I will make a note when I think a pick is clearly 10+ spots too high or too low.
37. Rick Berry (I had him at #27, so yes, too low)
38, Walt Frazier
39. Bob Cousy
40. Elvin Hayes
41. Gary Payton (I had him at #35)
42. Bill Walton
The selection of Bill Walton at #42 is more than a little baffling. He is not in the top 100 in either Win Shares or WS/48. In fact, even his 120 great games as a starter did not involve any sort of great WS or WS/48 performance. His 120 great games as a starter did not involve great raw numbers. His positioning at #42 places him only 10 spots behind George Mikan, who won 5 titles, had 3 20 WS seasons, and who was so dominant as a player that they literally changed the rules of the game to hurt him. It cannot be both. Either Mikan is a top 10 player (as I would say) or Walton is out of the top 100 or somewhere down in the 90+ range (as would also befit someone whose career WS arc was similar to that of Marcus Camby and who has one MVP like Derrick Rose).
43. James Worthy
44. Dominique Wilkins
45. Paul Pierce
46. Allan Iverson
(Iverson, a very similar player to Isiah Thomas, falls here while Isiah is #26? I think that the answer (pardon the pun) is that Isiah is WAY WAY WAY too high, while AI is just a little too high.)
47. George Gervin
48. Willis Reed
49. Russell Westbrook
(Russ is an odd case. If you consider that he has had only a couple really good years, you'd place him lower, but how do you reconcile that Steph Curry, whose advanced stats are very similar, is way up at #23? As will be noted later, Harden, Curry and Russ have roughly the same stats. One is at 23, one is at 49 and one is at 97? Is it graded on likeability?)
50. Ray Allen (way too low, I had him at #28 overall, Ray Allen has had a worse career than Westbrook? As far as.....titles? Longevity? What?)
51. Reggie Miller (again, way too low, I had him at #34). Reggie, barring a miracle finish by Kobe, will end up with more career WS than Kobe and a better WS/48. While he toiled in Indiana, and never got to play with Shaq or be coached by Phil Jackson, Reggie deserves better treatment than this.
52. Bob McAdoo
53. Wes Unseld
54. Bernard King
55. Dave Cowens
56. Pau Gasol
57, Robert Parish
58. Tony Parker
59. Carmelo Anthony - he is neither objectively nor subjectively a top 80 player. He has never been first-team all-NBA. He has cracked the top 10 in MVP balloting twice. He just recently reached the top 100 in Win Shares. He has never played on a title team, never reached a finals, only once reached one conference finals (2009) and that team's best player in the playoffs was Chauncey Billups, not Melo. The Myth of Melo appears to derive from the fact that he CAN be a great scorer and he CAN play well when he exerts full effort. But he does not regularly play hard. The only other explanation for his constant overrating is that he has a cool name and was drafted the same year as LeBron James. LeBron James has DOUBLE Melo's career WS and has been 9X first-team all-NBA. If George Clooney were my neighbor, I doubt anyone would say "Oh and HM must be good looking as well, remember, he lives by Clooney"
60. Earl Monroe
61. Manu Ginobili
62. Alex English
63. Tracy McGrady
64. Dennis Rodman
65. Alonzo Mourning
66. Chris Webber -- I agree that this is around where he should fall, but he is viewed by many as a borderline HOF player, so how can he be #66? Mind......blown....
67. Dwight Howard
68. Bob Lanier
69. Vince Carter -- I don't see it. Again, I think ESPN tends to favor guys who COULD be great if they played hard all of the time. Well, that must be a great attribute to have. "HM is the 12th best looking guy in Minneapolis." Huh? "Well, I have seen him when he loses 40 pounds and dresses well. Great looking guy. Um, O....K.
70. Artis Gilmore -- way too low. Look, I will not belabor the point, but he has more career WS than LeBron James right now (as of the date of this entry). Look it up.
71. Pete Maravich
72. Adrian Dantley
73. Dikembe Mutombo
74. Dolph Schayes -- the ESPN panel seemed to basically forget that guys had to play basketball in the early days of the NBA and that some were awfully good and stood out from their peers. ESPN apparently feels capable of simply stating, "Well, so what, the Bird Era guys are way better". Well how do we know? We keep stats across generations, we know how many times he was 1st team all-NBA (6), we know where he stands on today's stats (PER, WS, WS/48) -- all top 36. For seasons above .200 WS/48, Schayes has 7, tied for 16th best all-time. Yet here he is, 15 spots behind Carmelo Anthony, who would need 52 more WS to pass him.
75. Blake Griffin
76. Nate Archibald
77. Joe Dumars -- I love Joe Dumars as a player; love, love, love. But pull out his stats. He is no way a top 100 player of all-time. Love you, Joe D, but no. The constant overrating of Pistons by ESPN is, no doubt, caused by the fact that they ended Bird's run. Anything associated with the 1980s Celts got a huge ratings boost from ESPN.
78. Sam Jones
79. Jerry Lucas
80. Grant Hill
81, Sidney Moncrief
82, David Thompson -- little note here, David Skywalker was a fave of mine. He had 4 great years (2X first-team all-NBA). He is someone it is very hard for me to rate.
