http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11435.html
In the end, as AC/DC says, "Money Talks! BS Walks!" The Oven Mitt may provide absolutely nothing of real value to the campaign, but he is the darling of the "rich wing" of the party, and they will toss McCain tens of millions of dollars that he badly needs given Obama's enormous advantage to date in fund raising.
For Mitt Romney's true feelings on John McCain, see the following:
and John McCain's view on The Oven Mitt?
Monday, June 30, 2008
Movie Reviews
1) Get Smart -- really liked it (see previous review) -- 8 out of 10.
2) Wall-E -- solid, but the first 45 minutes are S......L.......O...........................W and slower. I would say it is not one of Pixar's better efforts. My 10 year old gave it 8 and said "Kung Fu Panda" (which I have not seen) is better. I would say 7 as a kids' movie. There is a lot of good, but just too much painful slow stuff (plus the movie makers should have considered their audience eating a 32 ounce bag of popcorn in a theatre seat when making fun of 350 pound humans who do nothing but sit and eat. Yeah, I am overweight cuz I do things like watch movies -- is that a message Pixar wants to reinforce?
3) Syriana -- um, yikes! I love Democrat political movies as much or more than the next guy, but this thing is just far too slow to process. For the first hour of the movie you skip from place to place to story to story to character to character, going basically nowhere. You just pray to God (or Allah I guess) that somehow it will all some day get wrapped up together and you will feel better about the 2+ hours you are spending. It never really does.
The only truly worthwhile portion of the film is the portrayal of young Muslim workers who lose their jobs and recall that they get free food in "Muslim School" and go back to the school. When you ask yourself how people become terrorists, this is certainly one plausible scenario.
Syriana? Did we really need another "Babel"? I will go 5 out of 10.
4) 300 -- If you want to know why everything George W. Bush did with respect to the current war is 100% correct, rent 300. So, if your Democrat friends make you watch "Syriana", get revenge by having them sit through 300. While the GOP hardliners have no time for moral ambivalence and shades of gray, the liberal Dems REALLY have no time for a movie in which the Spartan method of raising trained killers is praised.
But I have to tell you, 300 is a fricking awesome movie to watch if you are a guy ages 18-58. There is a a ton of killing and dismemberments and decapitations, all shot in wicked CGI. There is a whiny wussy political appeaser who basically rapes the queen -- he ends up disembowled on the floor of the Council Chambers.
If you ever saw The Simpsons' episodes where Homer is a movie director, even Homer might have been hesitant to include certain of these scenes (for example, The Spartans walk through the fields of the Persian wounded killing all of the defenseless wounded...that is kinda rough, I mean, they would all have died anyway).
So, maybe I was just jonesing for SOME action after 2+ hours of Syriana, but I gotta say 9 out of 10 for 300. It made no pretense about what it was trying to be, and it achieved the look and feel it wanted.
Now, how it escaped an "NC-17" rating, I have no idea, but I guess when you go before the GOP-leaning MPAA, you get a pass every now and then.
HM
2) Wall-E -- solid, but the first 45 minutes are S......L.......O...........................W and slower. I would say it is not one of Pixar's better efforts. My 10 year old gave it 8 and said "Kung Fu Panda" (which I have not seen) is better. I would say 7 as a kids' movie. There is a lot of good, but just too much painful slow stuff (plus the movie makers should have considered their audience eating a 32 ounce bag of popcorn in a theatre seat when making fun of 350 pound humans who do nothing but sit and eat. Yeah, I am overweight cuz I do things like watch movies -- is that a message Pixar wants to reinforce?
3) Syriana -- um, yikes! I love Democrat political movies as much or more than the next guy, but this thing is just far too slow to process. For the first hour of the movie you skip from place to place to story to story to character to character, going basically nowhere. You just pray to God (or Allah I guess) that somehow it will all some day get wrapped up together and you will feel better about the 2+ hours you are spending. It never really does.
The only truly worthwhile portion of the film is the portrayal of young Muslim workers who lose their jobs and recall that they get free food in "Muslim School" and go back to the school. When you ask yourself how people become terrorists, this is certainly one plausible scenario.
Syriana? Did we really need another "Babel"? I will go 5 out of 10.
4) 300 -- If you want to know why everything George W. Bush did with respect to the current war is 100% correct, rent 300. So, if your Democrat friends make you watch "Syriana", get revenge by having them sit through 300. While the GOP hardliners have no time for moral ambivalence and shades of gray, the liberal Dems REALLY have no time for a movie in which the Spartan method of raising trained killers is praised.
But I have to tell you, 300 is a fricking awesome movie to watch if you are a guy ages 18-58. There is a a ton of killing and dismemberments and decapitations, all shot in wicked CGI. There is a whiny wussy political appeaser who basically rapes the queen -- he ends up disembowled on the floor of the Council Chambers.
If you ever saw The Simpsons' episodes where Homer is a movie director, even Homer might have been hesitant to include certain of these scenes (for example, The Spartans walk through the fields of the Persian wounded killing all of the defenseless wounded...that is kinda rough, I mean, they would all have died anyway).
So, maybe I was just jonesing for SOME action after 2+ hours of Syriana, but I gotta say 9 out of 10 for 300. It made no pretense about what it was trying to be, and it achieved the look and feel it wanted.
Now, how it escaped an "NC-17" rating, I have no idea, but I guess when you go before the GOP-leaning MPAA, you get a pass every now and then.
HM
Thursday, June 26, 2008
With Kevin Love Trade, Minnesota Timberwolves Make Serious Push To Become Whitest Team In NBA
After drafting O.J. Mayo, the Wolves were informed that he was not, in fact, a white player (McHale was misled by the last name of "Mayo"). This caused all sorts of issues at Target Center (well, actually the Northwest Fitness club, the WNBA club the Minnesota Lynx had reserved the court at Target Center on draft night for a game; the men's NBA club shoved its 2,000 most loyal fans into two small practice gyms in the basement of the tenant fitness club).
Therefore, after using both early-second round picks to acquire exactly no usable players (picked a guy who, although white, has signed a three-year contract in Greece and then picked a decent black player.......who they immediately traded for two more future second round picks they will never use plus cash) the Wolves continued trade talks with Memphis and went REALLY white:
Memphis gets: O.J. Mayo, Marko Jaric, Antoine Walker, Greg Buckner
Minnesota gets: Kevin Love (white and balding), Mike Miller (white with hair, but from South Dakota), Brian Cardinal (SUPER white, SUPER balding, and played in the Big Ten) and which ever Collins twin the Grizzle had last year. (The trade papers read exactly this way -- "we get which ever Collins twin you can show played for you last year." The Grizzle are pretty sure they will stick with the one they actually had last year, but there are talks with the other guy to see if he wants to go to Minnesota in his brother's stead.)
When informed that Collins was black, the Wolves front office said they were sorry, but someone told them that they were acquiring "one of those twin centers from Stanford" and they had seen Brook and Robin Lopez on TV all night.
So, this immediately adds three new white players to the Wolves roster to go with Timberwolf-for-Life Mark Madsen. The Collins/Lopez fiasco cost the Wolves what they thought was another white guy, but the Wolves DO now have two white draft picks languishing in Europe that they some day hope to try to get back and place at the end of the bench. So if you think of it that way....
Give the Wolves a grade of "A+" for whiteness.
But, putting to one side the fact that this looks to be a trade very much to David Duke's liking, what do you grade this baby?
Well, the Wolves drop one extra year of salary on Buckner and Jaric, but they pick up a year of salary on the Cardinal/Walker swap. Overall, the Wolves acquire $38MM of salary and send to Memphis somewhere between $38MM and $42MM of salary.
So the real issue is this -- would you rather have O.J. Mayo -- or Kevin Love and Mike Miller?
In truth, most teams would rather have Love and Miller. Mike Miller is a younger, better rebounding version of Peja Stoyakovic. He is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE defender with one of the worst steals plus blocks numbers in the entire league. But he is an OK assist man, and he at least hits the defensive boards hard.
Love, in my opinion, will be a good starting NBA player. He has good hands, is strong, can shoot and he passes the ball well. Love's problem, unfortunately, is that he is also a poor defender and cannot block shots inside and stands little chance to defend guys who are 6'9 to 6'11 and can play right over the top of him. So Love needs to play next to a big strong center who can rebound and block shots -- say someone like Kendrick Perkins or Jermaine O'Neal.
Who is Love teamed with in Minnesota? Al Jefferson. Al's primary weakness -- not particularly fast or quick in the open court, not tall enough or "long" enough to be a shut down defender against bigger players, provides poor defensive effort. Al is also a terrible passer for a man with his other offensive skills.
It is possible that the Wolves could start: Randy Foye, Rashad McCants, Mike Miller, Kevin Love, Al Jefferson. (Ryan Gomes off the bench). If they do, and they play at a fast pace, they may field a team that yields 118 points a game or more. I am not kidding.
I guess that the upside of Love is that he can be so good that teams will start asking about Al Jefferson's availability via trade. But is that likely? Could you play Danny Fortson and Byron Houston together on the court at the same time and hope to see either man look good?
So, Grades: Timberwolves -- C -- worth a shot, and they probably get 50 productive minutes out of Miller and Love versus 30 out of Mayo, but they give up the Walker expiring contract very easily and get not a huge value in return. Grade might be lower except they moved the horrible albatross of the Jaric deal. Miller's SD connection may also help. IF he is good, he may want to stay near home. Wolves need to acquire David Robinson to play center and Michael Jordan to man the point. With those two on board the Wolves would become an fair to average defensive club.
Memphis -- B -- You can never get an A when you acquire Marko Jaric. But I saw Memphis play at the end of last year and one thing was quickly apparent -- you don't need Rudy Gay AND Mike Miller as 6'7" guys hogging the ball and jacking up 32 foot threes. Moved Cardinal, which I thought they never could. The key, of course, is Mayo and I think Mayo will be a very good NBA player. The rest of the stuff from MN is, well, shit.
Sad Memories -- McHale has done this sort of thing twice before -- dealing Ray Allen on draft night for Stephon Marbury and also dealing Brandon Roy on draft night for Randy Foye. 0 for 2 so far............
HM
Therefore, after using both early-second round picks to acquire exactly no usable players (picked a guy who, although white, has signed a three-year contract in Greece and then picked a decent black player.......who they immediately traded for two more future second round picks they will never use plus cash) the Wolves continued trade talks with Memphis and went REALLY white:
Memphis gets: O.J. Mayo, Marko Jaric, Antoine Walker, Greg Buckner
Minnesota gets: Kevin Love (white and balding), Mike Miller (white with hair, but from South Dakota), Brian Cardinal (SUPER white, SUPER balding, and played in the Big Ten) and which ever Collins twin the Grizzle had last year. (The trade papers read exactly this way -- "we get which ever Collins twin you can show played for you last year." The Grizzle are pretty sure they will stick with the one they actually had last year, but there are talks with the other guy to see if he wants to go to Minnesota in his brother's stead.)
When informed that Collins was black, the Wolves front office said they were sorry, but someone told them that they were acquiring "one of those twin centers from Stanford" and they had seen Brook and Robin Lopez on TV all night.
So, this immediately adds three new white players to the Wolves roster to go with Timberwolf-for-Life Mark Madsen. The Collins/Lopez fiasco cost the Wolves what they thought was another white guy, but the Wolves DO now have two white draft picks languishing in Europe that they some day hope to try to get back and place at the end of the bench. So if you think of it that way....
Give the Wolves a grade of "A+" for whiteness.
But, putting to one side the fact that this looks to be a trade very much to David Duke's liking, what do you grade this baby?
Well, the Wolves drop one extra year of salary on Buckner and Jaric, but they pick up a year of salary on the Cardinal/Walker swap. Overall, the Wolves acquire $38MM of salary and send to Memphis somewhere between $38MM and $42MM of salary.
So the real issue is this -- would you rather have O.J. Mayo -- or Kevin Love and Mike Miller?
In truth, most teams would rather have Love and Miller. Mike Miller is a younger, better rebounding version of Peja Stoyakovic. He is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE defender with one of the worst steals plus blocks numbers in the entire league. But he is an OK assist man, and he at least hits the defensive boards hard.
Love, in my opinion, will be a good starting NBA player. He has good hands, is strong, can shoot and he passes the ball well. Love's problem, unfortunately, is that he is also a poor defender and cannot block shots inside and stands little chance to defend guys who are 6'9 to 6'11 and can play right over the top of him. So Love needs to play next to a big strong center who can rebound and block shots -- say someone like Kendrick Perkins or Jermaine O'Neal.
Who is Love teamed with in Minnesota? Al Jefferson. Al's primary weakness -- not particularly fast or quick in the open court, not tall enough or "long" enough to be a shut down defender against bigger players, provides poor defensive effort. Al is also a terrible passer for a man with his other offensive skills.
It is possible that the Wolves could start: Randy Foye, Rashad McCants, Mike Miller, Kevin Love, Al Jefferson. (Ryan Gomes off the bench). If they do, and they play at a fast pace, they may field a team that yields 118 points a game or more. I am not kidding.
I guess that the upside of Love is that he can be so good that teams will start asking about Al Jefferson's availability via trade. But is that likely? Could you play Danny Fortson and Byron Houston together on the court at the same time and hope to see either man look good?
So, Grades: Timberwolves -- C -- worth a shot, and they probably get 50 productive minutes out of Miller and Love versus 30 out of Mayo, but they give up the Walker expiring contract very easily and get not a huge value in return. Grade might be lower except they moved the horrible albatross of the Jaric deal. Miller's SD connection may also help. IF he is good, he may want to stay near home. Wolves need to acquire David Robinson to play center and Michael Jordan to man the point. With those two on board the Wolves would become an fair to average defensive club.
Memphis -- B -- You can never get an A when you acquire Marko Jaric. But I saw Memphis play at the end of last year and one thing was quickly apparent -- you don't need Rudy Gay AND Mike Miller as 6'7" guys hogging the ball and jacking up 32 foot threes. Moved Cardinal, which I thought they never could. The key, of course, is Mayo and I think Mayo will be a very good NBA player. The rest of the stuff from MN is, well, shit.
Sad Memories -- McHale has done this sort of thing twice before -- dealing Ray Allen on draft night for Stephon Marbury and also dealing Brandon Roy on draft night for Randy Foye. 0 for 2 so far............
HM
Down Falls 358 -- Oil at 139+
When Bill Clinton took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 3,500. When he left office, it was about 10,500.
When George Bush took office, he took over the Dow 10,500. It was at about 11,000 after his first four years and is now at 11,453.
8 years of Bill Clinton -- very little war spending and a budget headed toward balance -- 200% gain.
7 years and 5 months of George W. Bush -- endless war and enormous military spending, huge deficit -- 9% gain.
It may be time for Jimmy Carter to move aside, b/c we may just have, right now, the worst Presidential performance of my lifetime.
HM
When George Bush took office, he took over the Dow 10,500. It was at about 11,000 after his first four years and is now at 11,453.
8 years of Bill Clinton -- very little war spending and a budget headed toward balance -- 200% gain.
7 years and 5 months of George W. Bush -- endless war and enormous military spending, huge deficit -- 9% gain.
It may be time for Jimmy Carter to move aside, b/c we may just have, right now, the worst Presidential performance of my lifetime.
HM
Two Chad Ford Rumors
1. The Spurs sent an e-mail to every team in the league at 3:30 p.m. saying that they were willing to move the 26th pick. The e-mail asked league executives to "E-mail us your interest and your offers to 26."
My offer to the Spurs -- take Marko Jaric, Antoine Walker, Mark Madsen and the #3 and we will take Tim Duncan and the #26. Deal? NBA Trade Machine says it is OK -- http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=387~496~881~215&teams=24~24~24~16&te=&cash=
2. The Clippers and Sonics have agreed to swap picks as long as the Wolves take O.J. Mayo at No. 3. If Mayo isn't drafted at 3, the deal is off according to two sources close to the information.
With the No. 4 pick, expect the Clippers to take Eric Gordon of Indiana. They've coveted him as the type of dominant scorer they've been looking for.
The Sonics will take Brook Lopez or Jerryd Bayless at No. 7. However it seems Lopez will be the guy.
For this reason and this reason alone, my hope is that the Wolves refuse to take O.J. Mayo. The Wolves then just sit and smile because FINALLY they have managed to screw someone ELSE in a draft.
Since the Nets and the Grizzle both want Kevin Love, we pick Love and when asked why we say, "Spite."
Alternatively, we just shake our heads wildly and say nothing ala the woman in Seinfeld who refused to eat the apple pie.
HM
My offer to the Spurs -- take Marko Jaric, Antoine Walker, Mark Madsen and the #3 and we will take Tim Duncan and the #26. Deal? NBA Trade Machine says it is OK -- http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=387~496~881~215&teams=24~24~24~16&te=&cash=
2. The Clippers and Sonics have agreed to swap picks as long as the Wolves take O.J. Mayo at No. 3. If Mayo isn't drafted at 3, the deal is off according to two sources close to the information.
With the No. 4 pick, expect the Clippers to take Eric Gordon of Indiana. They've coveted him as the type of dominant scorer they've been looking for.
The Sonics will take Brook Lopez or Jerryd Bayless at No. 7. However it seems Lopez will be the guy.
For this reason and this reason alone, my hope is that the Wolves refuse to take O.J. Mayo. The Wolves then just sit and smile because FINALLY they have managed to screw someone ELSE in a draft.
Since the Nets and the Grizzle both want Kevin Love, we pick Love and when asked why we say, "Spite."
Alternatively, we just shake our heads wildly and say nothing ala the woman in Seinfeld who refused to eat the apple pie.
HM
Nets Trade Richard Jefferson For Yi and Bobby Simmons
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/basketball/nba/specials/draft/2008/06/26/yi.jefferson.trade/index.html
The move is said to be a prelude to the Nets' eventual coup in signing LeBron in 2010-11.
Um, OK. History would teach us that it is a VERY bad idea for a team to make moves based upon the HOPE that a big-name free agent might in the future come to them. Tim Duncan -- never became a Bull. KG -- never became a Bull. Orlando never netted Jason Kidd. Etc., etc. When was the last all-NBA guy under 28 who moved big in free agency? Shaq? And no, I will not count Rashard Lewis.
Grades: Nets -- D plus (yeah, thanks for Jianlian and $19MM worth of seldom-playing Bobby Simmons). If the league would allow Yi to actually PLAY against a folding chair, I believe he could hold the chair under 15 every single game...probably. Simmons can really stroke the open jumper. And he can. Stroke. The open jumper. Moving on...
Milwaukee -- A -- you got Jefferson who averages 22 points 4 assists and 4 rebounds and who just turned 28 and who is now freed of Vince Carter. You have him locked in for 3 years at not a great contract, but you are MILWAUKEE, you don't have free agents banging down your door. Jianlian was never gonna be happy there and he wasn't ever gonna re-sign after his rookie deal was up.
MORE TEARS
Not to beat a dead horse here, but this sort of deal is yet another thing that pisses me off about the Timberwolves.
Let's say the Wolves are able to get a decent draft pick last year (not good, just decent, Yi Jianlian decent -- so, you see him play and you don't vomit or scream "cut him!"). If you are TRYING to acquire talent, don't you say, "Hey, Nets. Want Antoine Walker and Corey Brewer?"
Would the Nets prefer one year of Antoine Walker to two years of Bobby Simmons? I sure as hell would. But do I think the Wolves even tried to get involved in a deal like this (netting a former all-star small forward age 28)? No, I do not.
The move is said to be a prelude to the Nets' eventual coup in signing LeBron in 2010-11.
