by Mayo in the USC game I saw. I am not sure Rose is the best Memphis Tiger! Basedupon what I have seen this year, I would rather draft down around #8 than at #1 because the Wlves' chances of selecting a draft bust at #1 are extremely high.
5) Salvation??? The trade market? -- In Ratliff (11.66MM) Antoine Walker (6.88MM) and Telfair (2.5MM) the Wolves have about $21MM in salary that can easily be moved to and dumped by other teams. But will the Wolves use this money or dump it themselves?
Things look pretty bleak.
1) Terrible coaching. I may soon begin to side with Steve Aschburner who last year asserted that Randy Wittman and not Mike Woodson is the worst coach in the NBA. Wittman's bench demeanor (screams as refs for utterly meaningless calls 65 feet away and does not challenge more objectionable calls right in front of him) is comical. He appears to have no rapport with referees or his own players. He says things like, "We really need to mix things up somehow. I don't know how yet, but we need to mix things up." Um, OK. Then his "mixing it up" consists of replacing Chris Richard at center with Michael Doleac and then stating that "it didn't make any sense" to mix things up very much.
Wittman added another unintentionally comical statement over the weekend when he stated that his team needed to "find" some leadership from the guard position. Well, you went into the year with Marko Jaric and Sebastian Telfair at PG. What exactly did you expect? This is akin to Del Griffith telling Neal Page that "I had no idea those beers were going to blow like that." Page, "You left them on a vibrating bed, what did you think was going to happen?"
2) A Complete Lack of Player Evaluation Skills -- You traded a guy in Garnett who, according to the Wages of Wins, was worth 25-30 wins a year all by himself. You were able to acquire Al Jefferson (probably because Boston had no one else but Pierce to trade and they wouldn't give Pierce). Then you got -- Gerald Green, Ryan Gomes, Telfair and Theo Ratliff and a 2009 #1.
You immediately gave up on Green (by not extending his contract for one lousy year -- a move I will not understand until my dying day). Ratliff went down with an expected injury. Telfair has been better than expected........but still not any good......Gomes is having trouble finding a role. So. Exactly what the hell are you trying to do? Who knows?
Even Craig Smith and Rashad McCants seem to be unable to understand what they are supposed to be doing. Antoine Walker? Some games he plays 35 minutes, some he plays 0 minutes.
While we could pin this on Wittman as well, I think that management has to come out and tell the coach, "You are going to win 10 to 20 games. Play these guys: A, B, C, D, E, F, G so we can figure out what they can do and possibly re-ink them."
3) Complete Lack of Intensity -- Al Jefferson is a great player.......on the scoring side of halfcourt. No one is afraid to bring the ball inside against Al. When your star busts his ass on both ends (Garnett) you are a better team. When your star busts his ass on one end (Jefferson), you are a worse team.
With a number of young players under 27 years old, the Wolves should be a defensive buzzsaw that opposing teams fear. Pressure, defend, run. Instead, the Wolves are a pathetic defensive club whom no one fears. Blame the players or blame the coach, but if you are a young team, there is no excuse for not playing harder than the bored veteran teams you are playing.
4) The Draft May Not Be The Answer -- Look at the available players in the draft.
http://www.nbadraft.net/ I have seen Michael Beasley 5 times -- very good, not great. O.J. Mayo is actually a better fundamental player than advertised, but he is NOT explosive. Eric Gordon looks like Vinny Johnson to me -- great bench player. There is a 7 footer out of Texas A&M who shoots like 25% from the line. Um, OK. Derrick Rose was completely shut down by Mayo in the USC game I saw. I am not sure Rose is the best Memphis Tiger! Basedupon what I have seen this year, I would rather draft down around #8 than at #1 because the Wlves' chances of selecting a draft bust at #1 are extremely high.
5) Salvation??? The trade market? -- In Ratliff (11.66MM) Antoine Walker (6.88MM) and Telfair (2.5MM) the Wolves have about $21MM in salary that can easily be moved to and dumped by other teams. But will the Wolves use this money or dump it themselves?
Things look pretty bleak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