83. Chris Mullin
84. Dennis Johnson - No. Not a top 100 player. Similar to Dumars.
85. Dave DeBuscherre
86. Chris Bosh
87. Chauncey Billups -- sit down and review Chauncey's regular season and post-season stats against Isiah's. Then tell me why one is 60 spots higher. There is no way that Vince Carter or Earl Monroe has even a plausible argument that they had a better career than Chauncey.
88. Billy Cunningham
89. Yao Ming
90. Paul Arizin
91. Mo Cheeks - never really an outstanding player. you never said, "Oh no! We have to play against Mo Cheeks!"
92. Nate Thurmond
93. Lenny Wilkins
94. Mark Price -- seems hard to imagine that Mark Price, who really only had 4 really good years in the NBA, would be in the top 100. Is it really worth getting very upset about? Probably not. But it seems odd.
95. Marc Gasol
96. Bobby Jones - I have come around to being OK with this selection. One of the greatest defenders of all-time. It was hard for me to stomach at first because he never finished top 23 in MVP balloting and was 2nd team all-NBA only once, but if you look at his many 1st team All-defense awards and his ranking of around 100 for WS and WS/48, OK, fine.
97. James Harden -- poor James Harden. Now I know he has the stupid beard, but geez, his stats are similar to Curry's and Westbrook's and if he could have flipped a few MVP votes, he'd have an MVP. You could say maybe it should go 40-45-50 for all 3 guys, but you cannot justify where they are now. There is no way you can look at the career of James Harden and say it is not as good as the career of David Thompson (#82) and that is giving Harden exactly ZERO credit for the fact that he is going to play 5-10 more years.
98. Gail Goodrich
99. Kevin Love - I fear he may not ever play well enough again to warrant this position
100. Shawn Kemp -- kinda sketchy pick but he is a personal fave, so I am not gonna argue real hard down here at 100. I will note that when you look at best NBA player careers, he may not even be #1 in "Shawn"s -- (Marion).
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Numbers 1 Through 36 of ESPN's 2016 All-Time #NBARank (Not a Cick Through)
Here was ESPN's list from 1 through 100. I have previously rated my top 36, so I will go through and indicate where these guys fell on my list. I will highlight difference of 6+ spots.
1. Michael Jordan (my #1 as well)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (my #3)
3. LeBron James (#4)
4. Magic Johnson (#6)
5. Wilt Chamberlain (#2)
6. Larry Bird (#13)
7. Bill Russell (#8)
8. Tim Duncan (#5)
9. Shaquille O'Neal (#9)
10. Hakeem Olajuwon (#15)
11. Oscar Robertson (#12)
12. Kobe Bryant (#18)
13. Jerry West (#11)
14. Julius Erving (#19)
15. Moses Malone (#16)
16. Karl Malone (#7)
17. Dirk Nowitski (#23)
18. Charles Barkley (#21)
19. John Stockton (#24)
20. David Robinson (#14)
21. Kevin Garnett (#22)
22. Kevin Durant (#25)
23. Stephen Curry (not in my top 36)
24. Elgin Baylor (#20)
25. Scottie Pippen (#36)
26. Isiah Thomas (not in my top 36)
27. Dwyane Wade (#31)
28. John Havlicek (#32)
29. Chris Paul (#26)
30. Steve Nash (#30)
31. Kevin McHale (not on my top 36)
32. Patrick Ewing (#33)
33. George Mikan (my #10)
34. Bob Petit (my #17)
35. Jason Kidd (not in my top 36)
36. Clyde Drexler (my #29)
Guys in my top 36 but not in theirs -- Gary Payton (my #35 their #41), Rick Barry (my #27 their #37), Ray Allen (my #28 their #50), Reggie Miller (my #34 their #51).
1. Michael Jordan (my #1 as well)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (my #3)
3. LeBron James (#4)
4. Magic Johnson (#6)
5. Wilt Chamberlain (#2)
6. Larry Bird (#13)
7. Bill Russell (#8)
8. Tim Duncan (#5)
9. Shaquille O'Neal (#9)
10. Hakeem Olajuwon (#15)
11. Oscar Robertson (#12)
12. Kobe Bryant (#18)
13. Jerry West (#11)
14. Julius Erving (#19)
15. Moses Malone (#16)
16. Karl Malone (#7)
17. Dirk Nowitski (#23)
18. Charles Barkley (#21)
19. John Stockton (#24)
20. David Robinson (#14)
21. Kevin Garnett (#22)
22. Kevin Durant (#25)
23. Stephen Curry (not in my top 36)
24. Elgin Baylor (#20)
25. Scottie Pippen (#36)
26. Isiah Thomas (not in my top 36)
27. Dwyane Wade (#31)
28. John Havlicek (#32)
29. Chris Paul (#26)
30. Steve Nash (#30)
31. Kevin McHale (not on my top 36)
32. Patrick Ewing (#33)
33. George Mikan (my #10)
34. Bob Petit (my #17)
35. Jason Kidd (not in my top 36)
36. Clyde Drexler (my #29)
Guys in my top 36 but not in theirs -- Gary Payton (my #35 their #41), Rick Barry (my #27 their #37), Ray Allen (my #28 their #50), Reggie Miller (my #34 their #51).