Um, OK. History would teach us that it is a VERY bad idea for a team to make moves based upon the HOPE that a big-name free agent might in the future come to them. Tim Duncan -- never became a Bull. KG -- never became a Bull. Orlando never netted Jason Kidd. Etc., etc. When was the last all-NBA guy under 28 who moved big in free agency? Shaq? And no, I will not count Rashard Lewis.
Grades: Nets -- D plus (yeah, thanks for Jianlian and $19MM worth of seldom-playing Bobby Simmons). If the league would allow Yi to actually PLAY against a folding chair, I believe he could hold the chair under 15 every single game...probably. Simmons can really stroke the open jumper. And he can. Stroke. The open jumper. Moving on...
Milwaukee -- A -- you got Jefferson who averages 22 points 4 assists and 4 rebounds and who just turned 28 and who is now freed of Vince Carter. You have him locked in for 3 years at not a great contract, but you are MILWAUKEE, you don't have free agents banging down your door. Jianlian was never gonna be happy there and he wasn't ever gonna re-sign after his rookie deal was up.
MORE TEARS
Not to beat a dead horse here, but this sort of deal is yet another thing that pisses me off about the Timberwolves.
Let's say the Wolves are able to get a decent draft pick last year (not good, just decent, Yi Jianlian decent -- so, you see him play and you don't vomit or scream "cut him!"). If you are TRYING to acquire talent, don't you say, "Hey, Nets. Want Antoine Walker and Corey Brewer?"
Would the Nets prefer one year of Antoine Walker to two years of Bobby Simmons? I sure as hell would. But do I think the Wolves even tried to get involved in a deal like this (netting a former all-star small forward age 28)? No, I do not.
Justice Scalia to DC Gun Owners -- "Come On Baby Shoot, It's The Wild West"
I never knew Antonin was such a huge fan of the album "Hammer on a Drum": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_on_a_Drum but one thing IS clear, if you are a "law abiding" U.S. citizen (preferably white-skinned) you have an individual right to own a handgun and keep it in your own house so you can "hold the gun with one hand and call the police with the other."
Nice.
I do not take issue with the fact that the right to bear arms exists (it always made sense to me that if the second amendment says the people have the right to bear arms, that they do have some sort of limited personal right). I do have a big problem with Scalia's complete unwillingness in the opinion to present ANY constitutional standard that a state (if this ruling applies to states and not just DC) or the federal government has to overcome to regulate the right to bear arms.
Example: we had a nice USSCt. standard/test that said that you can't regulate speech that wasn't an "imminent danger" to someone. We had a USSCt standard/test for what could be regulated as "pornography." Those were useful tests for the lower courts to use.
Scalia's basic legal holding here? "Hey, people without much upper body strength like to own hand guns to blow away intruders. You can't ban that!"
Then he goes off on an intellectual tangent about how ya know (paraphrasing here), "Maybe the right to bear arms only applies to weapons in existence at the time of the 2nd Amendment, but hey, what good would that be to a modern-day militia? I mean, they would need anti-tank weapons and stuff and man, not having that would kinda suck, but heck, I really don't know what I want to say here. But I know rural white folks need guns and George Bush promised them guns, so dammit -- law abiding (mostly black D.C. residents) here are your guns back."
Let's provide a summary of Antonin's work over the past week:
1) Can the federal government which the founding fathers wanted to be a very limited government lock up Arab-looking folk for 6 years without any evidence or any right to a real hearing?
Antonin -- Yes.
2) Can a local government (albeit D.C.) make the decision that it believes that banning handguns (and not shot guns or rifles) from people's homes will make the local area a safer place?
Antonin -- No.
THAT, my friends, is a man truly dedicated to "conservative" government.
HM
Nice.
I do not take issue with the fact that the right to bear arms exists (it always made sense to me that if the second amendment says the people have the right to bear arms, that they do have some sort of limited personal right). I do have a big problem with Scalia's complete unwillingness in the opinion to present ANY constitutional standard that a state (if this ruling applies to states and not just DC) or the federal government has to overcome to regulate the right to bear arms.
Example: we had a nice USSCt. standard/test that said that you can't regulate speech that wasn't an "imminent danger" to someone. We had a USSCt standard/test for what could be regulated as "pornography." Those were useful tests for the lower courts to use.
Scalia's basic legal holding here? "Hey, people without much upper body strength like to own hand guns to blow away intruders. You can't ban that!"
Then he goes off on an intellectual tangent about how ya know (paraphrasing here), "Maybe the right to bear arms only applies to weapons in existence at the time of the 2nd Amendment, but hey, what good would that be to a modern-day militia? I mean, they would need anti-tank weapons and stuff and man, not having that would kinda suck, but heck, I really don't know what I want to say here. But I know rural white folks need guns and George Bush promised them guns, so dammit -- law abiding (mostly black D.C. residents) here are your guns back."
Let's provide a summary of Antonin's work over the past week:
1) Can the federal government which the founding fathers wanted to be a very limited government lock up Arab-looking folk for 6 years without any evidence or any right to a real hearing?
Antonin -- Yes.
2) Can a local government (albeit D.C.) make the decision that it believes that banning handguns (and not shot guns or rifles) from people's homes will make the local area a safer place?
Antonin -- No.
THAT, my friends, is a man truly dedicated to "conservative" government.
HM
Bill Gates -- 2003 E-Mail
For anyone who has ever used Windows, you probably have an equally bad experience to record....
Original Message ----
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:05 AM
To: Jim AllchinCc: Chris Jones (WINDOWS); Bharat Shah (NT); Joe Peterson; Will Poole; Brian Valentine; Anoop Gupta (RESEARCH)
Subject: Windows Usability Systematic degradation flame
I am quite disappointed at how Windows Usability has been going backwards and the program management groups don't drive usability issues.
Let me give you my experience from yesterday.
I decided to download (Moviemaker) and buy the Digital Plus pack ... so I went to Microsoft.com. They have a download place so I went there.
The first 5 times I used the site it timed out while trying to bring up the download page. Then after an 8 second delay I got it to come up.
This site is so slow it is unusable.
It wasn't in the top 5 so I expanded the other 45.
These 45 names are totally confusing. These names make stuff like: C:\Documents and Settings\billg\My Documents\My Pictures seem clear.
They are not filtered by the system ... and so many of the things are strange.
I tried scoping to Media stuff. Still no moviemaker. I typed in movie. Nothing. I typed in movie maker. Nothing.
So I gave up and sent mail to Amir saying - where is this Moviemaker download? Does it exist?
So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated.
They told me to go to the main page search button and type movie maker (not moviemaker!).
I tried that. The site was pathetically slow but after 6 seconds of waiting up it came.
I thought for sure now I would see a button to just go do the download.
In fact it is more like a puzzle that you get to solve. It told me to go to Windows Update and do a bunch of incantations.
This struck me as completely odd. Why should I have to go somewhere else and do a scan to download moviemaker?
So I went to Windows update. Windows Update decides I need to download a bunch of controls. (Not) just once but multiple times where I get to see weird dialog boxes.
Doesn't Windows update know some key to talk to Windows?
Then I did the scan. This took quite some time and I was told it was critical for me to download 17megs of stuff.
This is after I was told we were doing delta patches to things but instead just to get 6 things that are labeled in the SCARIEST possible way I had to download 17meg.
So I did the download. That part was fast. Then it wanted to do an install. This took 6 minutes and the machine was so slow I couldn't use it for anything else during this time.
What the heck is going on during those 6 minutes? That is crazy. This is after the download was finished.
Then it told me to reboot my machine. Why should I do that? I reboot every night -- why should I reboot at that time?
So I did the reboot because it INSISTED on it. Of course that meant completely getting rid of all my Outlook state.
So I got back up and running and went to Windows Update again. I forgot why I was in Windows Update at all since all I wanted was to get Moviemaker.
So I went back to Microsoft.com and looked at the instructions. I have to click on a folder called WindowsXP. Why should I do that? Windows Update knows I am on Windows XP.
What does it mean to have to click on that folder? So I get a bunch of confusing stuff but sure enough one of them is Moviemaker.
So I do the download. The download is fast but the Install takes many minutes. Amazing how slow this thing is.
At some point I get told I need to go get Windows Media Series 9 to download.
So I decide I will go do that. This time I get dialogs saying things like "Open" or "Save". No guidance in the instructions which to do. I have no clue which to do.
The download is fast and the install takes 7 minutes for this thing.
So now I think I am going to have Moviemaker. I go to my add/remove programs place to make sure it is there.
It is not there.
What is there? The following garbage is there. Microsoft Autoupdate Exclusive test package, Microsoft Autoupdate Reboot test package, Microsoft Autoupdate testpackage1. Microsoft AUtoupdate testpackage2, Microsoft Autoupdate Test package3.
Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up.
But that is just the start of the crap. Later I have listed things like Windows XP Hotfix see Q329048 for more information. What is Q329048? Why are these series of patches listed here? Some of the patches just things like Q810655 instead of saying see Q329048 for more information.
What an absolute mess.
Moviemaker is just not there at all.
So I give up on Moviemaker and decide to download the Digital Plus Package.
I get told I need to go enter a bunch of information about myself.
I enter it all in and because it decides I have mistyped something I have to try again. Of course it has cleared out most of what I typed.
I try (typing) the right stuff in 5 times and it just keeps clearing things out for me to type them in again.
So after more than an hour of craziness and making my programs list garbage and being scared and seeing that Microsoft.com is a terrible website I haven't run Moviemaker and I haven't got the plus package.
The lack of attention to usability represented by these experiences blows my mind. I thought we had reached a low with Windows Network places or the messages I get when I try to use 802.11. (don't you just love that root certificate message?)
When I really get to use the stuff I am sure I will have more feedback.
Original Message ----
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:05 AM
To: Jim AllchinCc: Chris Jones (WINDOWS); Bharat Shah (NT); Joe Peterson; Will Poole; Brian Valentine; Anoop Gupta (RESEARCH)
Subject: Windows Usability Systematic degradation flame
I am quite disappointed at how Windows Usability has been going backwards and the program management groups don't drive usability issues.
Let me give you my experience from yesterday.
I decided to download (Moviemaker) and buy the Digital Plus pack ... so I went to Microsoft.com. They have a download place so I went there.
The first 5 times I used the site it timed out while trying to bring up the download page. Then after an 8 second delay I got it to come up.
This site is so slow it is unusable.
It wasn't in the top 5 so I expanded the other 45.
These 45 names are totally confusing. These names make stuff like: C:\Documents and Settings\billg\My Documents\My Pictures seem clear.
They are not filtered by the system ... and so many of the things are strange.
I tried scoping to Media stuff. Still no moviemaker. I typed in movie. Nothing. I typed in movie maker. Nothing.
So I gave up and sent mail to Amir saying - where is this Moviemaker download? Does it exist?
So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated.
They told me to go to the main page search button and type movie maker (not moviemaker!).
I tried that. The site was pathetically slow but after 6 seconds of waiting up it came.
I thought for sure now I would see a button to just go do the download.
In fact it is more like a puzzle that you get to solve. It told me to go to Windows Update and do a bunch of incantations.
This struck me as completely odd. Why should I have to go somewhere else and do a scan to download moviemaker?
So I went to Windows update. Windows Update decides I need to download a bunch of controls. (Not) just once but multiple times where I get to see weird dialog boxes.
Doesn't Windows update know some key to talk to Windows?
Then I did the scan. This took quite some time and I was told it was critical for me to download 17megs of stuff.
This is after I was told we were doing delta patches to things but instead just to get 6 things that are labeled in the SCARIEST possible way I had to download 17meg.
So I did the download. That part was fast. Then it wanted to do an install. This took 6 minutes and the machine was so slow I couldn't use it for anything else during this time.
What the heck is going on during those 6 minutes? That is crazy. This is after the download was finished.
Then it told me to reboot my machine. Why should I do that? I reboot every night -- why should I reboot at that time?
So I did the reboot because it INSISTED on it. Of course that meant completely getting rid of all my Outlook state.
So I got back up and running and went to Windows Update again. I forgot why I was in Windows Update at all since all I wanted was to get Moviemaker.
So I went back to Microsoft.com and looked at the instructions. I have to click on a folder called WindowsXP. Why should I do that? Windows Update knows I am on Windows XP.
What does it mean to have to click on that folder? So I get a bunch of confusing stuff but sure enough one of them is Moviemaker.
So I do the download. The download is fast but the Install takes many minutes. Amazing how slow this thing is.
At some point I get told I need to go get Windows Media Series 9 to download.
So I decide I will go do that. This time I get dialogs saying things like "Open" or "Save". No guidance in the instructions which to do. I have no clue which to do.
The download is fast and the install takes 7 minutes for this thing.
So now I think I am going to have Moviemaker. I go to my add/remove programs place to make sure it is there.
It is not there.
What is there? The following garbage is there. Microsoft Autoupdate Exclusive test package, Microsoft Autoupdate Reboot test package, Microsoft Autoupdate testpackage1. Microsoft AUtoupdate testpackage2, Microsoft Autoupdate Test package3.
Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up.
But that is just the start of the crap. Later I have listed things like Windows XP Hotfix see Q329048 for more information. What is Q329048? Why are these series of patches listed here? Some of the patches just things like Q810655 instead of saying see Q329048 for more information.
What an absolute mess.
Moviemaker is just not there at all.
So I give up on Moviemaker and decide to download the Digital Plus Package.
I get told I need to go enter a bunch of information about myself.
I enter it all in and because it decides I have mistyped something I have to try again. Of course it has cleared out most of what I typed.
I try (typing) the right stuff in 5 times and it just keeps clearing things out for me to type them in again.
So after more than an hour of craziness and making my programs list garbage and being scared and seeing that Microsoft.com is a terrible website I haven't run Moviemaker and I haven't got the plus package.
The lack of attention to usability represented by these experiences blows my mind. I thought we had reached a low with Windows Network places or the messages I get when I try to use 802.11. (don't you just love that root certificate message?)
When I really get to use the stuff I am sure I will have more feedback.
Jermaine O'Neal -- How The Mighty Have Fallen
O'Neal is traded to Toronto for Rasho, T.J. Ford, and a medium #1.
This is a guy who was second team all-NBA in 2003-04 (which I recall because I had to write a nasty e-mail to a columnist in Chicago who voted for Jermaine O'Neal over Kevin Garnett in the MVP balloting.....basically because Kevin was mean to the media -- insert wittle baby media member cwying).
Perhaps the harshest indictment of O'Neal's mediocre and constantly injured play since 2004 comes from my 12 year old son, PM, who last night said, "Geez, why does TORONTO make that trade? Jermaine O'Neal? Yuck. I'd rather have just T.J. Ford than Jermaine O'Neal!"
So, there you go Jermaine, it is now all up to you. Your overall stats since the start of your career are not miles away from Garnett's stats, and can be favorably compared to guys like Larry Nance and Rasheed Wallace: http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=onealje01&y1=2008&p2=garneke01&y2=2006&p3=wallara01&y3=2004&p4=nancela01&y4=1989
Do you want to put in 4 or 5 good years and become regarded as a very key cog on a very good Toronto team? Or do you want to piss away the rest of your career and best be remembered as the ring leader of the 6th place USA Basketball squad from Indianapolis (a fate Paul Pierce has now avoided)?
Grades: Toronto -- B. It is worth a shot. When you are so amazingly wussy on the inside, it is worth trying out a guy who has always blocked 2+ shots a game every year he has been healthy. Plus, Jose Calderon seems to be a better player than T.J. Ford and Calderon wants to start, so you move Ford and fill a position of need. Rasho, as we all know, sucks.
Indiana -- D. Indiana's primary concern should be that they have Dunleavy, Murphy and Tinsley under contract for 3 more years at a total of $25MM per year. So that isn't going to change with this deal. They do rid themselves of almost $45MM of O'Neal salary and take on only $33MM total with Rasho (1 year) and Ford (3 years) unless I am missing a trade kicker somewhere. But does acquiring T.J. Ford, suck-man Rasho and a medium #1 make you a better team? Uh, no. The best thing you can say for Indiana is that they dumped part of their unwieldy salary, O'Neal has been hurt for parts of 4 seasons, and they may be able to do something with picks 11 and 17 in the draft.
Why not C instead of D? I don't really care for the idea of paying $16MM a year for the next three years for the point guard combo of Tinsley and Ford. Maybe $48MM could be better spent elsewhere?
HM
This is a guy who was second team all-NBA in 2003-04 (which I recall because I had to write a nasty e-mail to a columnist in Chicago who voted for Jermaine O'Neal over Kevin Garnett in the MVP balloting.....basically because Kevin was mean to the media -- insert wittle baby media member cwying).
Perhaps the harshest indictment of O'Neal's mediocre and constantly injured play since 2004 comes from my 12 year old son, PM, who last night said, "Geez, why does TORONTO make that trade? Jermaine O'Neal? Yuck. I'd rather have just T.J. Ford than Jermaine O'Neal!"
So, there you go Jermaine, it is now all up to you. Your overall stats since the start of your career are not miles away from Garnett's stats, and can be favorably compared to guys like Larry Nance and Rasheed Wallace: http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=onealje01&y1=2008&p2=garneke01&y2=2006&p3=wallara01&y3=2004&p4=nancela01&y4=1989
Do you want to put in 4 or 5 good years and become regarded as a very key cog on a very good Toronto team? Or do you want to piss away the rest of your career and best be remembered as the ring leader of the 6th place USA Basketball squad from Indianapolis (a fate Paul Pierce has now avoided)?
Grades: Toronto -- B. It is worth a shot. When you are so amazingly wussy on the inside, it is worth trying out a guy who has always blocked 2+ shots a game every year he has been healthy. Plus, Jose Calderon seems to be a better player than T.J. Ford and Calderon wants to start, so you move Ford and fill a position of need. Rasho, as we all know, sucks.
Indiana -- D. Indiana's primary concern should be that they have Dunleavy, Murphy and Tinsley under contract for 3 more years at a total of $25MM per year. So that isn't going to change with this deal. They do rid themselves of almost $45MM of O'Neal salary and take on only $33MM total with Rasho (1 year) and Ford (3 years) unless I am missing a trade kicker somewhere. But does acquiring T.J. Ford, suck-man Rasho and a medium #1 make you a better team? Uh, no. The best thing you can say for Indiana is that they dumped part of their unwieldy salary, O'Neal has been hurt for parts of 4 seasons, and they may be able to do something with picks 11 and 17 in the draft.
Why not C instead of D? I don't really care for the idea of paying $16MM a year for the next three years for the point guard combo of Tinsley and Ford. Maybe $48MM could be better spent elsewhere?
HM
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Report -- Heat Don't Want Beasley, Open the Door To All Potential Beasley Suitors
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/news/story?id=3459696
I like the portion of the item evaluating Minnesota's chances. "The Wolves don't have any assets that the Heat really wants."
Um, the Wolves are offering their FIRST ROUND PICK from last year while the Sonics are offering Chris Wilcox and Johan Petro. OK, this may exemplify exactly how far you have fallen as a franchise when you say to someone, "Hey, I'd really like to move up one spot in the draft....give you the #7 overall pick from last year to do so..." and they answer, "No thanks. Seattle is offering Chris Wilcox and Johan Petro."
Ouch.
HM
I like the portion of the item evaluating Minnesota's chances. "The Wolves don't have any assets that the Heat really wants."
Um, the Wolves are offering their FIRST ROUND PICK from last year while the Sonics are offering Chris Wilcox and Johan Petro. OK, this may exemplify exactly how far you have fallen as a franchise when you say to someone, "Hey, I'd really like to move up one spot in the draft....give you the #7 overall pick from last year to do so..." and they answer, "No thanks. Seattle is offering Chris Wilcox and Johan Petro."
Ouch.
HM
Wolves Weigh "White" Option
Assuming that Miami doesn't just drop Michael Beasley in the Wolves' lap (to quote Olivia Newton John, "Please Mr. Please"), it seems to me that the Wolves really don't care for O.J. Mayo and they really like Kevin Love and Brook Lopez and Joe Alexander. The other guy who fits the Wolves' most obvious gaping hole (small forward) is the white Italian guy (no I am not going to look up his name, I am too proud for that -- so I am going with Dario Galinari....or Sudheer Potru...or Christine Lombardo...something like that).
This means that the Wolves that the Wolves will go "white" in some manner. Either the white-sounding "Mayo" or trading down to pick one of four white guys.
I would simply select Mayo and then wait to see what everyone below me picks and then get the best deal possible in a trade (and NO I do not want Charlie Villanueva, Kyle Lowry, or Hakim Warrick -- look, I know we are the Wolves and we suck and do stupid shit, but come ON!!! I do not want 8th and 9th men on bad teams in return for you moving up in the draft. You wanna give me Mike Miller? OK. I will take that.)
Ranking the True Whiteys:
Name/Name I Made Up; Value; Value to the Wolves; Worst and Best Case
1. Kevin Love -- I would say that as an NBA player his value is that he can start on a good team if surrounded by players who disguise his weaknesses and play to his strengths. He would be a GREAT Cavalier for example.
Overall NBA value -- 82.
Value to the Wolves -- 65. I just don't see a Jefferson/Love tandem having much synergy. Both are good rebounders and scorers. Both are indifferent and not physically gifted defenders.
Best case? Wolves scores end up at 132-127 and we win.
Worst case? Wolves scores end up at 132-100 and we lose and ask why the hell we have Kyle Lowry.
2. Joe Alexander -- He is one of those athletes who you look at and just go "wow." Unfortunately that also occurs some days when you are reading the morning paper and go "Alexander went for 6 and 2 in 30 minutes!?!? Wow."
Overall NBA Value -- 75
Value to the Wolves -- 75
Best Case -- He plugs the giant hole you have at small forward, can play a tiny smidge of 2 and 4, and he plays to his potential every night.
Worst Case -- He has 45 games a year where he fails to show up, pisses off management and they don't re-sign him after his second year, causing him to go to L.A. and become Kobe's "Pippen."
3. Brook Lopez -- I have heard people compare him to Brad Daugherty. So he has this awesome upside and he is enormous (6'11" in bare feet, 7'5" wing span). I just don't seem to be able to convince myself that it is all true. I mean, if he is so great, why does EVERYONE say his brother is a much better athlete and much better defender and rebounder?? I mean, ouch.
Overall NBA Value -- 70
Value to the Wolves - 70 (Minnesota's overall size, interior defense and rebounding? Wow. Just wretched.)
Best Case -- Plug him in next to Al and he becomes Chris Kaman or maybe a worse Brad Daugherty
Worst case -- You sit and wonder, "We already HAD the rights to Michael Doleac. Why did we trade O.J. Mayo to get a younger Doleac and (for example) Hakim Warrick?"
4. Dario Galinari/Christine Lombardo/Sudheer Potru -- Word is that he could be the next Dirk Nowitski........uh huh, and that is why he is languishing down at ##6 and 7. Look, everyone scouts Europe now. If they thought this guy was a top 3 talent, he would be way ahead of Mayo on everyone's board.
Overall NBA Value -- 62
Value to the Wolves -- 52 (face it, the Wolves need a small forward, but do they need another player who provides no defense or rebounding and who is, per reports, "heavy legged"? Uh, no.)
Best Case -- Mike Dunleavy, Jr. currently -- gives the Wolves inconsistent scoring but plays well enough to be rewarded with a big multi-year deal and the Wolves sit at 37-45 forever.
Worst case -- Scene from the Wolves war room 2009, "Any chance we could just bring in Danny Fitzgerald out of Marquette?? I mean, I think he is better...."
HM
This means that the Wolves that the Wolves will go "white" in some manner. Either the white-sounding "Mayo" or trading down to pick one of four white guys.
I would simply select Mayo and then wait to see what everyone below me picks and then get the best deal possible in a trade (and NO I do not want Charlie Villanueva, Kyle Lowry, or Hakim Warrick -- look, I know we are the Wolves and we suck and do stupid shit, but come ON!!! I do not want 8th and 9th men on bad teams in return for you moving up in the draft. You wanna give me Mike Miller? OK. I will take that.)
Ranking the True Whiteys:
Name/Name I Made Up; Value; Value to the Wolves; Worst and Best Case
1. Kevin Love -- I would say that as an NBA player his value is that he can start on a good team if surrounded by players who disguise his weaknesses and play to his strengths. He would be a GREAT Cavalier for example.
Overall NBA value -- 82.
Value to the Wolves -- 65. I just don't see a Jefferson/Love tandem having much synergy. Both are good rebounders and scorers. Both are indifferent and not physically gifted defenders.
Best case? Wolves scores end up at 132-127 and we win.
Worst case? Wolves scores end up at 132-100 and we lose and ask why the hell we have Kyle Lowry.
2. Joe Alexander -- He is one of those athletes who you look at and just go "wow." Unfortunately that also occurs some days when you are reading the morning paper and go "Alexander went for 6 and 2 in 30 minutes!?!? Wow."
Overall NBA Value -- 75
Value to the Wolves -- 75
Best Case -- He plugs the giant hole you have at small forward, can play a tiny smidge of 2 and 4, and he plays to his potential every night.
Worst Case -- He has 45 games a year where he fails to show up, pisses off management and they don't re-sign him after his second year, causing him to go to L.A. and become Kobe's "Pippen."
3. Brook Lopez -- I have heard people compare him to Brad Daugherty. So he has this awesome upside and he is enormous (6'11" in bare feet, 7'5" wing span). I just don't seem to be able to convince myself that it is all true. I mean, if he is so great, why does EVERYONE say his brother is a much better athlete and much better defender and rebounder?? I mean, ouch.
Overall NBA Value -- 70
Value to the Wolves - 70 (Minnesota's overall size, interior defense and rebounding? Wow. Just wretched.)
Best Case -- Plug him in next to Al and he becomes Chris Kaman or maybe a worse Brad Daugherty
Worst case -- You sit and wonder, "We already HAD the rights to Michael Doleac. Why did we trade O.J. Mayo to get a younger Doleac and (for example) Hakim Warrick?"
4. Dario Galinari/Christine Lombardo/Sudheer Potru -- Word is that he could be the next Dirk Nowitski........uh huh, and that is why he is languishing down at ##6 and 7. Look, everyone scouts Europe now. If they thought this guy was a top 3 talent, he would be way ahead of Mayo on everyone's board.
Overall NBA Value -- 62
Value to the Wolves -- 52 (face it, the Wolves need a small forward, but do they need another player who provides no defense or rebounding and who is, per reports, "heavy legged"? Uh, no.)
Best Case -- Mike Dunleavy, Jr. currently -- gives the Wolves inconsistent scoring but plays well enough to be rewarded with a big multi-year deal and the Wolves sit at 37-45 forever.
Worst case -- Scene from the Wolves war room 2009, "Any chance we could just bring in Danny Fitzgerald out of Marquette?? I mean, I think he is better...."
HM
Lowpost.net -- RIP?
I tuned in to www.lowpost.net this morning to read a one-line note from "JG" stating that he (or she I guess) is no longer able to maintain the Blog.
A sad day.
On the plus side, I STILL learned from what is posted that
1) Portland traded cash to the Hornets for the #27 overall pick.
2) Since they can't keep track of links to a site, my constant posting here now has me at #25 overall in the nation in basketball Blogs. So, by a quirk of fate, I am now the Antawn Jamison of NBA bloggers. (Two steps higher and I would be the David West of NBA bloggers. Damn my slow posting skills!).
A sad day.
On the plus side, I STILL learned from what is posted that
1) Portland traded cash to the Hornets for the #27 overall pick.
2) Since they can't keep track of links to a site, my constant posting here now has me at #25 overall in the nation in basketball Blogs. So, by a quirk of fate, I am now the Antawn Jamison of NBA bloggers. (Two steps higher and I would be the David West of NBA bloggers. Damn my slow posting skills!).
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The Only Real NBA Player Acquisition Criterion For Bad Teams
As we prepare for the NBA draft, let me offer up (and repeat myself from past items) what bad NBA clubs need to do and often forget to do in player acquisition:
1) You need players who can actually be on the court and play 30+ minutes productively.
In the NBA there are 48 minutes in a game multiplied by 5 players. So you need to fill 240 minutes of playing time with good productive players.
Look at the Celtics and Lakers. The Celtics acquired Garnett and Allen, who can still play 38+ minutes a game in important games and be productive. Add to that Pierce at 38 minutes and you have 114 minutes taken and you only need to fill 126 more. If you have an 8-man rotation, that means 5 guys getting about half a game each. Rondo, Perkins, Posey are good for 85 of that. So you just need to squeeze 41 a game out of the rest of your bench. And even if you can't, you can stomach 41 poor minutes a game.
The Lakers added Gasol for Kwame Brown and Javaris Crittenden. So you took about 2 productive minutes a game (Kwame) and traded it for 38 good productive minutes. Why does your bench all of a sudden look better? Because they play fewer minutes and their weaknesses are not exposed over long stretches of play.
Detroit has been one of the best 5 teams in the NBA for 5 years. Why? Because they have 4 starters who each can take to the floor and provide 35 productive minutes a game. In the Eastern Conference this year there were only 54 guys who averaged over 30 minutes a game. Detroit had 4 of them.
(Boston had 3 of the top 37 in the East, the Lakers had 3 of the top 23 in the West).
BUT HM, Isn't This a Tad Too Basic To Be Of Much Help?
Not at all. There are only 106 guys in the entire league who averaged 30 minutes a game last year. There are 30 teams in the league. So, even with all of the terrible teams in the league, there are 345 guys in the league whose teams don't think they are good enough to play what I would consider to be the minimum number of minutes to qualify as "starters' minutes." (Rajon Rondo was #107 at 29.9 minutes).
So when you have a high draft pick, you absolutely HAVE to find a guy who is going to join the 106 real starters and not the 345 not-really-starters. This has an impact on your analysis of "picking the best guy available" and on your analysis of "we don't want to select a small forward if we have LeBron James."
Theory, Theory, Theory -- HM, We Need Some Useful Examples
A) Of course the clearest example of bad player selection was the Knicks' signing of Jerome James to a huge deal. James had never logged decent regular season minutes and there was really no indication that he ever would be good enough to do so. Center is a particularly bad position to go blindly mining for gold. Eliminating 4 power forwards listed by nba.com as centers -- Amare, Horford, Jefferson, Rasheed -- there were only 11 centers in the NBA who averaged 30 minutes a game this year. There are 30 teams in the NBA. 19 teams (63%) in the league basically do not play a true center for starters' minutes.
Lesson -- selecting centers in the NBA draft or signing them as free agents is a losing proposition. It is very hit and miss, and as we see, far more "miss" than hit.
B) Should I draft a guy when I already have that sort of guy?
Primary example -- Wolves have Al Jefferson and want to draft the white Al Jefferson....Kevin Love. Here is your inquiry -- can the new guy play 30 minutes a game when I have the old guy?
If you are a sucky team, you can't draft guys and stash them. You can't trade your best guy because you just drafted his white clone. You won't get value. You also can't pick a guy and play him 18 minutes and the old guy 30 minutes. That leaves you 192 productive minutes short.
So you have to ask yourself, "Can I play Al Jefferson next to the white Al Jefferson enough so that I can get 60 to 70 productive minutes out of the tandem?" If so, you pick him. If not (for example, the team would allow 150 points a game if you played the two guys together), you don't.
You absolutely cannot blindly pick the "best player available" when your team sucks. If you are New Orleans a year and a half ago, and you have Chris Paul and not much else, you can't pick a small point guard. Sorry. His 8 minutes a night relieving Paul don't get you very far up toward that 240 marker.
So........current 2008 NBA Draft lessons?
If you can draft Brandon Rush or Roy Hibbert, draft Rush. He probably gives you 30 productive minutes a game this year on a bad team. Hibbert will play very little, and I doubt he will ever be one of those top 11 centers playing 30+.
A guy to avoid at all costs? DeAndre Jordan. Huge man out of Texas A&M. Shot 43% from the line at A&M and averaged about 8 points a game. Can you play DeAndre Jordan for more than 12 minutes a game? No.
So who would want him? Maybe Boston -- Bynum will be back next year and the Celtics may need another large body to combat the huge Bynum in the minutes he plays. So, maybe the Celts could use him for 12 minutes a game. But that is only because, of course, they have so few minutes to fill.
Quick -- where is DeSagana Diop? Answer -- he is a Net. Shooting 41% from the floor and 46% from the line, getting about 14 minutes a game. So, why did people like him as a Maverick? Because the Mavs had a ton of productive minutes guys and could sneak Diop in for 17 minutes a game without everyone realizing that he was basically an Iowa girls basketball defender.
Final Analysis
If your team sucks, you have to pick someone who will give you a lot of productive minutes. The chances of selecting a true all-NBA player are not that great, even at the way top of the draft. But you cannot allow guys like Dwyane Wade and Paul Pierce to slide through when you know they are athletic, can play two positions and score. Any guy who is athletic, can play two or more positions and can score should move UP your board and not get passed over by guys you THINK might some day turn into something.
So, a few examples:
Kevin Love can play two positions and score, you need to address whether he is athletic enough to defend his position. Is he Carlos Boozer or Shelden Williams?
Can Joe Alexander play two positions? In a pinch, can he play 2 guard or big forward? He is athletic and can score. Is he Danny Granger or Danny Vranes?
Can Brook Lopez play against big forwards on defense? Cuz you really can't draft a guy top 5 whom you sit when the other team goes small. Is he Brad Daugherty or is he Bryant Reeves?
Is O.J. Mayo explosive enough as an athlete that you could sneak him in some as a small forward? If not, can he play some point guard? Is Mayo a Mitch Richmond or a Harold Miner?
Thursday should be a great night to watch a draft.
HM
1) You need players who can actually be on the court and play 30+ minutes productively.
In the NBA there are 48 minutes in a game multiplied by 5 players. So you need to fill 240 minutes of playing time with good productive players.
Look at the Celtics and Lakers. The Celtics acquired Garnett and Allen, who can still play 38+ minutes a game in important games and be productive. Add to that Pierce at 38 minutes and you have 114 minutes taken and you only need to fill 126 more. If you have an 8-man rotation, that means 5 guys getting about half a game each. Rondo, Perkins, Posey are good for 85 of that. So you just need to squeeze 41 a game out of the rest of your bench. And even if you can't, you can stomach 41 poor minutes a game.
The Lakers added Gasol for Kwame Brown and Javaris Crittenden. So you took about 2 productive minutes a game (Kwame) and traded it for 38 good productive minutes. Why does your bench all of a sudden look better? Because they play fewer minutes and their weaknesses are not exposed over long stretches of play.
Detroit has been one of the best 5 teams in the NBA for 5 years. Why? Because they have 4 starters who each can take to the floor and provide 35 productive minutes a game. In the Eastern Conference this year there were only 54 guys who averaged over 30 minutes a game. Detroit had 4 of them.
(Boston had 3 of the top 37 in the East, the Lakers had 3 of the top 23 in the West).
BUT HM, Isn't This a Tad Too Basic To Be Of Much Help?
Not at all. There are only 106 guys in the entire league who averaged 30 minutes a game last year. There are 30 teams in the league. So, even with all of the terrible teams in the league, there are 345 guys in the league whose teams don't think they are good enough to play what I would consider to be the minimum number of minutes to qualify as "starters' minutes." (Rajon Rondo was #107 at 29.9 minutes).
So when you have a high draft pick, you absolutely HAVE to find a guy who is going to join the 106 real starters and not the 345 not-really-starters. This has an impact on your analysis of "picking the best guy available" and on your analysis of "we don't want to select a small forward if we have LeBron James."
Theory, Theory, Theory -- HM, We Need Some Useful Examples
A) Of course the clearest example of bad player selection was the Knicks' signing of Jerome James to a huge deal. James had never logged decent regular season minutes and there was really no indication that he ever would be good enough to do so. Center is a particularly bad position to go blindly mining for gold. Eliminating 4 power forwards listed by nba.com as centers -- Amare, Horford, Jefferson, Rasheed -- there were only 11 centers in the NBA who averaged 30 minutes a game this year. There are 30 teams in the NBA. 19 teams (63%) in the league basically do not play a true center for starters' minutes.
Lesson -- selecting centers in the NBA draft or signing them as free agents is a losing proposition. It is very hit and miss, and as we see, far more "miss" than hit.
B) Should I draft a guy when I already have that sort of guy?
Primary example -- Wolves have Al Jefferson and want to draft the white Al Jefferson....Kevin Love. Here is your inquiry -- can the new guy play 30 minutes a game when I have the old guy?
If you are a sucky team, you can't draft guys and stash them. You can't trade your best guy because you just drafted his white clone. You won't get value. You also can't pick a guy and play him 18 minutes and the old guy 30 minutes. That leaves you 192 productive minutes short.
So you have to ask yourself, "Can I play Al Jefferson next to the white Al Jefferson enough so that I can get 60 to 70 productive minutes out of the tandem?" If so, you pick him. If not (for example, the team would allow 150 points a game if you played the two guys together), you don't.
You absolutely cannot blindly pick the "best player available" when your team sucks. If you are New Orleans a year and a half ago, and you have Chris Paul and not much else, you can't pick a small point guard. Sorry. His 8 minutes a night relieving Paul don't get you very far up toward that 240 marker.
So........current 2008 NBA Draft lessons?
If you can draft Brandon Rush or Roy Hibbert, draft Rush. He probably gives you 30 productive minutes a game this year on a bad team. Hibbert will play very little, and I doubt he will ever be one of those top 11 centers playing 30+.
A guy to avoid at all costs? DeAndre Jordan. Huge man out of Texas A&M. Shot 43% from the line at A&M and averaged about 8 points a game. Can you play DeAndre Jordan for more than 12 minutes a game? No.
So who would want him? Maybe Boston -- Bynum will be back next year and the Celtics may need another large body to combat the huge Bynum in the minutes he plays. So, maybe the Celts could use him for 12 minutes a game. But that is only because, of course, they have so few minutes to fill.
Quick -- where is DeSagana Diop? Answer -- he is a Net. Shooting 41% from the floor and 46% from the line, getting about 14 minutes a game. So, why did people like him as a Maverick? Because the Mavs had a ton of productive minutes guys and could sneak Diop in for 17 minutes a game without everyone realizing that he was basically an Iowa girls basketball defender.
Final Analysis
If your team sucks, you have to pick someone who will give you a lot of productive minutes. The chances of selecting a true all-NBA player are not that great, even at the way top of the draft. But you cannot allow guys like Dwyane Wade and Paul Pierce to slide through when you know they are athletic, can play two positions and score. Any guy who is athletic, can play two or more positions and can score should move UP your board and not get passed over by guys you THINK might some day turn into something.
So, a few examples:
Kevin Love can play two positions and score, you need to address whether he is athletic enough to defend his position. Is he Carlos Boozer or Shelden Williams?
Can Joe Alexander play two positions? In a pinch, can he play 2 guard or big forward? He is athletic and can score. Is he Danny Granger or Danny Vranes?
Can Brook Lopez play against big forwards on defense? Cuz you really can't draft a guy top 5 whom you sit when the other team goes small. Is he Brad Daugherty or is he Bryant Reeves?
Is O.J. Mayo explosive enough as an athlete that you could sneak him in some as a small forward? If not, can he play some point guard? Is Mayo a Mitch Richmond or a Harold Miner?
Thursday should be a great night to watch a draft.