Republicans Who Say They Will Not Vote for Trump
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-dilemma-of-conservatives-who-say-theyll-never-vote-for-donald-trump
This is a very interesting article. Some highlights:
1) There is one anti-Trumper who says she would like to vote for herself, then she will be voting for someone whom she agrees 100% with. I hope that is a joke.
2) Bill Kristol (as awful of a person as their is) would prefer to see a (as he puts it) "4th Party" ticket based solely on the need of the U.S. to be dedicated to pursuing war everywhere in the world!!! It is worth noting that Kristol's preferred choice (Dick Cheney) is still alive - I had assumed he was dead, but the fact that he is now more machine than man probably aids him in his longevity.
3) The interesting thing about a lot of these criticisms is that many of the anti-Trumpers do not believe he is conservative ENOUGH!! So, while they don't really mind his tirades against Mexicans and Muslims and his promise to build the world's biggest wall, etc., they fear, for example, that he is not really anti-abortion.
4) This comment is just sad:
Eliot Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a former State Department official in the second Bush Administration, recently tweeted his “short list” of reasons he would never back Trump: “demagoguery, torture, bigotry, misogyny, isolationism, violence. Not the Party of Lincoln & not me.”
He was literally a member of the GWBush Administration and he opposes torture? Ever watch Zero Dark Thirty? Ever read the Bush Administration's pro-torture memos? You WORKED for that administration! Misogyny? Bigotry? That is call "the Republican Base". He is against both "isolationism" (which generally means he wants to intervene in other countries' wars) and "violence" (so we should actively intervene, but cause no violence?).
This is a very interesting article. Some highlights:
1) There is one anti-Trumper who says she would like to vote for herself, then she will be voting for someone whom she agrees 100% with. I hope that is a joke.
2) Bill Kristol (as awful of a person as their is) would prefer to see a (as he puts it) "4th Party" ticket based solely on the need of the U.S. to be dedicated to pursuing war everywhere in the world!!! It is worth noting that Kristol's preferred choice (Dick Cheney) is still alive - I had assumed he was dead, but the fact that he is now more machine than man probably aids him in his longevity.
3) The interesting thing about a lot of these criticisms is that many of the anti-Trumpers do not believe he is conservative ENOUGH!! So, while they don't really mind his tirades against Mexicans and Muslims and his promise to build the world's biggest wall, etc., they fear, for example, that he is not really anti-abortion.
4) This comment is just sad:
Eliot Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a former State Department official in the second Bush Administration, recently tweeted his “short list” of reasons he would never back Trump: “demagoguery, torture, bigotry, misogyny, isolationism, violence. Not the Party of Lincoln & not me.”
He was literally a member of the GWBush Administration and he opposes torture? Ever watch Zero Dark Thirty? Ever read the Bush Administration's pro-torture memos? You WORKED for that administration! Misogyny? Bigotry? That is call "the Republican Base". He is against both "isolationism" (which generally means he wants to intervene in other countries' wars) and "violence" (so we should actively intervene, but cause no violence?).
The other argument against Trump, basically, is that he is a "bad guy." OK, if he is a bad guy, then you have an obligation to affirmatively act to vote for HIS OPPONENT. But those saying Trump is a bad guy just say "uh, I won't vote for him." What a bold statement! I will stand on the sideline and hope he does not win. This is akin to saying that if someone is running through your neighborhood setting houses on fire that you will not run out and give him more matches or a lighter. Bold stance.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Why Fox News and the Republican Party Has Made Donald Trump's Run Possible
In reviewing this article, I found myself slightly agreeing with its premise:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-great-republican-stalemate/470058/
but I think that the reason for the Republican Party possibly ending up with Donald Trump as a nominee needs a little more fleshing out. Here goes.
As I mentioned here: http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-some-people-love-donald-trump.html there are a lot of reasons that some people like Donald Trump. One of the reasons people like Donald Trump is also a primary reason that other people like Bernie Sanders -- each man tells the voters that their lot in life is not their fault and is caused by someone else. In the case of Trump, he blames the failure of his supporters' lives on the usual GOP suspects -- Obama, minorities, immigrants, the politically correct eggheads. Sanders, of course, blames the failure of his supporters to advance in life on the wealthy. His campaign commercials could not help but make you feel better about yourself -- "Are you doing everything right and yet cannot get ahead?" The subtext here being, of course, that YOU are not getting ahead because fucking millionaires are suckling at the government teat, and, otherwise, you'd be rich.
Folks on both sides of the political spectrum can now watch TV and say, "Geez, you know what? I used to think that it was because I never studied and got all Cs and Ds in school. But you know what? It is the fucking _______________ that are holding me back from becoming a nuclear scientist! F them, I am voting for {Trump/Bernie)."