HM
Monday, June 23, 2008
USA Basketball Announces Olympic Team -- Tyson Chandler? No. Tayshaun Prince? Yes.
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/olybb/news/story?id=3457058
I am a little surprised that Tyson Chandler doesn't make the team -- he was the only consistent defender/rebounder the U.S. had inside at qualifying, Howard was constantly in foul trouble.
Chris Bosh -- never liked him as a player.
Boozer --undersized, game doesn't translate well to international ball.
I see this team having a tough time of it to get the gold. The only guy whose game screams, "great international player" is Anthony. Then you have James, who is such a great overall player that he can star in any competition.
Wade? If you have Melo, LeBron and Kobe, you really don't need Wade. This was a pick where they should have gone for size. Wade's primary weaknesses: 1) he hogs the ball and turns it over a ton; 2) he is an indifferent defender most of the time; and 3) he can't be relied upon to hit an open flat footed jumper from the International line. So, he is on the team because............................why?????????
Oh well. It all probably comes down to LeBron, Kobe and Melo. If those three guys can play at the level they did during qualifying, we win. If they play even just above average, we have some real problems.
HM
I am a little surprised that Tyson Chandler doesn't make the team -- he was the only consistent defender/rebounder the U.S. had inside at qualifying, Howard was constantly in foul trouble.
Chris Bosh -- never liked him as a player.
Boozer --undersized, game doesn't translate well to international ball.
I see this team having a tough time of it to get the gold. The only guy whose game screams, "great international player" is Anthony. Then you have James, who is such a great overall player that he can star in any competition.
Wade? If you have Melo, LeBron and Kobe, you really don't need Wade. This was a pick where they should have gone for size. Wade's primary weaknesses: 1) he hogs the ball and turns it over a ton; 2) he is an indifferent defender most of the time; and 3) he can't be relied upon to hit an open flat footed jumper from the International line. So, he is on the team because............................why?????????
Oh well. It all probably comes down to LeBron, Kobe and Melo. If those three guys can play at the level they did during qualifying, we win. If they play even just above average, we have some real problems.
HM
"The Love Guru" -- Yahoo Movie Review
Here is one man's review of "The Love Guru" which somehow managed to draw in $14MM this weekend despite the fact that the producers are trying desperately to find ANY funny scene to show on TV ads:
Stinker
Really bad, makes Gigli look decent. Want my money back. Had better laughs at a funeral! Go see a cow take a dump than this thing called entertainment. SHAME!
2 of 3 people found this review helpful.
My belief is that this guy is being far too kind.
HM
Stinker
Really bad, makes Gigli look decent. Want my money back. Had better laughs at a funeral! Go see a cow take a dump than this thing called entertainment. SHAME!
2 of 3 people found this review helpful.
My belief is that this guy is being far too kind.
HM
"Get Smart" -- Movie Review
I generally do not like Jim Carrey, so I am always amazed when I hear people praise his so-called "acting." I think that I may have found my own personal Jim Carrey-esque idol in Steve Carrell.
I went to "Get Smart" on Sunday afternoon with my youngest child (only a couple inappropriate scenes for her, fine for any kid over 12). In a theatre with about 25 people, I laughed throughout the movie.
I was the only one.
Oh well. As much of a buzz kill as that was, I really enjoyed The Rock and Anne Hathaway and Carrell. 8 out of 10 stars. If you do not enjoy, Carrell, you cannot possibly give the film over 5 stars.
Warning to fans of the old TV show -- in the old TV show, Maxwell Smart was a complete buffoon. In this movie he is not. That takes some getting used to. (The trailer and TV commercials play up his worst moments. I would say that other than 2 scenes, Carell's Maxwell Smart comes off more as an "every man" who just wants to be a field agent for an intelligence agency.)
I liked it, but I would caution you again -- I was the only one.
HM
I went to "Get Smart" on Sunday afternoon with my youngest child (only a couple inappropriate scenes for her, fine for any kid over 12). In a theatre with about 25 people, I laughed throughout the movie.
I was the only one.
Oh well. As much of a buzz kill as that was, I really enjoyed The Rock and Anne Hathaway and Carrell. 8 out of 10 stars. If you do not enjoy, Carrell, you cannot possibly give the film over 5 stars.
Warning to fans of the old TV show -- in the old TV show, Maxwell Smart was a complete buffoon. In this movie he is not. That takes some getting used to. (The trailer and TV commercials play up his worst moments. I would say that other than 2 scenes, Carell's Maxwell Smart comes off more as an "every man" who just wants to be a field agent for an intelligence agency.)
I liked it, but I would caution you again -- I was the only one.
HM
Is Curt Schilling a Hall of Famer? Two Answers -- 1) No; and 2) Hell No.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp2.cgi?I=schilcu01:Curt+Schilling&st=age&compage=40&age=40
Of the 10 pitchers that baseball-reference.com says had the most similar career to Curt Schilling, 9 will never make the HOF and John Smoltz will make the Hall because he took Schilling's stats and added around 150 saves. So, yeah, if Curt would just add in 150 saves before he hangs 'em up, then yeah, he gets in too.
The pitcher's stats most comparable to Schilling's? Kevin Brown. How many times do you think THAT will be mentioned by voters trying to keep Curt out of the Hall? Once a day? Orel Hershiser has very similar career stats and he is already OFF THE BALLOT (didn't get 5% in 2007)!!
No way Schilling gets in before Bert Blyleven. That would signal, to me, the need for a new separate "Never played on the East Coast" Hall of Fame.
But even putting Schilling to one side, here is what the HOF voters need to see coming down the pike: when you keep Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris out of the Hall of Fame, you are making it nearly impossible for guys who started their careers after 1994 to make the Hall.
Most Wins By Current MLB Pitchers Who Started Their Careers After 1994:
Andy Pettite -- 209 wins
(huge drop off)
Bartolo Colon -- 150
Tim Hudson -- 143
Livan Hernandez -- 142
Kevin Milwood -- 138
Estaban Loiza -- 126
Jeff Suppan -- 122
OK, so Jack Morris (3 titles) at 254 wins and Bert Blyleven (2 titles) at 287 wins can't get in. So......who exactly are you gonna put in?
Tim Hudson is 33 on July 15. How many more productive years does he have? 6? Six years times 15 wins will get him to 233 wins.
I guess you have to hope that the horribly overweight C.C. Sabathia (only 27) can avoid blown hammies and improve on his 105 wins or that Johan Santana can escape the Mets' horrible support of him and boost that 100 total win mark, since he is already 29. Josh Beckett is a helluva 28 year old pitcher....with....84 career wins.
Fortunately for these younger pitchers, I think that the new prototype for HOF voters will be Pedro Martinez -- win a few Cy Youngs, pitch great for 8 years, get in the Hall. 211 wins at age 36.
If I am correct and the new model for getting into the Hall is Pedro Martinez, ask yourself this -- should Johan Santana just retire now (100-49, great ERA, 2 Cy Youngs and badly screwed out of a 3rd) so that he doesn't endanger his Hall of Fame numbers?
HM
Of the 10 pitchers that baseball-reference.com says had the most similar career to Curt Schilling, 9 will never make the HOF and John Smoltz will make the Hall because he took Schilling's stats and added around 150 saves. So, yeah, if Curt would just add in 150 saves before he hangs 'em up, then yeah, he gets in too.
The pitcher's stats most comparable to Schilling's? Kevin Brown. How many times do you think THAT will be mentioned by voters trying to keep Curt out of the Hall? Once a day? Orel Hershiser has very similar career stats and he is already OFF THE BALLOT (didn't get 5% in 2007)!!
No way Schilling gets in before Bert Blyleven. That would signal, to me, the need for a new separate "Never played on the East Coast" Hall of Fame.
But even putting Schilling to one side, here is what the HOF voters need to see coming down the pike: when you keep Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris out of the Hall of Fame, you are making it nearly impossible for guys who started their careers after 1994 to make the Hall.
Most Wins By Current MLB Pitchers Who Started Their Careers After 1994:
Andy Pettite -- 209 wins
(huge drop off)
Bartolo Colon -- 150
Tim Hudson -- 143
Livan Hernandez -- 142
Kevin Milwood -- 138
Estaban Loiza -- 126
Jeff Suppan -- 122
OK, so Jack Morris (3 titles) at 254 wins and Bert Blyleven (2 titles) at 287 wins can't get in. So......who exactly are you gonna put in?
Tim Hudson is 33 on July 15. How many more productive years does he have? 6? Six years times 15 wins will get him to 233 wins.
I guess you have to hope that the horribly overweight C.C. Sabathia (only 27) can avoid blown hammies and improve on his 105 wins or that Johan Santana can escape the Mets' horrible support of him and boost that 100 total win mark, since he is already 29. Josh Beckett is a helluva 28 year old pitcher....with....84 career wins.
Fortunately for these younger pitchers, I think that the new prototype for HOF voters will be Pedro Martinez -- win a few Cy Youngs, pitch great for 8 years, get in the Hall. 211 wins at age 36.
If I am correct and the new model for getting into the Hall is Pedro Martinez, ask yourself this -- should Johan Santana just retire now (100-49, great ERA, 2 Cy Youngs and badly screwed out of a 3rd) so that he doesn't endanger his Hall of Fame numbers?
HM
George Carlin -- RIP
In honor of the man, I offer up a few things:
1) Some Jokes:
"If man evolved from monkeys and apes...why do we still have monkeys and apes?"
"Is there another word for synonym?"
"Where do forest rangers go to 'get away from it all?'"
"If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?"
"Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?"
"Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?"
"If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest drown too?"
"Why is it called tourist season if we can't shoot at them?"
2) shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.
There ya go.
1) Some Jokes:
"If man evolved from monkeys and apes...why do we still have monkeys and apes?"
"Is there another word for synonym?"
"Where do forest rangers go to 'get away from it all?'"
"If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?"
"Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?"
"Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?"
"If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest drown too?"
"Why is it called tourist season if we can't shoot at them?"
2) shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.
There ya go.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Trying to Not Be "One of Those Dads"
PM started the baseball year 1 of 2 at the plate and then some coach at practice told him that they thought he was using too big of a bat.
First tournament he starts 0 for 2 in game 1 and then says to me, "I am going to go with my smaller bat from last year." Well, after going 1 for 6 with 5 strikeouts, I convinced him to go back to his bigger bat. I also talked to his assistant coach about getting him out of this ridiculous stance they had him batting from (I didn't put it that way, but I said, "He seems to really struggle with inside pitches when he has his bat lying so flat on his shoulder and his front side so closed.")
Well, in the final game of the tourney he went 1 for 2 with a LONG home run (one bounce off the 300 foot fence).
But in this first tourney he ended up 2 for 10, making him 3 for 12 on the year. This led the coach to drop him from 3rd to 10th in the batting order (team bats 12). Since then, I have him around 24 for 47. So, about .511 once he was freed of his early season "Coaching."
So, what does hitting .511 for a stretch of 18 games (.457 overall) get you? He has now skyrocketed up to 8th in the order.
He has 4 home runs, including two grand slams -- rest of team? I think 1 home run, but it may be 0. He has 3 triples (at least) and around 5 doubles. Nearly half of his hits are for extra bases. He is slugging about .800.
Still batting 8th.
I was OK with this since PM never said anything. But he had a sleepover at a friend's house last night and a friend of his asked where he batted in the order. PM this morning, "The guys at 3 and 4 are slumping badly, but I still don't move up from 8. What can I do?" That hurts to hear.
Of course the coach's son hits 2nd (if he is hitting .250 I would be surprised). And the guys at 3 and 4 are big hockey stars with fragile egos, so the coach tends to treat them specially.
So, what to do? I think the answer is nothing...just quietly bitch to other parents. If I were an opposing coach, I think I would go up to PM's coach after the game and say, "You just being nice by batting that kid 8th?"
Oh well. Spring baseball is over in July and then he can play fall baseball on a team with a coach who actually likes him.
HM
First tournament he starts 0 for 2 in game 1 and then says to me, "I am going to go with my smaller bat from last year." Well, after going 1 for 6 with 5 strikeouts, I convinced him to go back to his bigger bat. I also talked to his assistant coach about getting him out of this ridiculous stance they had him batting from (I didn't put it that way, but I said, "He seems to really struggle with inside pitches when he has his bat lying so flat on his shoulder and his front side so closed.")
Well, in the final game of the tourney he went 1 for 2 with a LONG home run (one bounce off the 300 foot fence).
But in this first tourney he ended up 2 for 10, making him 3 for 12 on the year. This led the coach to drop him from 3rd to 10th in the batting order (team bats 12). Since then, I have him around 24 for 47. So, about .511 once he was freed of his early season "Coaching."
So, what does hitting .511 for a stretch of 18 games (.457 overall) get you? He has now skyrocketed up to 8th in the order.
He has 4 home runs, including two grand slams -- rest of team? I think 1 home run, but it may be 0. He has 3 triples (at least) and around 5 doubles. Nearly half of his hits are for extra bases. He is slugging about .800.
Still batting 8th.
I was OK with this since PM never said anything. But he had a sleepover at a friend's house last night and a friend of his asked where he batted in the order. PM this morning, "The guys at 3 and 4 are slumping badly, but I still don't move up from 8. What can I do?" That hurts to hear.
Of course the coach's son hits 2nd (if he is hitting .250 I would be surprised). And the guys at 3 and 4 are big hockey stars with fragile egos, so the coach tends to treat them specially.
So, what to do? I think the answer is nothing...just quietly bitch to other parents. If I were an opposing coach, I think I would go up to PM's coach after the game and say, "You just being nice by batting that kid 8th?"
Oh well. Spring baseball is over in July and then he can play fall baseball on a team with a coach who actually likes him.
HM
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Timberwolves -- Just the Latest Boston "Farm Team"
Don't the folks out here in Minnesota deserve at least a couple weeks with the NBA trophy?
I mean, after all, most clubs wouldn't trade a 7 foot player with First-Team All-NBA talent left in the tank to a huge East Coast media market in return for a collection of guys off a 24-58 club, right?
Most teams wouldn't offer up a guy who is a former 10-time all-star, 3 time first team all-NBA, 6 time first team all-defense, and the most consistent rebounder of the 21st Century (Garnett trails only Shaq and Mutombo among active players in total career rebounds. He leads Duncan by 1,300 rebounds and the next set of guys are thousands of rebounds behind.)
But Minnesota is here to help you Boston folk out. I mean, need a clutch power hitter? Here is David Ortiz. Need a guy to revive your football offense and surpass the Colts? Here is Randy Moss (OK this is via Oakland, but WE clearly didn't need him up HERE -- sorry his TD catch came with too much time left in the Super Bowl, but you didn't inquire about any defensive players). Need a guy to take your crappy 24-58 club to the title? Well, here is Kevin.
Just doing our best to help.
I mean, after all, most clubs wouldn't trade a 7 foot player with First-Team All-NBA talent left in the tank to a huge East Coast media market in return for a collection of guys off a 24-58 club, right?
Most teams wouldn't offer up a guy who is a former 10-time all-star, 3 time first team all-NBA, 6 time first team all-defense, and the most consistent rebounder of the 21st Century (Garnett trails only Shaq and Mutombo among active players in total career rebounds. He leads Duncan by 1,300 rebounds and the next set of guys are thousands of rebounds behind.)
But Minnesota is here to help you Boston folk out. I mean, need a clutch power hitter? Here is David Ortiz. Need a guy to revive your football offense and surpass the Colts? Here is Randy Moss (OK this is via Oakland, but WE clearly didn't need him up HERE -- sorry his TD catch came with too much time left in the Super Bowl, but you didn't inquire about any defensive players). Need a guy to take your crappy 24-58 club to the title? Well, here is Kevin.
Just doing our best to help.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
More Proof Of What A Moron Peter Vecsey Truly Is
Vecsey on Garnett after Game 5: http://www.nypost.com/seven/06172008/sports/garnett_no_gem_115820.htm?page=2
Some Background on Vecsey: http://deadspin.com/sports/hometown-columnists/why-your-hometown-columnist-sucks-peter-vecsey-157443.php
So, as a starting point let me just point out that Vecsey's criticism of Garnett is akin to George W. Bush writing a column criticizing the life work of Thomas Jefferson.
But, that aside, let's provide Pete with a few stats:
1) #1 scorer on the Celtics for the entire post-season........that would be...........Kevin Garnett.
2) #1 rebounder on the Celtics for the entire post-season....that would be....Kevin Garnett.
3) Team leader in Efficiency Rating for the entire playoffs -- they don't have the final stats up yet, but KG was 8th in the NBA before Game 6, Pierce 24th, Ray Allen (despite a torrid late run) was 51st.
4) Players to get out of the first round who averaged 20 points and 10 rebounds a game for the playoffs.........Kevin and (his fellow noted playoff failure) Tim Duncan. So, 2 guys.
5) KG Stats for NBA Finals Win -- 18.17 points and 13 rebounds a game
Tim Duncan Stats for 2007 Finals Win -- 18.25 points and 11.5 rebounds a game
6) Shot a higher percentage in the NBA Finals? Kobe or Kevin? Look that one up. Not a surprise answer.
So, conclusion? Peter Vecsey = Moron.
Some Background on Vecsey: http://deadspin.com/sports/hometown-columnists/why-your-hometown-columnist-sucks-peter-vecsey-157443.php
So, as a starting point let me just point out that Vecsey's criticism of Garnett is akin to George W. Bush writing a column criticizing the life work of Thomas Jefferson.
But, that aside, let's provide Pete with a few stats:
1) #1 scorer on the Celtics for the entire post-season........that would be...........Kevin Garnett.
2) #1 rebounder on the Celtics for the entire post-season....that would be....Kevin Garnett.
3) Team leader in Efficiency Rating for the entire playoffs -- they don't have the final stats up yet, but KG was 8th in the NBA before Game 6, Pierce 24th, Ray Allen (despite a torrid late run) was 51st.
4) Players to get out of the first round who averaged 20 points and 10 rebounds a game for the playoffs.........Kevin and (his fellow noted playoff failure) Tim Duncan. So, 2 guys.
5) KG Stats for NBA Finals Win -- 18.17 points and 13 rebounds a game
Tim Duncan Stats for 2007 Finals Win -- 18.25 points and 11.5 rebounds a game
6) Shot a higher percentage in the NBA Finals? Kobe or Kevin? Look that one up. Not a surprise answer.
So, conclusion? Peter Vecsey = Moron.
Celtics Win, Good Triumphs Over Evil
Watching Kevin win and Kobe lose, I could only think of my favorite lines from the "Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy:
Sam:
I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are.
It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened?
But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer.
Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.
Frodo: What are we holding on to Sam?
Sam: That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo… and it’s worth fighting for.
From "'Sota" to KG -- congrats; no one who ever played the game worked harder to get his first title. I hope you get a couple more.
5 Sports Lessons From My Father
I was born in 1964 in Urbana, Illinois when my father was attending the University of Illinois to get an advanced degree. The fact that my father actually ventured out of his home state of New York is remarkable in itself. I can only imagine that the Illini were offering a great deal of financial aid -- the only thing my dad loves more than staying home is saving money.
Here are the sports lessons I learned from my dad:
1) Nothing is ever as good or bad as it seems. You really need to keep things in perspective and there is never any need to get hysterical over something. It just makes a bad situation worse and it makes you look and (later) feel like an idiot in a good situation. This understated philosophy does not mean that you don't care. It just means, "Don't act like an idiot." There is a scene in "Rudy" where Rudy gets into Notre Dame and gives his dad the admission letter. After Rudy leaves, his dad takes the letter and slowly and carefully folds it up and places it back in the envelope. I love that scene, because it reminds me so much of my dad.
2) Winning is extremely important. Say what you will about sportsmanship and trying hard, etc., but the whole point of sports is to win. If you don't win, you should feel bad. If you don't feel bad after a loss, you have to ask yourself seriously if you deserve to play that sport. If the other guy wins, congratulate him and shake his hand because he just achieved his goal, the goal you wanted. But, to repeat, there is no real reason to play a game or a sport if you are not trying to win.
3) Talent is very important. Everyone in America wants to believe that a kid who a good baseball player and who is 5'8" and 175 pounds at age 18 can be a major league player.....except my dad. His point is this -- they want guys who are 6'2" and above. They want power. They want exceptional speed. They want guys who can throw 90+. They basically do not want you. While this is a hard lesson to learn, I think we are fast moving so far in the other direction ("wanna be Miss USA - sure, you can be 195 or so!") that some of my father's harsh reality check is badly needed today.
4) There comes a time in your life when you have to stop playing sports. Interestingly, my mom has the exact opposite opinion and is still upset that I gave up softball at age 41. But my father's position was, "You time has come and gone. Move on and help your kids." It hurt, because I was a very good softball player, but if my dad says it was the right thing to do, it probably was.
5) The most important thing you can do for your kids is watch them play sports. My dad would come to every single game I ever had. I honestly cannot recall one he ever missed. 50 miles away, he was there. JV baseball in the 42 degree drizzle -- he admired the 5 innings I pitched to pick up the win. When you are a kid, you think it is great, then pretty lame. Then as you get older you realize that it was the nicest thing he ever did for you.
Happy Belated Father's Day, Mr. Maven.
HM
Here are the sports lessons I learned from my dad:
1) Nothing is ever as good or bad as it seems. You really need to keep things in perspective and there is never any need to get hysterical over something. It just makes a bad situation worse and it makes you look and (later) feel like an idiot in a good situation. This understated philosophy does not mean that you don't care. It just means, "Don't act like an idiot." There is a scene in "Rudy" where Rudy gets into Notre Dame and gives his dad the admission letter. After Rudy leaves, his dad takes the letter and slowly and carefully folds it up and places it back in the envelope. I love that scene, because it reminds me so much of my dad.
2) Winning is extremely important. Say what you will about sportsmanship and trying hard, etc., but the whole point of sports is to win. If you don't win, you should feel bad. If you don't feel bad after a loss, you have to ask yourself seriously if you deserve to play that sport. If the other guy wins, congratulate him and shake his hand because he just achieved his goal, the goal you wanted. But, to repeat, there is no real reason to play a game or a sport if you are not trying to win.
3) Talent is very important. Everyone in America wants to believe that a kid who a good baseball player and who is 5'8" and 175 pounds at age 18 can be a major league player.....except my dad. His point is this -- they want guys who are 6'2" and above. They want power. They want exceptional speed. They want guys who can throw 90+. They basically do not want you. While this is a hard lesson to learn, I think we are fast moving so far in the other direction ("wanna be Miss USA - sure, you can be 195 or so!") that some of my father's harsh reality check is badly needed today.
4) There comes a time in your life when you have to stop playing sports. Interestingly, my mom has the exact opposite opinion and is still upset that I gave up softball at age 41. But my father's position was, "You time has come and gone. Move on and help your kids." It hurt, because I was a very good softball player, but if my dad says it was the right thing to do, it probably was.
5) The most important thing you can do for your kids is watch them play sports. My dad would come to every single game I ever had. I honestly cannot recall one he ever missed. 50 miles away, he was there. JV baseball in the 42 degree drizzle -- he admired the 5 innings I pitched to pick up the win. When you are a kid, you think it is great, then pretty lame. Then as you get older you realize that it was the nicest thing he ever did for you.
Happy Belated Father's Day, Mr. Maven.
HM
Monday, June 16, 2008
McCain VP Candidate Bobby Jindal -- Exorcist
http://outtheotherear.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/bobby-jindal-completely-crazy-or-warrior-for-god/
Not only did former Hindu Piyush Jindal exorcise the woman's demons, he also apparently cured her of cancer.
So, McCain gonna go with the 37-year old former-Hindu, Indian now-Catholic named "Piyush" who performs cancer-ridding exorcisms............or Tim Pawlenty???
If you are Tim Pawlenty, you gotta be saying, "I can CUT my ridiculous hockey-hair mullet! What can Ernest Angley, Jr. over there do? Promise not to outsource more jobs to his parents' nation of origin?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Angley
Not only did former Hindu Piyush Jindal exorcise the woman's demons, he also apparently cured her of cancer.
So, McCain gonna go with the 37-year old former-Hindu, Indian now-Catholic named "Piyush" who performs cancer-ridding exorcisms............or Tim Pawlenty???
If you are Tim Pawlenty, you gotta be saying, "I can CUT my ridiculous hockey-hair mullet! What can Ernest Angley, Jr. over there do? Promise not to outsource more jobs to his parents' nation of origin?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Angley
John McCain -- Corn Ethanol Subsidies a Big Mistake
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-15-mccain-brazil_N.htm
You have to give McCain some credit here. He is undoubtedly correct. The problem with this comment is that he is going to piss off all of the rural interests in Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota -- all thought to be states in which he might stand some chance to win. (Bush won Iowa in 2004). McCain certainly can't win these states by winning Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Madison and Des Moines, so I am not sure exactly what he is doing here....at least politically.
HM
You have to give McCain some credit here. He is undoubtedly correct. The problem with this comment is that he is going to piss off all of the rural interests in Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota -- all thought to be states in which he might stand some chance to win. (Bush won Iowa in 2004). McCain certainly can't win these states by winning Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Madison and Des Moines, so I am not sure exactly what he is doing here....at least politically.
HM
Barack Obama -- Black Men Need to "Step Up" And Be Better Fathers
http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-urges-fathers-to-step-up/20080616094209990002?icid=200100397x1204173553x1200162123
I would imagine that it will take less than a week for white liberals to call Obama racist. I will monitor the response and get back to you all.
A belated "Happy Father's Day!" to all you dads out there, by the by.
I would imagine that it will take less than a week for white liberals to call Obama racist. I will monitor the response and get back to you all.
A belated "Happy Father's Day!" to all you dads out there, by the by.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Tim Russert -- Dead At 58
Is it concerning to me that a chunky white guy from Buffalo with a law degree whose job involves sitting all day dies a sudden death at age 58?? Oh yeah. More than a little.
Consistent with his training and education, Russert is one of the only political reporters whom I have seen on TV who actually did his work and prepared questions in a lawyerly fashion. Don't ask, "Well, aren't you in favor of X?" Say, "You said on July 1 that you were in favor of X and now you say you aren't?" Then have the film ready when they start to weasel.
Russert, of course, was great with the very low-tech "white board" during election coverage, and broke things down so that they were very easy to see and comprehend.
We have so many mediocre to flat-out awful people covering politics today. Losing Russert is like the Cavs losing LeBron and hoping to replace him with a low first-round pick. It just isn't going to happen.
RIP.
"Nothing Wrong With a Little Bump and Grind" -- R. Kelly -- Not Guilty
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145335/ It is rumored that when asked to comment, the prosecutor said, "Maybe picking DeShawn Stevenson, Anthony Mason and Luis Polonia for the final jury was a tactical error on my part...."
The Flaws In Scalia's Gitmo Dissent
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kaye13-2008jun13,0,7314680.story
Scalia says that giving prisoners at Gitmo the right to habeus corpus review will make America a more danagerous place and result in more American deaths. It is amazing to hear a person who has promised to uphold the Constitution saying things like this. Why?
1) The people held at Gitmo won't automatically get out of jail. The government is free to come in and present evidence that they have a good reason to hold these people (for example, for another 6 years or more). I would assume that we wouldn't be holding these people unless we had some good solid evidence against them, right? No one is being held on mere hearsay or suspicion of possible future wrongdoing, are they?
2) If we have no evidence that these people actually have done anything wrong, do we not have some obligation to let them out of jail? I mean, basic fundamental "natural law" argument here -- is it right to enslave someone? Natural law say no. Is it right to imprison someone for 6 years when you don't have any evidence against them? I can't really see the difference. I mean, slaves in the Old Confederacy got to walk around freely and see their families. These Gitmo guys have been imprisoned for up to 6 years and haven't been hanging with their families much I wouldn't think.
3) Doesn't every right that a criminal has endanger society? I mean, taken to its logical end point, Scalia's argument is that "People are dying, we need to take away constitutional rights."
The number of U.S. citizens who have died from terrorist attacks since 1983 is well under 10,000, while the number of dead due to murder or drunk driving since 2001 is probably at or near 200,000: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/376041/murder_rates_and_violent_crimes_in.html?cat=9
So, if we can imprison people for 6 years because 10,000 people have died at someone else's hands, is there really any limit on our ability to prevent murder or drunk driving? Shouldn't we basically strip away all 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th amendment rights from people known to hang out with people who have committed violent crimes? From people who have ever been shown to drink too much? I say we quarter troops in their houses without compensation so we can enforce the law against them (I think that used to be a 3rd Amendment violation).
Would taking all constitutional rights away from , say, 15,000,000 "high risk" individuals make us safer? You are darn right it would. Does recognizing their constitutional rights result in more deaths? Darn right it does.
So, I ask this of Justice Scalia -- if there is ever a case in which you uphold any of the Bill of Rights criminal law protections, please make a note at the end of the opinion that you are sending people to their death by your decision. That is a very constructive way to use your office.
Scalia says that giving prisoners at Gitmo the right to habeus corpus review will make America a more danagerous place and result in more American deaths. It is amazing to hear a person who has promised to uphold the Constitution saying things like this. Why?
1) The people held at Gitmo won't automatically get out of jail. The government is free to come in and present evidence that they have a good reason to hold these people (for example, for another 6 years or more). I would assume that we wouldn't be holding these people unless we had some good solid evidence against them, right? No one is being held on mere hearsay or suspicion of possible future wrongdoing, are they?
2) If we have no evidence that these people actually have done anything wrong, do we not have some obligation to let them out of jail? I mean, basic fundamental "natural law" argument here -- is it right to enslave someone? Natural law say no. Is it right to imprison someone for 6 years when you don't have any evidence against them? I can't really see the difference. I mean, slaves in the Old Confederacy got to walk around freely and see their families. These Gitmo guys have been imprisoned for up to 6 years and haven't been hanging with their families much I wouldn't think.
3) Doesn't every right that a criminal has endanger society? I mean, taken to its logical end point, Scalia's argument is that "People are dying, we need to take away constitutional rights."
The number of U.S. citizens who have died from terrorist attacks since 1983 is well under 10,000, while the number of dead due to murder or drunk driving since 2001 is probably at or near 200,000: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/376041/murder_rates_and_violent_crimes_in.html?cat=9
So, if we can imprison people for 6 years because 10,000 people have died at someone else's hands, is there really any limit on our ability to prevent murder or drunk driving? Shouldn't we basically strip away all 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th amendment rights from people known to hang out with people who have committed violent crimes? From people who have ever been shown to drink too much? I say we quarter troops in their houses without compensation so we can enforce the law against them (I think that used to be a 3rd Amendment violation).
Would taking all constitutional rights away from , say, 15,000,000 "high risk" individuals make us safer? You are darn right it would. Does recognizing their constitutional rights result in more deaths? Darn right it does.
So, I ask this of Justice Scalia -- if there is ever a case in which you uphold any of the Bill of Rights criminal law protections, please make a note at the end of the opinion that you are sending people to their death by your decision. That is a very constructive way to use your office.
Michael Jordan's Performance in NBA Finals Losses
As Bill Simmons and others have correctly pointed out, Kobe's complete failure to prevent his team from collapsing at home and blowing a 24-point lead in a crucial Game 4 now forever (finally!) puts an end to the ridiculous claim that Kobe is "as good as Michael Jordan."
Well, um, "Duh!"
Anyone reading this Blog has known this for years. Plus, maybe a clue to the puzzle may have been the number of Finals MVPs owned by each man: Michael 6, Kobe 0. Or the number of series losses suffered by each man's team in the NBA Finals: Michael 0; Kobe -- at least 1.
But just so we can make sure that history records this properly, we need to make sure that we aren't making too big of a hero out of this "Jordan" guy. I mean, what do his box scores actually tell us?
In 6 NBA Finals appearances, Michael lost a total of 11 games:
1991 -- Lakers (1)
1992 -- Blazers (2)
1993 -- Suns (2)
1996 -- Sonics (2)
1997 -- Jazz (2)
1998 -- Jazz (2)
Of these 11 losses, 6 were road losses and 5 were home losses.
Road losses (6) -- Game 4 1992, Games 4 and 5 1996, Games 3 and 4 1997, Game 1 1998
Home losses (5) -- Game 1 1991, Game 2 1992, Games 3 and 5 1993, Game 5 1998.
MJ's performance in home losses in the NBA Finals:
1991 -- 36 points
1992 -- 39 points
1993 -- 44 points and 41 points
1998 -- 28 points (Jordan followed up this performance with a Game 6 in Utah in which he went for 45 points and hit the game winner).
MJ's worst ever home performance in a Finals loss -- at age 35 he didn't put away Utah at home in a game 5 and only scored 28 points.
But, I guess, let's try to toss Kobe fans a bone. There are key road games in NBA finals and Michael also lost 6 road games, so let's see if 1) any losses were in important games, and 2) if so, what were Michael's numbers?
1992 -- lost at Portland and series was evened 2-2; MJ -- 32 points.
1996 -- no key games, Bulls jumped up 3-0 in the series against Seattle and then basically threw away games 4 and 5. MJ had 23 and 26.
1997 -- Games 3 and 4 -- Bulls were up 2-0 on the Jazz and came in and crapped the bed in Games 3 and 4. Michael shot poorly and only had 26 and 22 points. MJ daggered Utah in Games 5 and 6 with 38 and 39 points.
1998 -- Game 1 in Utah, Michael goes for 33. Not a crucial game, and MJ played well.
So, no. Michael Jordan has never had a crucial home game or a road game in the NBA Finals where his team lost and he played as poorly as Kobe Bryant did last night.
Surprise, surprise.
HM
Well, um, "Duh!"
Anyone reading this Blog has known this for years. Plus, maybe a clue to the puzzle may have been the number of Finals MVPs owned by each man: Michael 6, Kobe 0. Or the number of series losses suffered by each man's team in the NBA Finals: Michael 0; Kobe -- at least 1.
But just so we can make sure that history records this properly, we need to make sure that we aren't making too big of a hero out of this "Jordan" guy. I mean, what do his box scores actually tell us?
In 6 NBA Finals appearances, Michael lost a total of 11 games:
1991 -- Lakers (1)
1992 -- Blazers (2)
1993 -- Suns (2)
1996 -- Sonics (2)
1997 -- Jazz (2)
1998 -- Jazz (2)
Of these 11 losses, 6 were road losses and 5 were home losses.
Road losses (6) -- Game 4 1992, Games 4 and 5 1996, Games 3 and 4 1997, Game 1 1998
Home losses (5) -- Game 1 1991, Game 2 1992, Games 3 and 5 1993, Game 5 1998.
MJ's performance in home losses in the NBA Finals:
1991 -- 36 points
1992 -- 39 points
1993 -- 44 points and 41 points
1998 -- 28 points (Jordan followed up this performance with a Game 6 in Utah in which he went for 45 points and hit the game winner).
MJ's worst ever home performance in a Finals loss -- at age 35 he didn't put away Utah at home in a game 5 and only scored 28 points.
But, I guess, let's try to toss Kobe fans a bone. There are key road games in NBA finals and Michael also lost 6 road games, so let's see if 1) any losses were in important games, and 2) if so, what were Michael's numbers?
1992 -- lost at Portland and series was evened 2-2; MJ -- 32 points.
1996 -- no key games, Bulls jumped up 3-0 in the series against Seattle and then basically threw away games 4 and 5. MJ had 23 and 26.
1997 -- Games 3 and 4 -- Bulls were up 2-0 on the Jazz and came in and crapped the bed in Games 3 and 4. Michael shot poorly and only had 26 and 22 points. MJ daggered Utah in Games 5 and 6 with 38 and 39 points.
1998 -- Game 1 in Utah, Michael goes for 33. Not a crucial game, and MJ played well.
So, no. Michael Jordan has never had a crucial home game or a road game in the NBA Finals where his team lost and he played as poorly as Kobe Bryant did last night.
Surprise, surprise.
HM
Bill Simmons' Diary On Lakers-Celtics Game 4
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080613
An entry so good, so clever, so spot on, that it should be hand written onto parchment and taken to the National Archives to be preserved for generations. If the Celtics win the series, I think that it should be put on display next to the Constitution.
An entry so good, so clever, so spot on, that it should be hand written onto parchment and taken to the National Archives to be preserved for generations. If the Celtics win the series, I think that it should be put on display next to the Constitution.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Justice Kennedy -- Guantanamo Detainees May Seek Habeus Corpus Relief in Civilian Court
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/12/supreme-court-rules-guant_n_106718.html
It appears what pushed Justice Kennedy over the edge may have been the Administration's argument that they can do whatever they want in Cuba because they LEASE (and don't own) Guantanamo.
Justice Kennedy decided that, if that were true, we might as well close up the Supreme Court and just allow the President to do whatever he wants:
The necessary implication of the argument is that by surrendering formal sovereignty over any unincorporated territory to a third party, while at the same time entering into a lease that grants total control over the territory back to the United States, it would be possible for the political branches to govern without legal constraint.
Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this.The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not "absolute and unlimited" but are subject "to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 44 (1885).
Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another. The former position reflects..... that certain matters requiring political judgments are best left to the political branches. The latter would permit a striking anomaly in our tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the President,not this Court, say "what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803).
These concerns have particular bearing upon the Suspension Clause question in the cases now before us, for the writ of habeas corpus is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers. The test for determining the scope of this provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.
It appears what pushed Justice Kennedy over the edge may have been the Administration's argument that they can do whatever they want in Cuba because they LEASE (and don't own) Guantanamo.
Justice Kennedy decided that, if that were true, we might as well close up the Supreme Court and just allow the President to do whatever he wants:
The necessary implication of the argument is that by surrendering formal sovereignty over any unincorporated territory to a third party, while at the same time entering into a lease that grants total control over the territory back to the United States, it would be possible for the political branches to govern without legal constraint.
Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this.The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not "absolute and unlimited" but are subject "to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 44 (1885).
Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another. The former position reflects..... that certain matters requiring political judgments are best left to the political branches. The latter would permit a striking anomaly in our tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the President,not this Court, say "what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803).
These concerns have particular bearing upon the Suspension Clause question in the cases now before us, for the writ of habeas corpus is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers. The test for determining the scope of this provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.
Minnesota Timberwolves Salary Issues -- 2008-09
1) Per hoopshype.com (generally about 90% accurate on salary data) the Timberwolves, believe it or not, currently have $31MM dedicated to the following guys for 2008-09:
Antoine Walker, Marko Jaric, Greg Buckner, Randy Foye, Corey Brewer, Mark Madsen, Rashad McCants.
At their current level of play, none of these guys has shown that they are a clear starter on a good NBA club.
2) The Timberwolves have bought out the contracts of Troy Hudson and Juwan Howard. These two men are still on the Timberwolves' cap, but only to the extent of the amount of their buyout: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#1
So, I do not know the buyout amounts, but if the Wolves paid $9MM to buy out these two guys, they count $9MM against the cap, which is allocated over the seasons they had remaining with the Wolves (last year and this year). So let's assume another $9MM this year for these two guys (scheduled salaries were $13.7MM for this year -- assume a discount was negotiated).
3) Al Jefferson will make $11MM this year. He is our one good NBA-starter level player.
So, that leaves the Timberwolves at around $51MM for 8 active guys.