Now, helping out Trump and Sanders in this pitch is the fact that they are running against simply awful opponents. Hillary Clinton is easily one of the most unlikeable politicians in the world. She is not optimistic, she is not enjoyable. She has an awful grating voice and style. She is not attractive. She is unwilling to ever admit a mistake, and she will run 5 miles to take credit for anything positive that ever happened, whether she had anything to do with it or not. She is not someone you want to win ANYTHING. I will probably end up voting for Hillary, but I will not be happy about it.
Trump, on the other hand, gets to run against an awfully motley crew as well. Is there anyone less compelling than (the late) Jeb! Bush? Low energy. Elect me because my brother was an awful President? Marco Rubio - Rick Santorum could not identify ONE accomplishment of Rubio's and Rick was endorsing him! Pro-amnesty anchor baby? Yep, just what GOP voters crave. Ted Cruz - my lord. Unless you believe in a theocracy, how can you vote for Ted Cruz? He is basically a real life version of the lying peddler Mr. Haney from Green Acres. Ben Carson - believes the pyramids were used for grain storage, appears always ready to doze off. Thinks it is a good story to note how he used to stab his best friends (only to be thwarted by a belt buckle). Only John Kasich is a credible candidate, and should probably win the nomination, except he looks like your retired uncle who is late for a meeting with his lawyer and threw on the first jacket he could find. (That plus he had the gall to suggest that the government maybe should protect poor people and the mentally ill).
So, maybe it is possible that if every other choice were not so awful that Trump would struggle more. But, alas, we will never know. So let's examine Trump's approach and see why it appeals to GOP voters weaned on Fox News.
1) The country is falling apart, everything is shit. ("Make America Great Again!") -- Try to watch 45 minutes of Fox News. This message is CONSTANTLY repeated every single day on Fox News. Obama sucks, he is killing us. He is awful, he is the worst, we live, basically in the Dark Ages and instead of a Renaissance we will get Darker Ages. It is repeated every freaking minute of the day.
2) Say ANYTHING you want to say without regard to whether there are facts to support it. This has long been GOP/Fox News orthodoxy. Barack Obama was born in Kenya. He never went to Columbia. He was a poor student. He killed Antonin Scalia. There is no such thing as global warming. Guns don't kill two year olds; their inability to properly operate the gun does. You cannot trust scientists/professors/eggheads. What do they know? They are losers, not cool beer drinkers like you.
Against this background, which has lasted 20+ years, the GOP now wants people to EXAMINE statements made by Donald Trump? "I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it." How do we know that is possible? -- because he says so and only eggheads tell us the opposite. "I will cut off the internet to all terrorist." Um, well, how do you know they are....and how would you??? Blah, blah, blah, Trump says he can do it - I believe him. Are you eggheads in the party gonna tell me that you have "facts" to the contrary. Oh come on! Fox News has warned me about that for 20 years. Believe us, not "facts."
3) Say Things Completely Contrary to Things You Have Said in the Past, Even the Recent Past, Even Yesterday. This is the world of Mitt Romney and John McCain and Scott Walker and Rick Snyder. So, sure, McCain used to be a rather liberal Republican, but TODAY in 2008 he is a hard-core conservative. Sure Mitt Romney created Romney-care, which became ObamaCare, but TODAY in 2012 he is a rock-ribbed health care haters who understands how awful it is. Sure Walker and Snyder ran as common sense conservatives who would help increase union jobs and improve people's wages, but once ELECTED they decided to just become hateful right wingers who destroyed good paying jobs and their states' economies.
Sam Brownback said his tax cuts would boost revenue for Kansas -- it didn't? Well, it was never intended to! Come on. Geez, you guys. tax cuts obviously don't increase revenues. Silly voters - who told you that? "You did." Who are you going to believe, me, or the things the Democrats play to you of me saying on videotape?
4) State a Ton of Things With No Specific Examples -- Illegal immigrants are flooding into the U.S. lately - false, but still stated. Obama is not deporting any illegals -- false, but still a thing. 50% of your paycheck goes to welfare for illegals. Welfare queens driving Cadillacs. Michele Bachmann - HPV vaccines cause mental retardation. Tom Emmer - Minnesota waiters often make over $100,000 a year. "Got any specific examples?" Well, no. I don't need them, everybody knows that. I heard a story from a guy who was told that.....
5) The Media Is Biased Against Conservatives and Cannot Be Trusted. When a Republican says just ridiculous shit "Obama is going to declare martial law and stay on for another 4 years" the media might be expected to ask, "Um, what possible facts do you have to support that?" or, back before 20 years ago the media would actually say, "That is ridiculous, that is just false." The Fox News response (now adopted by the GOP), 'SEE, it MUST be true because the liberal media wants you to THINK it is false!" This "truth-fier" is the greatest invention of all-time for a political party -- "Obama caused Joe the Plumber not to buy a $400,000 business because Joe would pay $400,000 per year in taxes!" Well, there are so many things wrong with that statement, where do we start....SEE! It MUST be true if they are fighting so hard to disprove the statement!
New Section
I do not share today's general Democratic Party hatred for Ronald Reagan. We were desperate for some pride as a country, having lost virtually all of our pride when Carter was President, and Regan brought that pride back. Sure he built up a deficit with his tax cuts and huge spending increases, but for 8 years we were generally better off. When he saw how horrible his budget busting ways were, 6 years in, he worked with the Democrats to raise taxes and get things a little more reasonable.
Reagan believed, generally, in the facts. Sure he had his own opinion of what the facts meant, but he didn't just say stupid shit and make people believe that his lies were facts. Even when Iran-Contra blew up in his face, he sort of 'fessed up; saying it was important to trade arms for hostages and he should have known better if he was paying more attention. (It was a lie, but a slight one and he really didn't think anyone bought it -- he was just too lovable and popular to punish for his misdeed - like your old dog who poops in the entryway one day out of 300).
George H.W. Bush was a smart guy - he could be kind of pompous, but, again, you got the feeling he did what he thought actually was best for the country and listened to facts and logic.
I don't know what happened to the Republican Party thereafter. Maybe it was Gingrich and his scorched earth efforts to hurt Bill Clinton? Maybe it was the success of GW Bush's bullshit "compassionate conservatism" claim, which told political operatives, "Hey, look, maybe we need to just lie to win?" Who knows? But the Republican party since 2000 might as well have renamed itself the We Support Idiots party, Look, there is nothing wrong with trying to cut your own taxes if you are super wealthy. It is a little mean-spirited, but heck, go for it. But the Poor Wing of the party??? My lord.
http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2011/05/rich-wing-romney-poor-wing-palin.html
Sarah Palin? Is there anything more awful than the idea that the Republican Party nominated a person for Vice President who took 5 years to get through 4 different colleges, perhaps distracted by the need to bang Glen Rice and who just generally does not know anything about anything important connected to running a country? Perhaps that is where the safety rope to sanity broke? When the GOP and Fox News had to support that idiot. Is she qualified? Well, certainly. Don't believe what anyone says, she is great, she is awesome. She will really do what is right for YOU!
Who does that Palin love sound like? It sounds like Trump. "Trust me. Things will be great. Greater, greatest. How do I know? Cuz I know - it is on my hat!" Trump has at least done SOMETHING with his life and graduated from impressive schools. While a blowhard, he is not a moron. So, when less than 8 years ago the party and Fox News were all in favor of Sarah Palin, their protestations against Donald Trump fall more than a little flat. Is there a difference between saying inflammatory conservative things and not meaning them (Trump) and saying similar things and being too dumb to understand them and why they make no logical sense (Palin)? Not much of a difference.
Anyway -- this item kind of got away from me, so take it for what it is worth, because I am not editing it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-great-republican-stalemate/470058/
but I think that the reason for the Republican Party possibly ending up with Donald Trump as a nominee needs a little more fleshing out. Here goes.
As I mentioned here: http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-some-people-love-donald-trump.html there are a lot of reasons that some people like Donald Trump. One of the reasons people like Donald Trump is also a primary reason that other people like Bernie Sanders -- each man tells the voters that their lot in life is not their fault and is caused by someone else. In the case of Trump, he blames the failure of his supporters' lives on the usual GOP suspects -- Obama, minorities, immigrants, the politically correct eggheads. Sanders, of course, blames the failure of his supporters to advance in life on the wealthy. His campaign commercials could not help but make you feel better about yourself -- "Are you doing everything right and yet cannot get ahead?" The subtext here being, of course, that YOU are not getting ahead because fucking millionaires are suckling at the government teat, and, otherwise, you'd be rich.
Folks on both sides of the political spectrum can now watch TV and say, "Geez, you know what? I used to think that it was because I never studied and got all Cs and Ds in school. But you know what? It is the fucking _______________ that are holding me back from becoming a nuclear scientist! F them, I am voting for {Trump/Bernie)."
Now, helping out Trump and Sanders in this pitch is the fact that they are running against simply awful opponents. Hillary Clinton is easily one of the most unlikeable politicians in the world. She is not optimistic, she is not enjoyable. She has an awful grating voice and style. She is not attractive. She is unwilling to ever admit a mistake, and she will run 5 miles to take credit for anything positive that ever happened, whether she had anything to do with it or not. She is not someone you want to win ANYTHING. I will probably end up voting for Hillary, but I will not be happy about it.
Trump, on the other hand, gets to run against an awfully motley crew as well. Is there anyone less compelling than (the late) Jeb! Bush? Low energy. Elect me because my brother was an awful President? Marco Rubio - Rick Santorum could not identify ONE accomplishment of Rubio's and Rick was endorsing him! Pro-amnesty anchor baby? Yep, just what GOP voters crave. Ted Cruz - my lord. Unless you believe in a theocracy, how can you vote for Ted Cruz? He is basically a real life version of the lying peddler Mr. Haney from Green Acres. Ben Carson - believes the pyramids were used for grain storage, appears always ready to doze off. Thinks it is a good story to note how he used to stab his best friends (only to be thwarted by a belt buckle). Only John Kasich is a credible candidate, and should probably win the nomination, except he looks like your retired uncle who is late for a meeting with his lawyer and threw on the first jacket he could find. (That plus he had the gall to suggest that the government maybe should protect poor people and the mentally ill).