4) Current Wolves who have not been re-signed to date: Sebastian Telfair, Kirk Snyder, Ryan Gomes, Craig Smith, Chris Richard.
I would say that only Gomes stands a good chance to be re-signed. Add $5MM for Gomes.
5) The Wolves' #3 overall pick will get about $3.5MM. If the Wolves trade up into the late first round (they currently sit at ##31 and 34 overall), they could spend another $1.5MM on a second first rounder.
Add $5MM for draft picks.
End of the day -- $61MM with your only free agent signing being Gomes. That leaves you over the salary cap with this starting lineup:
PF -- Gomes
SF -- Corey Brewer
C -- Jefferson
SG -- O.J. Mayo
PG -- Randy Foye
Bench -- Jaric, Walker, Buckner, McCants, Madsen, late first-round pick.
Conclusion -- Kevin McHale's statement that his team should win 20 more games next year is clearly a pipe dream.
What, after all, is the best case here? I guess Beasley could fall to us and McCants could become a starter and we could find someone like Robin Lopez late first who pans out. That would give us:
PF -- Al Jefferson
SF -- Michael Beasley
C -- Robin Lopez
SG -- Rashad McCants
PG -- Randy Foye
With Ryan Gomes off the bench, who is a good NBA-level bench player.
That team at least has potential to win, say, 34 games. Not exactly a great return on your investment of $61MM....
HM
Antoine Walker, Marko Jaric, Greg Buckner, Randy Foye, Corey Brewer, Mark Madsen, Rashad McCants.
At their current level of play, none of these guys has shown that they are a clear starter on a good NBA club.
2) The Timberwolves have bought out the contracts of Troy Hudson and Juwan Howard. These two men are still on the Timberwolves' cap, but only to the extent of the amount of their buyout: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#1
So, I do not know the buyout amounts, but if the Wolves paid $9MM to buy out these two guys, they count $9MM against the cap, which is allocated over the seasons they had remaining with the Wolves (last year and this year). So let's assume another $9MM this year for these two guys (scheduled salaries were $13.7MM for this year -- assume a discount was negotiated).
3) Al Jefferson will make $11MM this year. He is our one good NBA-starter level player.
So, that leaves the Timberwolves at around $51MM for 8 active guys.
4) Current Wolves who have not been re-signed to date: Sebastian Telfair, Kirk Snyder, Ryan Gomes, Craig Smith, Chris Richard.
I would say that only Gomes stands a good chance to be re-signed. Add $5MM for Gomes.
5) The Wolves' #3 overall pick will get about $3.5MM. If the Wolves trade up into the late first round (they currently sit at ##31 and 34 overall), they could spend another $1.5MM on a second first rounder.
Add $5MM for draft picks.
End of the day -- $61MM with your only free agent signing being Gomes. That leaves you over the salary cap with this starting lineup:
PF -- Gomes
SF -- Corey Brewer
C -- Jefferson
SG -- O.J. Mayo
PG -- Randy Foye
Bench -- Jaric, Walker, Buckner, McCants, Madsen, late first-round pick.
Conclusion -- Kevin McHale's statement that his team should win 20 more games next year is clearly a pipe dream.
What, after all, is the best case here? I guess Beasley could fall to us and McCants could become a starter and we could find someone like Robin Lopez late first who pans out. That would give us:
PF -- Al Jefferson
SF -- Michael Beasley
C -- Robin Lopez
SG -- Rashad McCants
PG -- Randy Foye
With Ryan Gomes off the bench, who is a good NBA-level bench player.
That team at least has potential to win, say, 34 games. Not exactly a great return on your investment of $61MM....
HM
Confessions On a Basement Floor
So here is what I learned in the wee morning hours thus far: 1) having a battery backup on a sump pump is the equivalent of having a good starting QB and Jeff Blake as your backup. The backup will do its job, but just barely, providing the absolute minimum level of performance.
2). My electric company did, in fact, have crews out to fix the problem. My primary sump pump has now run 11 times since the power returned. Unlikely that my basement will flood tonight.
3). I should probably read K's blog before I head off to bed.
4). Even lying on the hard carpeted basement floor near a running sump pump, I still don't care any for Kobe or his Lakers.
HM
2). My electric company did, in fact, have crews out to fix the problem. My primary sump pump has now run 11 times since the power returned. Unlikely that my basement will flood tonight.
3). I should probably read K's blog before I head off to bed.
4). Even lying on the hard carpeted basement floor near a running sump pump, I still don't care any for Kobe or his Lakers.
HM
it's 3 a.m. and I must be blogging
Apologies to Matchbox 20. I was awakened by my dear wife at 2 a.m. To tell me that the power had gone off. Since it has been raining non-stop since 8 p.m that means my sump pump is on battery backup. Who knows if that will work?
So I am down in the basement, lying on th floor 2 feet from the sump pump. It has not overflowed and it has not actually worked either (where all of this rain is going is anyone's guess).
Some up sides? Well -- I got to call the electric company (mine, not the TV show) who told me that they had crews already dispatched. Um, OK.
I got to read that Andy over at The Putdown just got a Mohawk and that I was wrong when I guessed Alyssa Milano and not Vanessa Manillo. Doh.
There goes the battery backup on the sump pump. Better go. More later.
HM
So I am down in the basement, lying on th floor 2 feet from the sump pump. It has not overflowed and it has not actually worked either (where all of this rain is going is anyone's guess).
Some up sides? Well -- I got to call the electric company (mine, not the TV show) who told me that they had crews already dispatched. Um, OK.
I got to read that Andy over at The Putdown just got a Mohawk and that I was wrong when I guessed Alyssa Milano and not Vanessa Manillo. Doh.
There goes the battery backup on the sump pump. Better go. More later.
HM
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Tim Donaghy -- Even Liars Tell the Truth Sometimes
The NBA foolishly sought $1,000,000 in restitution from Donaghy in his criminal proceeding. Donaghy's legal response? The entire NBA is fixed and everyone knows it.
Dongahy makes three points: 1) Lakers-Kings Game 6 in 2002 was fixed b/c Dick Bavetta and Bob Delaney were told to extend the series to 7 games. 2) The Rockets-Mavericks playoff series in 2005 was fixed because the league told officials to "strictly enforce the rules" against Yao Ming's screening. 3) NBA referees were told by the league not to eject star players from games because the league's TV ratings and attendance might be hurt.
Let's take them in reverse order:
3) Refs are told not to eject star players. Well, duh. I tell you what, I used to umpire slow pitch softball games and if I spotted a star player I was far less likely to toss the guy. Why? Because it completely changes the game. You throw out the #1 player for a team, you basically hand the other team the game.
I seem to recall Garnett and Duncan getting ejected once in the same game. It was ridiculous. You do not eject Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan in a Wolves/Spurs regular season game unless they both throw a punch and connect.
I saw Gary Payton pick up a double T against the Timberwolves where he already had one. He walks up to the ref and says, "If you T me, that means I am gone." Ref rescinds the T......but only the one on Payton!!! So the Wolves get a T and Gary gets to stay in the game.
Referees regularly award a foul on a drive to the hoop to the nearest player...who sucks. So, you drive into Oberto and Duncan, Oberto gets the foul 88% of the time.
Do I have a problem with all of this? Not in the regular season. Look, I pay to see a game, I want to watch the good guys play. In the playoffs where it is "win or go home", yeah, I would like to see the game called more down the middle.
Degree of Donaghy's Accuracy: 100%.
2) Rockets-Mavs Issue: Did Mark Cuban bitch about Yao Ming setting illegal screens? Uh huh. At that point the league had two things it could do -- say "Fuck you, Cuban, we aren't going to enforce the rules against Yao" or say, "OK, we will review the calls and see if he is doing something illegal or improper. If so, we will tell the referees to call it."
This is a no win situation. If they do #1 you have Cuban going postal. If they do #2 you have Jeff Van Gundy whining and getting fined $100,000 for saying that a "league official" told him they weren't going to be fair to Yao.
So, do I have a problem with what occurred? Absolutely not.
Donaghy degree of accuracy: 100%
1) Lakers-Kings, Game 6 --
Did the league select officials for this game whom they thought would help the Lakers win? I am sure they did.
Do I have a problem with this? Sure. You can't help teams win playoff games. That just isn't right.
Donaghy Degree of Accuracy -- 75% -- look the fact is that Shaq hit 13 of 17 free throws that day (a miracle in itself) and the Lakers took advantage of their opportunity to win while the Kings didn't. Does the NBA go into a room and say to officials, "Cheat for Los Angeles"? I really doubt it. But do they assign Steve Javie and Danny Crawford to a Lakers home game when the Lakers have a big chance to lose? Uh, no.
If the league could completely control wins and losses, do you think that they would allow the Spurs to win and allow the Spurs to sweep Cleveland? I mean, no one wanted that, correct? But it happened. Has the league's thumb always been on the scale to assist larger market clubs? Of course it has.
For a pretty damning analysis from 2002, I will cut and paste part of an old Bill Simmons 2002 column here:
Question: What was the most disturbing subplot of the playoffs?
Answer: The officiating, also the most disturbing subplot of the past four playoffs.
If you examine the last four NBA playoff campaigns, during every situation where the league definitively "needed" one of the two teams involved to win -- either to A) change the momentum of a series so it didn't end prematurely, B) keep an attractive, big-market team alive in a series, or C) advance an attractive, big-market team to another round -- the officiating appeared to be slanted towards the team that needed that game. I use the phrase "appeared to be," because reviewing an official's performance is purely subjective. Maybe I'm dead-wrong.
These were just the games that jump out in my mind (again, I could be wrong):
1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 3 ... LJ sinks a game-winning four-pointer (called a continuation foul by referee Jess Kersey even though LJ was fouled a full second before he released the ball).
1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 6 ... Knicks last chance to close out Indy before the series shifts back to Indiana for Game 7 ... they get every call.
1999, Spurs-Knicks, Game 3 ... down 2-0, the Knicks get every call in their first home game and win their only game of the series.
2000, Knicks-Heat, Game 7 ... Knicks advance to the conference finals ... falling out of bounds, Latrell Sprewell awarded a timeout by referee Bennett Salvatore with 2.1 seconds left even though none of the Knicks called for one ... Sprewell admits after the game that he hadn't called a timeout ... the Miami players chase the referees off the court after the game, yelling that they had been robbed ... after the game, Jamal Mashburn tells reporters, "They had three officials in their pocket" and Tim Hardaway refers to referee Dick Bavetta as "Knick Bavetta."
2000, Lakers-Blazers, Game 7 ... LA shoots 21 more free throws and rallies back from a 17-point deficit in the final seven minutes ... Shaq plays an illegal defense down the stretch, undaunted ... Rasheed Wallace absolutely gets manhandled down the stretch, yet doesn't get a single call ... up by four with 25 seconds left, Shaq body-blocks Steve Smith out of bounds and the refs don't make the call (the most egregious non-call in recent memory).
2002, Celtics-Nets, Game 4 ... Celts up 2-1 ... the Nets are inexplicably allowed to push and shove Kenny Anderson and Pierce while they dribble the ball ... a number of head-scratchers go against Boston, including three offensive charges down the stretch ... four different "bull-(bleep)" chants during the game.
2002, Lakers-Kings, Game 6 ... LA needs a win to stay alive ... from an officiating standpoint, the most one-sided game of the past decade ... at least six dubious calls against the Kings in the fourth quarter alone ... LA averaged 22 free throws a game during the first five games of the series, then attempted 27 freebies in the fourth quarter alone of Game 6 ... rumors that David Stern wanted to pull a Vince McMahon and declare himself "The special guest referee" for this game prove unfounded.
(By the way, I would feel remiss if I didn't share this information: Dick Bavetta was assigned to every one of the above games. That's an absolute fact. You can look it up. Doesn't mean anything ... I just felt the need to pass that along. It sure looks bad, doesn't it? Maybe the league could do a favor for Bavetta and not assign him to Game 3 of the Finals, especially if the Lakers jump to a 2-0 lead over New Jersey. You wouldn't want to rile up those conspiracy theorists or anything. Ummmm ...).
Dongahy makes three points: 1) Lakers-Kings Game 6 in 2002 was fixed b/c Dick Bavetta and Bob Delaney were told to extend the series to 7 games. 2) The Rockets-Mavericks playoff series in 2005 was fixed because the league told officials to "strictly enforce the rules" against Yao Ming's screening. 3) NBA referees were told by the league not to eject star players from games because the league's TV ratings and attendance might be hurt.
Let's take them in reverse order:
3) Refs are told not to eject star players. Well, duh. I tell you what, I used to umpire slow pitch softball games and if I spotted a star player I was far less likely to toss the guy. Why? Because it completely changes the game. You throw out the #1 player for a team, you basically hand the other team the game.
I seem to recall Garnett and Duncan getting ejected once in the same game. It was ridiculous. You do not eject Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan in a Wolves/Spurs regular season game unless they both throw a punch and connect.
I saw Gary Payton pick up a double T against the Timberwolves where he already had one. He walks up to the ref and says, "If you T me, that means I am gone." Ref rescinds the T......but only the one on Payton!!! So the Wolves get a T and Gary gets to stay in the game.
Referees regularly award a foul on a drive to the hoop to the nearest player...who sucks. So, you drive into Oberto and Duncan, Oberto gets the foul 88% of the time.
Do I have a problem with all of this? Not in the regular season. Look, I pay to see a game, I want to watch the good guys play. In the playoffs where it is "win or go home", yeah, I would like to see the game called more down the middle.
Degree of Donaghy's Accuracy: 100%.
2) Rockets-Mavs Issue: Did Mark Cuban bitch about Yao Ming setting illegal screens? Uh huh. At that point the league had two things it could do -- say "Fuck you, Cuban, we aren't going to enforce the rules against Yao" or say, "OK, we will review the calls and see if he is doing something illegal or improper. If so, we will tell the referees to call it."
This is a no win situation. If they do #1 you have Cuban going postal. If they do #2 you have Jeff Van Gundy whining and getting fined $100,000 for saying that a "league official" told him they weren't going to be fair to Yao.
So, do I have a problem with what occurred? Absolutely not.
Donaghy degree of accuracy: 100%
1) Lakers-Kings, Game 6 --
Did the league select officials for this game whom they thought would help the Lakers win? I am sure they did.
Do I have a problem with this? Sure. You can't help teams win playoff games. That just isn't right.
Donaghy Degree of Accuracy -- 75% -- look the fact is that Shaq hit 13 of 17 free throws that day (a miracle in itself) and the Lakers took advantage of their opportunity to win while the Kings didn't. Does the NBA go into a room and say to officials, "Cheat for Los Angeles"? I really doubt it. But do they assign Steve Javie and Danny Crawford to a Lakers home game when the Lakers have a big chance to lose? Uh, no.
If the league could completely control wins and losses, do you think that they would allow the Spurs to win and allow the Spurs to sweep Cleveland? I mean, no one wanted that, correct? But it happened. Has the league's thumb always been on the scale to assist larger market clubs? Of course it has.
For a pretty damning analysis from 2002, I will cut and paste part of an old Bill Simmons 2002 column here:
Question: What was the most disturbing subplot of the playoffs?
Answer: The officiating, also the most disturbing subplot of the past four playoffs.
If you examine the last four NBA playoff campaigns, during every situation where the league definitively "needed" one of the two teams involved to win -- either to A) change the momentum of a series so it didn't end prematurely, B) keep an attractive, big-market team alive in a series, or C) advance an attractive, big-market team to another round -- the officiating appeared to be slanted towards the team that needed that game. I use the phrase "appeared to be," because reviewing an official's performance is purely subjective. Maybe I'm dead-wrong.
These were just the games that jump out in my mind (again, I could be wrong):
1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 3 ... LJ sinks a game-winning four-pointer (called a continuation foul by referee Jess Kersey even though LJ was fouled a full second before he released the ball).
1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 6 ... Knicks last chance to close out Indy before the series shifts back to Indiana for Game 7 ... they get every call.
1999, Spurs-Knicks, Game 3 ... down 2-0, the Knicks get every call in their first home game and win their only game of the series.
2000, Knicks-Heat, Game 7 ... Knicks advance to the conference finals ... falling out of bounds, Latrell Sprewell awarded a timeout by referee Bennett Salvatore with 2.1 seconds left even though none of the Knicks called for one ... Sprewell admits after the game that he hadn't called a timeout ... the Miami players chase the referees off the court after the game, yelling that they had been robbed ... after the game, Jamal Mashburn tells reporters, "They had three officials in their pocket" and Tim Hardaway refers to referee Dick Bavetta as "Knick Bavetta."
2000, Lakers-Blazers, Game 7 ... LA shoots 21 more free throws and rallies back from a 17-point deficit in the final seven minutes ... Shaq plays an illegal defense down the stretch, undaunted ... Rasheed Wallace absolutely gets manhandled down the stretch, yet doesn't get a single call ... up by four with 25 seconds left, Shaq body-blocks Steve Smith out of bounds and the refs don't make the call (the most egregious non-call in recent memory).
2002, Celtics-Nets, Game 4 ... Celts up 2-1 ... the Nets are inexplicably allowed to push and shove Kenny Anderson and Pierce while they dribble the ball ... a number of head-scratchers go against Boston, including three offensive charges down the stretch ... four different "bull-(bleep)" chants during the game.
2002, Lakers-Kings, Game 6 ... LA needs a win to stay alive ... from an officiating standpoint, the most one-sided game of the past decade ... at least six dubious calls against the Kings in the fourth quarter alone ... LA averaged 22 free throws a game during the first five games of the series, then attempted 27 freebies in the fourth quarter alone of Game 6 ... rumors that David Stern wanted to pull a Vince McMahon and declare himself "The special guest referee" for this game prove unfounded.
(By the way, I would feel remiss if I didn't share this information: Dick Bavetta was assigned to every one of the above games. That's an absolute fact. You can look it up. Doesn't mean anything ... I just felt the need to pass that along. It sure looks bad, doesn't it? Maybe the league could do a favor for Bavetta and not assign him to Game 3 of the Finals, especially if the Lakers jump to a 2-0 lead over New Jersey. You wouldn't want to rile up those conspiracy theorists or anything. Ummmm ...).
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
More Bad Luck For Gophers Football
Well, we may have lost Jim Laurinaitis to Ohio State and Michael Floyd to Notre Dame, but I tell you what, we kept Sam Maresh in state and he................will.............be............um, after his open heart surgery
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=513970
he may be able to play for us some day.
This report comes on the heels of a recent Star Tribune column indicating that Tim Brewster's recruits are struggling to gain entrance to the school due to academic difficulties.
On the plus side, the Gophers were last in the nation in pass defense last year, so they can't fall any lower in the rankings.
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=513970
he may be able to play for us some day.
This report comes on the heels of a recent Star Tribune column indicating that Tim Brewster's recruits are struggling to gain entrance to the school due to academic difficulties.
On the plus side, the Gophers were last in the nation in pass defense last year, so they can't fall any lower in the rankings.
Ken Griffey, Jr. and Barry Bonds
Junior hit #600 yesterday.
Does anyone think Ken Griffey, Jr. (by most accounts, a nice guy and steroid free) is the greatest player in the history of the game? No.
Are there people who believe that Barry Bonds (jerk and alleged steroids user) is the greatest player in the history of the game? Yes.
When he is said to have started taking steroids, Bonds was on his way to a Ken Griffey, Jr. type career. Multiple gold gloves, headed for about maybe 600 home runs, his body would have probably have started breaking down and he would have been out of baseball by age 40.
So who leaves the game with the greater legacy? Junior -- who is lumped in with about 25 guys as a possible top 50 player -- or Bonds (who will be denied the Hall of Fame and shunned forever, but whose gaudy statistics will live on forever in baseball's record books)?