So, maybe it is possible that if every other choice were not so awful that Trump would struggle more. But, alas, we will never know. So let's examine Trump's approach and see why it appeals to GOP voters weaned on Fox News.
1) The country is falling apart, everything is shit. ("Make America Great Again!") -- Try to watch 45 minutes of Fox News. This message is CONSTANTLY repeated every single day on Fox News. Obama sucks, he is killing us. He is awful, he is the worst, we live, basically in the Dark Ages and instead of a Renaissance we will get Darker Ages. It is repeated every freaking minute of the day.
2) Say ANYTHING you want to say without regard to whether there are facts to support it. This has long been GOP/Fox News orthodoxy. Barack Obama was born in Kenya. He never went to Columbia. He was a poor student. He killed Antonin Scalia. There is no such thing as global warming. Guns don't kill two year olds; their inability to properly operate the gun does. You cannot trust scientists/professors/eggheads. What do they know? They are losers, not cool beer drinkers like you.
Against this background, which has lasted 20+ years, the GOP now wants people to EXAMINE statements made by Donald Trump? "I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it." How do we know that is possible? -- because he says so and only eggheads tell us the opposite. "I will cut off the internet to all terrorist." Um, well, how do you know they are....and how would you??? Blah, blah, blah, Trump says he can do it - I believe him. Are you eggheads in the party gonna tell me that you have "facts" to the contrary. Oh come on! Fox News has warned me about that for 20 years. Believe us, not "facts."
3) Say Things Completely Contrary to Things You Have Said in the Past, Even the Recent Past, Even Yesterday. This is the world of Mitt Romney and John McCain and Scott Walker and Rick Snyder. So, sure, McCain used to be a rather liberal Republican, but TODAY in 2008 he is a hard-core conservative. Sure Mitt Romney created Romney-care, which became ObamaCare, but TODAY in 2012 he is a rock-ribbed health care haters who understands how awful it is. Sure Walker and Snyder ran as common sense conservatives who would help increase union jobs and improve people's wages, but once ELECTED they decided to just become hateful right wingers who destroyed good paying jobs and their states' economies.
Sam Brownback said his tax cuts would boost revenue for Kansas -- it didn't? Well, it was never intended to! Come on. Geez, you guys. tax cuts obviously don't increase revenues. Silly voters - who told you that? "You did." Who are you going to believe, me, or the things the Democrats play to you of me saying on videotape?
4) State a Ton of Things With No Specific Examples -- Illegal immigrants are flooding into the U.S. lately - false, but still stated. Obama is not deporting any illegals -- false, but still a thing. 50% of your paycheck goes to welfare for illegals. Welfare queens driving Cadillacs. Michele Bachmann - HPV vaccines cause mental retardation. Tom Emmer - Minnesota waiters often make over $100,000 a year. "Got any specific examples?" Well, no. I don't need them, everybody knows that. I heard a story from a guy who was told that.....
5) The Media Is Biased Against Conservatives and Cannot Be Trusted. When a Republican says just ridiculous shit "Obama is going to declare martial law and stay on for another 4 years" the media might be expected to ask, "Um, what possible facts do you have to support that?" or, back before 20 years ago the media would actually say, "That is ridiculous, that is just false." The Fox News response (now adopted by the GOP), 'SEE, it MUST be true because the liberal media wants you to THINK it is false!" This "truth-fier" is the greatest invention of all-time for a political party -- "Obama caused Joe the Plumber not to buy a $400,000 business because Joe would pay $400,000 per year in taxes!" Well, there are so many things wrong with that statement, where do we start....SEE! It MUST be true if they are fighting so hard to disprove the statement!
New Section
I do not share today's general Democratic Party hatred for Ronald Reagan. We were desperate for some pride as a country, having lost virtually all of our pride when Carter was President, and Regan brought that pride back. Sure he built up a deficit with his tax cuts and huge spending increases, but for 8 years we were generally better off. When he saw how horrible his budget busting ways were, 6 years in, he worked with the Democrats to raise taxes and get things a little more reasonable.
Reagan believed, generally, in the facts. Sure he had his own opinion of what the facts meant, but he didn't just say stupid shit and make people believe that his lies were facts. Even when Iran-Contra blew up in his face, he sort of 'fessed up; saying it was important to trade arms for hostages and he should have known better if he was paying more attention. (It was a lie, but a slight one and he really didn't think anyone bought it -- he was just too lovable and popular to punish for his misdeed - like your old dog who poops in the entryway one day out of 300).
George H.W. Bush was a smart guy - he could be kind of pompous, but, again, you got the feeling he did what he thought actually was best for the country and listened to facts and logic.