I don't know. But it is an interesting query. And isn't Griffey's current status of "great but not top 20 great" what Bonds really feared when he decided to get on the juice?
Does anyone think Ken Griffey, Jr. (by most accounts, a nice guy and steroid free) is the greatest player in the history of the game? No.
Are there people who believe that Barry Bonds (jerk and alleged steroids user) is the greatest player in the history of the game? Yes.
When he is said to have started taking steroids, Bonds was on his way to a Ken Griffey, Jr. type career. Multiple gold gloves, headed for about maybe 600 home runs, his body would have probably have started breaking down and he would have been out of baseball by age 40.
So who leaves the game with the greater legacy? Junior -- who is lumped in with about 25 guys as a possible top 50 player -- or Bonds (who will be denied the Hall of Fame and shunned forever, but whose gaudy statistics will live on forever in baseball's record books)?
I don't know. But it is an interesting query. And isn't Griffey's current status of "great but not top 20 great" what Bonds really feared when he decided to get on the juice?
Monday, June 09, 2008
Stereotyping -- Comparing and Contrasting Celtics Fans and Lakers Fans
From my review of what these people write about on line, I have drawn certain conclusions about Celtics fans and Lakers fans. Now, I am not talking about the people wealthy enough to sit in the lower deck for the playoffs, I am talking about the people who frequent NBA message boards and who have placed 600+ comments on any espn.com article about the NBA Finals.
Yes, I know that fans of a team are not all the same and I am stereotyping, but here are some generalizations right now:
1) Celtics Fans -- see themselves as "wicked smaht" and relish the days when Bird ruled the NBA on the parquet floor. Many relish those days even though they stopped 20 years ago and these fans are between 22 and 32 years old. So, they are basically reliving "glory days" that occurred when they were between 1 and 10. Sadly, these may have been, in fact, the best days of their lives...remembered or not.
They generally attempt to make a reasoned analysis of games, but become almost suicidal when the Celtics lose. They secretly believe that their team will ultimately let them down.
They think that they are much, much physically tougher than they actually are (OK, that is a more general stereotype of the people from Boston whom I have met) and they are not afraid to say, "Hey, asshole, come over here and I will kick your ass," even though if they are called on this sort of "all-in" bet they may end up drawing dead.
These fans strike me as people who have jobs that don't pay a hell of a lot. They are just one step removed from living with their parents, not to say that they won't be back their soon since in this economy people have stopped eating out at IHOP quite so much lately and the day manager says she may need to cut staff soon.
They have a habit of wildly inconsistent behavior. Their team wins by 8 at home and the Celtics are seen as one step shy of the 1927 Yankees for overall dominance. Then the Celtics lose by a bucket in OT and it is time to revamp the whole roster because the whole team just absolutely sucks.
2) Lakers Fans -- These folks carry themselves with an undeserved sense of entitlement; they are the Kevin Federline of NBA fans. They seem to know very little about the game of basketball, other than the fact that the Lakers are the greatest team of all time and deserve the NBA title.
They suffer from a disturbing affliction that makes them believe that everything done by one Kobe Bean Bryant is perfect. Kobe misses a shot? Foul. Kobe allows one-legged Paul Pierce two wide-open 3s? Not Kobe's fault. Someone says one bad word about Kobe? They are racist. Kobe tells the Lakers' fans to go eff themselves and enjoy him in a Bulls jersey? "Where can I get a Bulls jersey?" Kobe spends money to pay off an alleged rape victim? "She wanted it."
Unlike Celtics fans, Lakers fans have absolutely no fear that their team will lose. They WILL win....and if they do lose then it was the league's fault because the NBA really doesn't need or want a championship team in L.A. These fans will never be disappointed -- why should they? They root for the greatest team ever and the greatest single player ever and everyone must recognize that fact. In a way, they somewhat resemble Green Bay Packers fans in this regard -- no matter what happens, it is always better for the Lakers. Bynum hurt? "Good, didn't need him." Phil stops coaching? "Good, was no good anyway." Phil returns? "Well, great, NBA title here we come!"
A Lakers fan strikes me as the guy who lives with 4 roommates and tells his buddies (his parents really don't care) that he is looking for something to come along that he REALLY wants to do. He is the guy who never has a job but spends $400 on a Kobe jersey that someone thinks may have been signed by Kobe in marker back in 1999. Not sure how he gets his money, but if he can sit 26 rows up in the lower deck corner for Lakers/Spurs, he is there.
Just my opinion.........
HM
Yes, I know that fans of a team are not all the same and I am stereotyping, but here are some generalizations right now:
1) Celtics Fans -- see themselves as "wicked smaht" and relish the days when Bird ruled the NBA on the parquet floor. Many relish those days even though they stopped 20 years ago and these fans are between 22 and 32 years old. So, they are basically reliving "glory days" that occurred when they were between 1 and 10. Sadly, these may have been, in fact, the best days of their lives...remembered or not.
They generally attempt to make a reasoned analysis of games, but become almost suicidal when the Celtics lose. They secretly believe that their team will ultimately let them down.
They think that they are much, much physically tougher than they actually are (OK, that is a more general stereotype of the people from Boston whom I have met) and they are not afraid to say, "Hey, asshole, come over here and I will kick your ass," even though if they are called on this sort of "all-in" bet they may end up drawing dead.
These fans strike me as people who have jobs that don't pay a hell of a lot. They are just one step removed from living with their parents, not to say that they won't be back their soon since in this economy people have stopped eating out at IHOP quite so much lately and the day manager says she may need to cut staff soon.
They have a habit of wildly inconsistent behavior. Their team wins by 8 at home and the Celtics are seen as one step shy of the 1927 Yankees for overall dominance. Then the Celtics lose by a bucket in OT and it is time to revamp the whole roster because the whole team just absolutely sucks.
2) Lakers Fans -- These folks carry themselves with an undeserved sense of entitlement; they are the Kevin Federline of NBA fans. They seem to know very little about the game of basketball, other than the fact that the Lakers are the greatest team of all time and deserve the NBA title.
They suffer from a disturbing affliction that makes them believe that everything done by one Kobe Bean Bryant is perfect. Kobe misses a shot? Foul. Kobe allows one-legged Paul Pierce two wide-open 3s? Not Kobe's fault. Someone says one bad word about Kobe? They are racist. Kobe tells the Lakers' fans to go eff themselves and enjoy him in a Bulls jersey? "Where can I get a Bulls jersey?" Kobe spends money to pay off an alleged rape victim? "She wanted it."
Unlike Celtics fans, Lakers fans have absolutely no fear that their team will lose. They WILL win....and if they do lose then it was the league's fault because the NBA really doesn't need or want a championship team in L.A. These fans will never be disappointed -- why should they? They root for the greatest team ever and the greatest single player ever and everyone must recognize that fact. In a way, they somewhat resemble Green Bay Packers fans in this regard -- no matter what happens, it is always better for the Lakers. Bynum hurt? "Good, didn't need him." Phil stops coaching? "Good, was no good anyway." Phil returns? "Well, great, NBA title here we come!"
A Lakers fan strikes me as the guy who lives with 4 roommates and tells his buddies (his parents really don't care) that he is looking for something to come along that he REALLY wants to do. He is the guy who never has a job but spends $400 on a Kobe jersey that someone thinks may have been signed by Kobe in marker back in 1999. Not sure how he gets his money, but if he can sit 26 rows up in the lower deck corner for Lakers/Spurs, he is there.
Just my opinion.........
HM
Leon "POW" -- Right in the kisser
Celts win Game 2 because the Lakers inside are such pusses that they were simply overwhelmed by Leon Powe.
Phil Jackson, continuing to plummet in my estimation (not as a coach, but as a human being) walks into the press conference last night and says, "I just can't believe that Leon Pow had more free throws than my entire team..........Is it "Powe"? I am sorry if I am mispronouncing his name...." Nice, Phil. Guy lit you up like a Christmas tree -- learn his name.
Jackson then continued his escape from reality in the press conference when he was asked about Pau (not "Powe") Gasol's complete unwillingness to stop Leon Powe from going coast to coast for a dunk (see about 1:15 into the video). Jackson: "Well, Gasol didn't want Garnett to get an easy basket, so he couldn't fully concentrate on Leon Powe..." Look at the footage -- there is no Celtic anywhere NEAR the lane when Powe is thundering straight ahead on a right-hand dribble. Gasol simply wussed out and didn't want to take the contact that would be required in drawing a foul or contesting a shot.
I think that the Lakers are the more talented team. However, what we are seeing so far in the series is that the Celtics are WAY tougher and the matchups that should favor the Lakers (Kobe versus Ray Allen, Gasol versus the non-Garnett starter for Boston) aren't favoring them as much as the awful mismatch Paul Pierce has every time he steps on the court. How Phil Johnson ("Is it Jackson? I am sorry if I am mistaken on his name....") can sit there and watch Pierce do anything he wants against Vlad Rad and still play Vlad Rad (he of the 11 step dunk late in the game) is beyond me.
Wouldn't Luke Walton at least TRY???
We have also seen that the Celtics have figured out that you STAY UP on Derek Fisher. If you take away Fisher's jumper, he just simply isn't going to do ANYTHING at all on offense. He is basically a darker-skinned Steve Kerr. Good player, works hard, but he is undersized and he has no game off the dribble.
Anyway -- Good Guys 2, The Devil -- 0
Phil Jackson, continuing to plummet in my estimation (not as a coach, but as a human being) walks into the press conference last night and says, "I just can't believe that Leon Pow had more free throws than my entire team..........Is it "Powe"? I am sorry if I am mispronouncing his name...." Nice, Phil. Guy lit you up like a Christmas tree -- learn his name.
Jackson then continued his escape from reality in the press conference when he was asked about Pau (not "Powe") Gasol's complete unwillingness to stop Leon Powe from going coast to coast for a dunk (see about 1:15 into the video). Jackson: "Well, Gasol didn't want Garnett to get an easy basket, so he couldn't fully concentrate on Leon Powe..." Look at the footage -- there is no Celtic anywhere NEAR the lane when Powe is thundering straight ahead on a right-hand dribble. Gasol simply wussed out and didn't want to take the contact that would be required in drawing a foul or contesting a shot.
I think that the Lakers are the more talented team. However, what we are seeing so far in the series is that the Celtics are WAY tougher and the matchups that should favor the Lakers (Kobe versus Ray Allen, Gasol versus the non-Garnett starter for Boston) aren't favoring them as much as the awful mismatch Paul Pierce has every time he steps on the court. How Phil Johnson ("Is it Jackson? I am sorry if I am mistaken on his name....") can sit there and watch Pierce do anything he wants against Vlad Rad and still play Vlad Rad (he of the 11 step dunk late in the game) is beyond me.
Wouldn't Luke Walton at least TRY???
We have also seen that the Celtics have figured out that you STAY UP on Derek Fisher. If you take away Fisher's jumper, he just simply isn't going to do ANYTHING at all on offense. He is basically a darker-skinned Steve Kerr. Good player, works hard, but he is undersized and he has no game off the dribble.
Anyway -- Good Guys 2, The Devil -- 0
Friday, June 06, 2008
South Carolina Honors Fantasia Barrino Anthem With License Plate
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/us/06license.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
I think it is great that there will be all of these South Carolina residents who will be paying homage to the North Carolina-raised Fantasia by ordering their vanity plates and paying $4 to $6.
Seriously though, I would be OK with this sort of crap if they allowed Jews and Muslims to order similar "I believe" license plates with their religious symbols on them, and allowed Atheists to order "I Don't Believe" license plates with various symbols XXXXed out.
But since I don't see those measures passing the SC legislature any time soon, it seems to me that there isn't a much clearer case of a state endorsing one religion than when it allows one religious license plate to exist that favors one particular set of religious values. Amazing.
Ordinarily such a clear constitutional violation would be hard to believe, but in South Carolina, as Fantasia says:
I can see it in the stars across the sky
Dreamt a hundred thousand dreams before, Now I finally realize
You see I've waited all my life for this moment to arrive
And finally yeah............
I Believe........
I think it is great that there will be all of these South Carolina residents who will be paying homage to the North Carolina-raised Fantasia by ordering their vanity plates and paying $4 to $6.
Seriously though, I would be OK with this sort of crap if they allowed Jews and Muslims to order similar "I believe" license plates with their religious symbols on them, and allowed Atheists to order "I Don't Believe" license plates with various symbols XXXXed out.
But since I don't see those measures passing the SC legislature any time soon, it seems to me that there isn't a much clearer case of a state endorsing one religion than when it allows one religious license plate to exist that favors one particular set of religious values. Amazing.
Ordinarily such a clear constitutional violation would be hard to believe, but in South Carolina, as Fantasia says:
I can see it in the stars across the sky
Dreamt a hundred thousand dreams before, Now I finally realize
You see I've waited all my life for this moment to arrive
And finally yeah............
I Believe........
Forces of Good -- 1 Forces of Evil -- 0
Celtics 98, Lakers 88.
Laker Rationalization #1
The Devil goes 9 for 26 and states that he did so because he "missed a lot of bunnies." Now, assuming that he is not talking about snow bunnies in Eagle, Colorado, what he apparently intends to say is that he missed a lot of easy shots. Sorry, Devil, but I watched the whole 48 minutes. I cannot recall you missing a wide open layup or an open 15 footer. Of your 17 missed shots at least 15 were closely guarded/contested, maybe all 17. This was not LeBron James in Game 1 against Boston where he could hit absolutely nothing, repeatedly missing layups.
Laker Rationalization #2
When asked post-game whether he thought Pierce's return from a wheel chair provided a big boost to Boston, Phil Jackson replied, "I think it is overrated......What was big was him hitting those two big threes." This from a guy who regularly has had his players read inspirational books and who has preached the values of Zen and other mystical shit. Translation, "I refuse to give the other team any credit for intangibles. Sorry, only we Lakers have intangible strengths."
Announcer Line of the Night
When the Lakers started having Kobe guard Paul Pierce, Jeff Van Gundy remarked about what an awful mistake that was and how Kobe played excellent defense only "in spurts" and Kobe is not really a first-team all-defense player....certainly not the player Shane Battier is.
Amen, Jeff, amen. Kobe was so useless on defense last night that they eventually put him on Sam Cassell, hoping that Kobe's one and only A+ defensive skill (stealing the ball 30+ feet from the basket) would be useful against the aged Cassell. The Devil wasn't even very effective in THAT role!
Here is the truth -- Kobe will go out and rag the ball for you. He is fast and has long arms and he likes to go for steals. Is he good at chasing guys off screens? Absolutely not. Watch the 2003-04 finals video and see how Rip Hamilton destroys him. Is he good at defending post-ups? Egad, no!! When Pierce took The Devil down into the post Phil Jackson IMMEDIATELY brought double team help, even though Pierce was still 10-12 feet from the hoop.
Other than Jason Kidd, there is no more overrated defender in the NBA than Kobe. Want final confirmation? Review the defensive intensity of #24 in the dark jersey from 1:20 into the following footage until the end.
Laker Rationalization #1
The Devil goes 9 for 26 and states that he did so because he "missed a lot of bunnies." Now, assuming that he is not talking about snow bunnies in Eagle, Colorado, what he apparently intends to say is that he missed a lot of easy shots. Sorry, Devil, but I watched the whole 48 minutes. I cannot recall you missing a wide open layup or an open 15 footer. Of your 17 missed shots at least 15 were closely guarded/contested, maybe all 17. This was not LeBron James in Game 1 against Boston where he could hit absolutely nothing, repeatedly missing layups.
Laker Rationalization #2
When asked post-game whether he thought Pierce's return from a wheel chair provided a big boost to Boston, Phil Jackson replied, "I think it is overrated......What was big was him hitting those two big threes." This from a guy who regularly has had his players read inspirational books and who has preached the values of Zen and other mystical shit. Translation, "I refuse to give the other team any credit for intangibles. Sorry, only we Lakers have intangible strengths."
Announcer Line of the Night
When the Lakers started having Kobe guard Paul Pierce, Jeff Van Gundy remarked about what an awful mistake that was and how Kobe played excellent defense only "in spurts" and Kobe is not really a first-team all-defense player....certainly not the player Shane Battier is.
Amen, Jeff, amen. Kobe was so useless on defense last night that they eventually put him on Sam Cassell, hoping that Kobe's one and only A+ defensive skill (stealing the ball 30+ feet from the basket) would be useful against the aged Cassell. The Devil wasn't even very effective in THAT role!
Here is the truth -- Kobe will go out and rag the ball for you. He is fast and has long arms and he likes to go for steals. Is he good at chasing guys off screens? Absolutely not. Watch the 2003-04 finals video and see how Rip Hamilton destroys him. Is he good at defending post-ups? Egad, no!! When Pierce took The Devil down into the post Phil Jackson IMMEDIATELY brought double team help, even though Pierce was still 10-12 feet from the hoop.
Other than Jason Kidd, there is no more overrated defender in the NBA than Kobe. Want final confirmation? Review the defensive intensity of #24 in the dark jersey from 1:20 into the following footage until the end.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Pastor Hagee -- AntiChrist Will Be a Gay, Partially-Jewish Man, Probably From Germany
So, when the GOP channels later this year state that Obama is "The Antichrist" (a rumor they are already spreading), Barack can counter that Hagee says he cannot be The Antichrist.
"Strong Storms, Large Hail and Tornados Likely"
I actually saw a weather forecast this morning stating that strong storms, large hail and tornados are "likely" today.
Exactly what are you supposed to do about that kind of forecast? "Well, honey, I am off to work. Hope the house is still there when I return; if I don't get transported to Oz while driving home."
I feel as Morgan Freeman's character must have felt in "Deep Impact." Yep. It is coming. Tornados likely. Hmmm, how about that?
Tomorrow's forecast? I predict 142 degrees, out of control wild fires virtually certain.
Exactly what are you supposed to do about that kind of forecast? "Well, honey, I am off to work. Hope the house is still there when I return; if I don't get transported to Oz while driving home."
I feel as Morgan Freeman's character must have felt in "Deep Impact." Yep. It is coming. Tornados likely. Hmmm, how about that?
Tomorrow's forecast? I predict 142 degrees, out of control wild fires virtually certain.
X Gamer Faces Felony Charges
http://sports.aol.com/story/_a/x-games-star-arrested-on-sex-charge/20080603162709990001?icid=1615984947x1203662899x1200309973
Dear PH Forum:
[Fill in details].
Then they determined she was 15 and I went to jail for 10 years.
Signed,
The Idiot Brian In Cali
Dear PH Forum:
[Fill in details].
Then they determined she was 15 and I went to jail for 10 years.
Signed,
The Idiot Brian In Cali
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Forgot My Belt
It is always a bad day when I forget to wear a belt. Oh well. I am sure no one will notice. I just hope my sleek waistline is big enough to keep my pants from falling down!
Draft Express Draft Combine Numbers
http://www.draftexpress.com/blog/Jonathan-Givony/
Follow the links and you will eventually get any stat you want.
Shockers -- Michael Beasley is 6'7" without shoes. D.J. Augustine and I are about the same height. Kevin Love under 6'8" without shoes (but his shoes are almost 2 inches high???).
Brook Lopez -- extremely tall and long, extremely NOT agile.
Eric Gordon -- exceptional athlete, just not an exceptional basketball player
Joe Alexander -- huge winner based upon his size, speed and athletic ability. To the extent that his Wikipedia entry is at all accurate, he certainly has a different background than most potential top 15 picks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Alexander_(basketball_player)
Follow the links and you will eventually get any stat you want.
Shockers -- Michael Beasley is 6'7" without shoes. D.J. Augustine and I are about the same height. Kevin Love under 6'8" without shoes (but his shoes are almost 2 inches high???).