I don't know what happened to the Republican Party thereafter. Maybe it was Gingrich and his scorched earth efforts to hurt Bill Clinton? Maybe it was the success of GW Bush's bullshit "compassionate conservatism" claim, which told political operatives, "Hey, look, maybe we need to just lie to win?" Who knows? But the Republican party since 2000 might as well have renamed itself the We Support Idiots party, Look, there is nothing wrong with trying to cut your own taxes if you are super wealthy. It is a little mean-spirited, but heck, go for it. But the Poor Wing of the party??? My lord.
http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2011/05/rich-wing-romney-poor-wing-palin.html
Sarah Palin? Is there anything more awful than the idea that the Republican Party nominated a person for Vice President who took 5 years to get through 4 different colleges, perhaps distracted by the need to bang Glen Rice and who just generally does not know anything about anything important connected to running a country? Perhaps that is where the safety rope to sanity broke? When the GOP and Fox News had to support that idiot. Is she qualified? Well, certainly. Don't believe what anyone says, she is great, she is awesome. She will really do what is right for YOU!
Who does that Palin love sound like? It sounds like Trump. "Trust me. Things will be great. Greater, greatest. How do I know? Cuz I know - it is on my hat!" Trump has at least done SOMETHING with his life and graduated from impressive schools. While a blowhard, he is not a moron. So, when less than 8 years ago the party and Fox News were all in favor of Sarah Palin, their protestations against Donald Trump fall more than a little flat. Is there a difference between saying inflammatory conservative things and not meaning them (Trump) and saying similar things and being too dumb to understand them and why they make no logical sense (Palin)? Not much of a difference.
Anyway -- this item kind of got away from me, so take it for what it is worth, because I am not editing it.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
The Evolution of the Game of Basketball
http://www.hooptactics.com/Basketball_Basics_History
Some things you would have thought would take a long time (the rule of 5 players per side, the idea of a glass backboard) came really early on.
Other things you would have thought would have been abandoned very early lasted a long time (center jump after every made basket lasted until the start of 1938, even though there were open bottomed nets being used as early as 1912!).
Good stuff.
Some things you would have thought would take a long time (the rule of 5 players per side, the idea of a glass backboard) came really early on.
Other things you would have thought would have been abandoned very early lasted a long time (center jump after every made basket lasted until the start of 1938, even though there were open bottomed nets being used as early as 1912!).
Good stuff.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Carly Fiorina - Quitter
I tried real hard to find a picture of her where she looks hideous. You know what? When she is not talking, she is actually pretty good looking, and, when shot from far enough away and from below (as pictured), can actually look pretty good.
Hmmmm. Goodbye - she will not be missed.
Hmmmm. Goodbye - she will not be missed.
Chris Christie -- Quitter
https://gma.yahoo.com/chris-christie-expected-formally-end-presidential-bid-early-161038064--abc-news-topstories.html#
Add this one-word descriptor to "fat" and "blowhard" and you have three good choices for Christie.
If only he had ever told voters that he used to be a federal prosecutor - I think that could have made the difference.
I guess he won't be kicking Barack Obama's ass out of the White House anytime soon.
On the plus side, he did manage to eviscerate the pathetic pro-amnesty anchor baby robot Marco Rubio before exiting.
Add this one-word descriptor to "fat" and "blowhard" and you have three good choices for Christie.
If only he had ever told voters that he used to be a federal prosecutor - I think that could have made the difference.
I guess he won't be kicking Barack Obama's ass out of the White House anytime soon.
On the plus side, he did manage to eviscerate the pathetic pro-amnesty anchor baby robot Marco Rubio before exiting.
Tuesday, February 09, 2016
Cam Newton Studied Kyle Korver's Late Game Effort
Newton did not jump on the fumble, much as Korver thought better of stepping in front of LeBron James here:
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
The Most Egregious Errors Thus Far In ESPN's All-Time #nbarank
Through today we are up to #26 (Isiah Thomas), who, coincidentally, is one of the greatest mistakes. Isiah's career "advanced stats" are roughly equivalent to Stephon Marbury's and his WS/48 number of .109 does not register in the top 250 all-time.
If you look at Isiah's awards, he was only first-team all-NBA three times and all-NBA second team twice. He never finished in the top 4 of the MVP balloting in any year.
1) So, Isiah Thomas - should be around 60, is ranked 26th -- huge error. If we are awarding spots for titles and title appearances, then why is Chauncey Billups at #87? Chauncey 121 WS, .176 WS/48, 38 VORP. Read this and then ask if one guy should be 61 spots higher than the other: http://bkref.com/tiny/8JCjG
2) Bob Pettit and George Mikan -- two of the greatest basketball players of all-time. Mikan led his teams to 5 titles and was so dominant that the league changed its rules to hurt him. He had 3 20 WS seasons. Bob Pettit was 2X MVP of the league and 10X first-team all-NBA. He retired as the NBA's all-time leading scorer.
ESPN has these guys ranked ##33 and 34. Now, compare their ranking to Larry Bird and Kevin McHale. McHale was 1X all-NBA and never challenged for an MVP. ESPN has him ranked at #31!!! Pettit's career is far more akin to Bird's career (top dog on a team that constantly challenged for titles) than it is McHale's. Bird will be top 15.
ESPN has Bill Walton ranked as the #42 best player in NBA history, largely based upon his 1 MVP and his title with Portland. Walton played a total of 120 great NBA games as a starter and 80 more as a 6th man (and a 20 mpg 6th man at that). Yet George Mikan, who had 3 of the best seasons ever played and led his team to 5 titles, ranks a meager 9 spots higher? How? Why?