Brook Lopez -- extremely tall and long, extremely NOT agile.
Eric Gordon -- exceptional athlete, just not an exceptional basketball player
Joe Alexander -- huge winner based upon his size, speed and athletic ability. To the extent that his Wikipedia entry is at all accurate, he certainly has a different background than most potential top 15 picks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Alexander_(basketball_player)
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Team Flaw Gets Flip Saunders Fired....Again
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3423956
There are some guys who have it, and some who don't. Jordan had it, Barkley never did. Hakeem had it, Karl Malone never did. We add to the "doesn't have it" list one Phil "Flip" Saunders.
When it comes right down to the end and your club really, really needs something to get it over the top, and you turn to the sideline and seek inspiration, you want to see Greg Popovich or Phil Jackson there, not Flip Saunders. But why?
Since I have watched tons and tons of Timberwolves basketball and had an interest in watching Flip's squads in Detroit, I am probably as well aware of Flip's problems as anyone. First, the good:
1) Nice guy.
2) Offensive genius. There are few coaches I have ever watched who can game plan and exploit matchups as well as Flip.
3) Good with the media.
The Bad:
1) Tends to play favorites -- always let Garnett get away with murder while constantly bitching at guys like Wally and Rasho.
2) Falls in love with his own offense to the detriment of his players' skill development.
3) Doesn't really strike an imposing figure on the sideline.
His teams don't tend to get the calls that teams coached by other top-end coaches do. (For example, Flip has a running problem with referee Danny Crawford. Danny Crawford? Does ANYONE else in the league really have to worry when Danny Crawford is reffing their games? I really doubt it.)
The Ugly:
Here is it. When you want to win a close game, the ability to win often does not come down to whether you execute well or run the right play or anything like that. The ability to win at the highest level often comes down to being tough and outworking your opponent.
Truth be told, when the 4th quarter of a close game comes around, Flip's teams are not physically or mentally tough. They allow their opponent to get into the lane (Dwyane Wade, Paul Pierce, LeBron James) and they never seem to be anywhere near the lane offensively (KG as a Wolf, name any Piston in the 4th quarter of the recent Game 6).
Which begs the question, of course, "Whose fault is that?" You can blame the players, but quite frankly when lack of toughness becomes a constant every single year that the guy coaches, you have to conclude that Flip does not do a good job of molding his talent into a unit that can win close playoff games. This is a terrible flaw for a guy who is coaching in Detroit (where they reached the NBA finals 5 times between 1987 and his arrival).
So, I think Joe Dumars finally just said, "Enough."
The funny thing is, if the Timberwolves today fired Kevin McHale and Randy Wittman and hired Flip, they would be 10-15 games better immediately. He is a very, very good coach. Just not an NBA championship level coach..........
HM
There are some guys who have it, and some who don't. Jordan had it, Barkley never did. Hakeem had it, Karl Malone never did. We add to the "doesn't have it" list one Phil "Flip" Saunders.
When it comes right down to the end and your club really, really needs something to get it over the top, and you turn to the sideline and seek inspiration, you want to see Greg Popovich or Phil Jackson there, not Flip Saunders. But why?
Since I have watched tons and tons of Timberwolves basketball and had an interest in watching Flip's squads in Detroit, I am probably as well aware of Flip's problems as anyone. First, the good:
1) Nice guy.
2) Offensive genius. There are few coaches I have ever watched who can game plan and exploit matchups as well as Flip.
3) Good with the media.
The Bad:
1) Tends to play favorites -- always let Garnett get away with murder while constantly bitching at guys like Wally and Rasho.
2) Falls in love with his own offense to the detriment of his players' skill development.
3) Doesn't really strike an imposing figure on the sideline.
His teams don't tend to get the calls that teams coached by other top-end coaches do. (For example, Flip has a running problem with referee Danny Crawford. Danny Crawford? Does ANYONE else in the league really have to worry when Danny Crawford is reffing their games? I really doubt it.)
The Ugly:
Here is it. When you want to win a close game, the ability to win often does not come down to whether you execute well or run the right play or anything like that. The ability to win at the highest level often comes down to being tough and outworking your opponent.
Truth be told, when the 4th quarter of a close game comes around, Flip's teams are not physically or mentally tough. They allow their opponent to get into the lane (Dwyane Wade, Paul Pierce, LeBron James) and they never seem to be anywhere near the lane offensively (KG as a Wolf, name any Piston in the 4th quarter of the recent Game 6).
Which begs the question, of course, "Whose fault is that?" You can blame the players, but quite frankly when lack of toughness becomes a constant every single year that the guy coaches, you have to conclude that Flip does not do a good job of molding his talent into a unit that can win close playoff games. This is a terrible flaw for a guy who is coaching in Detroit (where they reached the NBA finals 5 times between 1987 and his arrival).
So, I think Joe Dumars finally just said, "Enough."
The funny thing is, if the Timberwolves today fired Kevin McHale and Randy Wittman and hired Flip, they would be 10-15 games better immediately. He is a very, very good coach. Just not an NBA championship level coach..........
HM
Beating A Dead Horse -- Kobe Bryant Can't Carry Michael Jordan's Jock
The Lakers' presence in the NBA Finals now leads to all Kobe-loving idiots rehashing their tired old argument that Kobe Bryant is as good as Michael Jordan. It becomes so sad after a while, that you want to ask these people to seek counseling. But my greater fear is the old saying, "If you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth."
So, let's break it down.
Finals MVPs -- Michael 6; Kobe 0
League MVPs -- Michael 5; Kobe 1
Consistency of MVP Consideration:
Michael -- in an 11 season stretch finished 3rd or better in MVP balloting 10 times; and in the season he came back and wore #45 and played 17 games, he finished 11th in the balloting.
Kobe -- in his 12 year career, Kobe has finished top 3.........3 times
Career Efficiency Rating:
Michael -- #1 all-time
Kobe -- #16
Win Shares:
Basketball-reference.com has stats called "Win Shares," "Win Shares Above Average," "Defensive Win Shares," and "Offensive Win Shares." They are supposed to approximate the value of a player to his team's winning.
Michael -- had 8 straight years (excluding his first retirement stretch) where he led the league in Win Shares, Offensive Win Shares and Win Shares Above Average. MJ finished in the top 10 in Defensive Win Shares 9 times.
Kobe -- has never finished #1 in any of these categories for any season and he finished in the top 10 in Defensive Win Shares.........once (#6).
Comparing their first 12 years in the league, Jordan defeats Kobe in every single per game statistic across the board. Every one. Kobe's play is more akin to that of Clyde Drexler or Dominique Wilkins.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=bryanko01&y1=2008&p2=jordami01&y2=1997&p3=wilkido01&y3=1994&p4=drexlcl01&y4=1995
So, what are Kobe's apologists left with? Well, "for one season he is just as good as Jordan." This, of course, is a worthless statement. For one season Brady Anderson or Howard Johnson could claim to be as good as Mickey Mantle. So what?
But the facts are a stubborn thing and they don't even support this weak attempt at an argument. At age 29, Michael was a better player than Kobe at 29. Again, better in almost every single statistical category: http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=jordami01&y1=1993&p2=bryanko01&y2=2008
And I will end with this -- when Michael Jordan came back to the Bulls in 1994-95, they were 34 wins and 31 losses, a .523 winning percentage. Playing badly out of shape, Jordan led the team to a 13-4 finish in which every loss was in OT or by less than 8 points.
Returning the next year, Jordan led the Bulls to a 72-10 record.
If Kobe Bryant ever takes a .500 club and leads them to a 72-10 record, we can discuss his place alongside Michael Jordan.
HM
So, let's break it down.
Finals MVPs -- Michael 6; Kobe 0
League MVPs -- Michael 5; Kobe 1
Consistency of MVP Consideration:
Michael -- in an 11 season stretch finished 3rd or better in MVP balloting 10 times; and in the season he came back and wore #45 and played 17 games, he finished 11th in the balloting.
Kobe -- in his 12 year career, Kobe has finished top 3.........3 times
Career Efficiency Rating:
Michael -- #1 all-time
Kobe -- #16
Win Shares:
Basketball-reference.com has stats called "Win Shares," "Win Shares Above Average," "Defensive Win Shares," and "Offensive Win Shares." They are supposed to approximate the value of a player to his team's winning.
Michael -- had 8 straight years (excluding his first retirement stretch) where he led the league in Win Shares, Offensive Win Shares and Win Shares Above Average. MJ finished in the top 10 in Defensive Win Shares 9 times.
Kobe -- has never finished #1 in any of these categories for any season and he finished in the top 10 in Defensive Win Shares.........once (#6).
Comparing their first 12 years in the league, Jordan defeats Kobe in every single per game statistic across the board. Every one. Kobe's play is more akin to that of Clyde Drexler or Dominique Wilkins.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=bryanko01&y1=2008&p2=jordami01&y2=1997&p3=wilkido01&y3=1994&p4=drexlcl01&y4=1995
So, what are Kobe's apologists left with? Well, "for one season he is just as good as Jordan." This, of course, is a worthless statement. For one season Brady Anderson or Howard Johnson could claim to be as good as Mickey Mantle. So what?
But the facts are a stubborn thing and they don't even support this weak attempt at an argument. At age 29, Michael was a better player than Kobe at 29. Again, better in almost every single statistical category: http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=jordami01&y1=1993&p2=bryanko01&y2=2008
And I will end with this -- when Michael Jordan came back to the Bulls in 1994-95, they were 34 wins and 31 losses, a .523 winning percentage. Playing badly out of shape, Jordan led the team to a 13-4 finish in which every loss was in OT or by less than 8 points.
Returning the next year, Jordan led the Bulls to a 72-10 record.
If Kobe Bryant ever takes a .500 club and leads them to a 72-10 record, we can discuss his place alongside Michael Jordan.
HM
Monday, June 02, 2008
Scott McLellan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/30/mcclellans-book-could-spe_n_104345.html
Since I am supposed to concentrate mainly on basketball, let's give a basketball analogy:
The Knicks signed Jerome James to a huge multi-year contract, 5 years $29 million. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/sports/basketball/14knicks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
That was a terrible, terrible decision, made by a guy who has a history of making terrible decisions and running every single business entity he touches into the ground.
Everyone knew it was a bad decision. I certainly did. http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2005/07/isiah-thomas-reportedly-signs-jerome.html Isiah said all sorts of stupid things and justified what he did. And as it turned out, Isiah was, of course, wrong and the signing was the idiotic thing that everyone who paid attention at all knew it would be.
1) Could ANYONE make any money by coming out and writing a book where they say, "Gee Isiah Thomas is a bad GM and he made certain key errors like the Jerome James deal and then wouldn't fess up to how stupid he was?" I would certainly hope not.
2) Should James Dolan suddenly come out tomorrow and say, "Hey, got a book out there now that says Isiah did stupid shit and lied about it. Let's take that guy's deposition!"
I think the answers to ##1 and 2 are "absolutely not." Look, Congress, you sat on your asses and did nothing while the President clearly lied to you and asked you to agree with a war that anyone who has ever been to the Middle East knew was an absolute disaster in the making. Let's not pretend now that Scott McClellan saying what everyone in the world knew years ago suddenly provides you with the backbone to do something about it. Since you have no balls, save us all a lot of money and let it drop. November 2008 is just 5 months away......
HM
Since I am supposed to concentrate mainly on basketball, let's give a basketball analogy:
The Knicks signed Jerome James to a huge multi-year contract, 5 years $29 million. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/sports/basketball/14knicks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
That was a terrible, terrible decision, made by a guy who has a history of making terrible decisions and running every single business entity he touches into the ground.
Everyone knew it was a bad decision. I certainly did. http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2005/07/isiah-thomas-reportedly-signs-jerome.html Isiah said all sorts of stupid things and justified what he did. And as it turned out, Isiah was, of course, wrong and the signing was the idiotic thing that everyone who paid attention at all knew it would be.
1) Could ANYONE make any money by coming out and writing a book where they say, "Gee Isiah Thomas is a bad GM and he made certain key errors like the Jerome James deal and then wouldn't fess up to how stupid he was?" I would certainly hope not.
2) Should James Dolan suddenly come out tomorrow and say, "Hey, got a book out there now that says Isiah did stupid shit and lied about it. Let's take that guy's deposition!"
I think the answers to ##1 and 2 are "absolutely not." Look, Congress, you sat on your asses and did nothing while the President clearly lied to you and asked you to agree with a war that anyone who has ever been to the Middle East knew was an absolute disaster in the making. Let's not pretend now that Scott McClellan saying what everyone in the world knew years ago suddenly provides you with the backbone to do something about it. Since you have no balls, save us all a lot of money and let it drop. November 2008 is just 5 months away......
HM
Voice of "Sideshow Bob" Suffers Heart Attack
Perhaps the diet of tossed salad and scrambled eggs finally caught up to him?
His 3rd wife (pictured -- joyful smile) is said to have been very distraught. I wonder if his insurance is paid up to date?
John McCain's Daughter -- Terrorist Sympathizer?
Piggy-backing on The Putdown's recent Rachel Ray column, I found this excellent Blog item:
http://gawker.com/5003288/mccain-daughter-in-islamoterror-scarf-shocker
Michelle Malkin (who was responsible for the whole "Oh God, kill that awful Dunkin Donuts ad" fiasco) has now stated that Meghan McCain "ought to know better" than to be pro-terrorist. Arg.
Here, again, is something I cannot stand about the GOP:
1) The GOP claims that one of its big selling points is that you don't have to worry about what you say around GOP members. You can speak the truth; you can have actual opinions. There is no "political correctness" in the GOP -- so, unlike those damned Chardonnay-sipping Dems, the GOP will let you speak your mind.
I say, "Good for you!" I see the benefit of that position.
2) But then we get wackos like Malkin going CRAZY whenever someone accidentally does something that offends them. Rachel Ray and Meghan McCain are wearing scarves. That is all. They are not making a political statement. They are OK-looking younger ladies who want to wear a scarf because they think it looks cool. (They are wrong, but again, they are entitled to their opinions, supposedly). They can't wear the scarves. It is an awful act.
The ads must be pulled off the Internet. Meghan McCain should "know better" than to spread left-wing propaganda by............wearing a scarf....
So, like in so many other fields, the GOP is just full of shit. They are the Thought Police and the Conduct Police and the Speech Police just like they claim university professors and officials are.
It is not a nice thing for me to call PAR a "wetback" (sorry PAR, just seeing if you are reading). And it would be a hurtful thing for me to go to Ground Zero and scream, "I love jihad!" But quite frankly, this is the United States (or it used to be). I get the distinct impression that the Michelle Malkins of the world and the left-wingers of the world both believe that I have the right to say everything I want.........so long as they agree with it.
That ain't right. Sorry.
HM
http://gawker.com/5003288/mccain-daughter-in-islamoterror-scarf-shocker
Michelle Malkin (who was responsible for the whole "Oh God, kill that awful Dunkin Donuts ad" fiasco) has now stated that Meghan McCain "ought to know better" than to be pro-terrorist. Arg.
Here, again, is something I cannot stand about the GOP:
1) The GOP claims that one of its big selling points is that you don't have to worry about what you say around GOP members. You can speak the truth; you can have actual opinions. There is no "political correctness" in the GOP -- so, unlike those damned Chardonnay-sipping Dems, the GOP will let you speak your mind.
I say, "Good for you!" I see the benefit of that position.
2) But then we get wackos like Malkin going CRAZY whenever someone accidentally does something that offends them. Rachel Ray and Meghan McCain are wearing scarves. That is all. They are not making a political statement. They are OK-looking younger ladies who want to wear a scarf because they think it looks cool. (They are wrong, but again, they are entitled to their opinions, supposedly). They can't wear the scarves. It is an awful act.
The ads must be pulled off the Internet. Meghan McCain should "know better" than to spread left-wing propaganda by............wearing a scarf....
So, like in so many other fields, the GOP is just full of shit. They are the Thought Police and the Conduct Police and the Speech Police just like they claim university professors and officials are.
It is not a nice thing for me to call PAR a "wetback" (sorry PAR, just seeing if you are reading). And it would be a hurtful thing for me to go to Ground Zero and scream, "I love jihad!" But quite frankly, this is the United States (or it used to be). I get the distinct impression that the Michelle Malkins of the world and the left-wingers of the world both believe that I have the right to say everything I want.........so long as they agree with it.
That ain't right. Sorry.
HM
Celtics v. Lakers -- A Look At the Efficiency Numbers
Who has the better more productive players based upon a review of the top 200 in Efficiency as listed on nba.com?
Lakers: Kobe (5th), Gasol (16th), Odom (24th), Fisher (146), Walton (175), Turiaf (179), Radmanovic (183), Farmar (186)
8 guys in the top 200, 3 guys in the top 100, 3 guys in the top 25.
Celtics: Garnett (9), Pierce (36), Allen (80), Rondo (98), Perkins (136), Cassell (148), Powe (193)
7 guys in the top 200, 4 guys in the top 100, 1 guy in the top 25.
Conclusion -- Lakers are stronger at the way top end, but the Celtics have almost as much depth across the board. The two wild cards are Allen and Rondo. As guys who are top 100 players, they have the ability to raise their games and give the Celts an attack that might be able to defeat The Devil and crew.
Lakers: Kobe (5th), Gasol (16th), Odom (24th), Fisher (146), Walton (175), Turiaf (179), Radmanovic (183), Farmar (186)
8 guys in the top 200, 3 guys in the top 100, 3 guys in the top 25.
Celtics: Garnett (9), Pierce (36), Allen (80), Rondo (98), Perkins (136), Cassell (148), Powe (193)
7 guys in the top 200, 4 guys in the top 100, 1 guy in the top 25.
Conclusion -- Lakers are stronger at the way top end, but the Celtics have almost as much depth across the board. The two wild cards are Allen and Rondo. As guys who are top 100 players, they have the ability to raise their games and give the Celts an attack that might be able to defeat The Devil and crew.
Origin of the "Beat L.A." Chant Done a Disservice By Celts/Pistons Game 6
I was disappointed that I did not hear any "Beat L.A." cheers from Detroit fans at the end of Game 6. Having the Celtics do their OWN cheer in the locker room after the game misses the entire point of the chant.
http://pipetop.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/birth-of-the-beat-la-chant/
The chant arose as a chant of Eastern Conference solidarity. The Eastern Conference teams all hated the Lakers, so the fans if their team was about to lose and be eliminated would cheer for the other EC squad to beat the hated Lakers. It was a nice chant and indicated how much everyone hated the Lakers. Now, for a team in its own locker room to start chanting "Beat L.A." is like a team chanting, "Come on guys, let's win!" Not exactly the same warm fuzzy feeling.
HM
http://pipetop.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/birth-of-the-beat-la-chant/
The chant arose as a chant of Eastern Conference solidarity. The Eastern Conference teams all hated the Lakers, so the fans if their team was about to lose and be eliminated would cheer for the other EC squad to beat the hated Lakers. It was a nice chant and indicated how much everyone hated the Lakers. Now, for a team in its own locker room to start chanting "Beat L.A." is like a team chanting, "Come on guys, let's win!" Not exactly the same warm fuzzy feeling.
HM
Tatum O'Neal -- Buying Crack to Research For A "Role As a Junkie"
http://news.aol.com/entertainment/television/tv-news-story/ar/_a/oneal-allegedly-busted-buying-crack/20080602064809990001?icid=1615984944x1203558267x1200308607
If you are my age and buying crack at 7:30 p.m. in the summer (so, in the daylight hours) you don't have to do any research for a role as a junkie...........you are a junkie.
If you are my age and buying crack at 7:30 p.m. in the summer (so, in the daylight hours) you don't have to do any research for a role as a junkie...........you are a junkie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