3) As noted, Bill Walton is far too high. His career resembles that of Derrick Rose. Rose is not even listed in the top 100. Yao Ming was a great player for 6 years or so -- he is #89. The Walton ranking is nonsensical. Did he have a better career than Bob McAdoo (#52)? No. He did not.
4) The Steph Curry ranking (God knows where he will end up) is maddening. If you compare career stats for Curry, Westbrook and Harden, they are very comparable. Yet Harden is #97, Westbrook is #49 and Curry appears headed for a top 20 ranking. Where will the madness end? I mean, Steve Nash was 2X MVP and he played forever and he is already ranked (#30). There is no way that Stephen Curry has had a better career than Chris Paul (#29) so far.
The only way you can rank Curry as high as they have is to say to yourself, "Well, we think these past two years will generally be an average year for Steph going forward". If you believe that, then why not just rank him #1? His current season will be maybe the best season ever played, so why not just put him in front of Jordan?
5) Artis Gilmore at #70 is given absolutely no credit for his 5X first-team all-ABA performances or his nearly 190 total ABA/NBA WS. He is ranked behind Vince Carter? 5 spots above Blake Griffin? 11 spots behind Carmelo?
6) Almost Every Old Player Gets the Shaft -- I mean, put to one side Pettit and Mikan (who are both underrated by 20+ spots). Dolph Schayes was 6X first-team all-NBA and 6X second-team. he is ranked at #74, 3 spots above Joe Dumars (never first-team all-NBA). Hal Greer and Dave Bing and Bill Sharman were top 50 players as late as the 1996 list, They are now erased from this current top 100 list (Sharman, a 4X first-team all-NBA player, being the worst snub).
Neal Johnston should have a movie made about him called "The Player Whom Everyone Forgot." http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsne01.html 4X first-team all-NBA. Led the league in WS 5X, couldn't edge out Shawn Kemp?
7) The pro-Boston bias for guys in the Bird Era is pretty apparent. Walton and McHale are 30 spots too high. Dennis Johnson is listed (#84) as a better player than Chris Bosh (#86) There is absolutely no basis for that. http://bkref.com/tiny/5SUja DJ is not a top 100 player. Robert Parish is 13 spots higher than Artis Gilmore? 11 spots higher than Bob Lanier? The 3rd best guy on the Celtics (maybe the 4th offensive option)?
8) There are certain guys on the list that appear to just be "OK, how about him" or "Hey, I used to watch this guy" entries. Mark Price yes, but Dave Bing no. Mo Cheeks yes, but Paul Westphal no? Bobby Jones (who basically never started) yes, but Buck Williams and Horace Grant no? What did poor Jack Sikma do piss off the basketball powers that be? Look at his chart of "similarity scores". 7 of the top 8 "most similar" guys are on the top 100 list. Sikma? He is no Gail Goodrich, Kevin Love or Shawn Kemp.
That is it for now. We can only hope the errors do not become worse ##1-25. Scottie Pippen (my #36) and Steph Curry better show up soon.
If you look at Isiah's awards, he was only first-team all-NBA three times and all-NBA second team twice. He never finished in the top 4 of the MVP balloting in any year.
1) So, Isiah Thomas - should be around 60, is ranked 26th -- huge error. If we are awarding spots for titles and title appearances, then why is Chauncey Billups at #87? Chauncey 121 WS, .176 WS/48, 38 VORP. Read this and then ask if one guy should be 61 spots higher than the other: http://bkref.com/tiny/8JCjG
2) Bob Pettit and George Mikan -- two of the greatest basketball players of all-time. Mikan led his teams to 5 titles and was so dominant that the league changed its rules to hurt him. He had 3 20 WS seasons. Bob Pettit was 2X MVP of the league and 10X first-team all-NBA. He retired as the NBA's all-time leading scorer.
ESPN has these guys ranked ##33 and 34. Now, compare their ranking to Larry Bird and Kevin McHale. McHale was 1X all-NBA and never challenged for an MVP. ESPN has him ranked at #31!!! Pettit's career is far more akin to Bird's career (top dog on a team that constantly challenged for titles) than it is McHale's. Bird will be top 15.
ESPN has Bill Walton ranked as the #42 best player in NBA history, largely based upon his 1 MVP and his title with Portland. Walton played a total of 120 great NBA games as a starter and 80 more as a 6th man (and a 20 mpg 6th man at that). Yet George Mikan, who had 3 of the best seasons ever played and led his team to 5 titles, ranks a meager 9 spots higher? How? Why?
3) As noted, Bill Walton is far too high. His career resembles that of Derrick Rose. Rose is not even listed in the top 100. Yao Ming was a great player for 6 years or so -- he is #89. The Walton ranking is nonsensical. Did he have a better career than Bob McAdoo (#52)? No. He did not.
4) The Steph Curry ranking (God knows where he will end up) is maddening. If you compare career stats for Curry, Westbrook and Harden, they are very comparable. Yet Harden is #97, Westbrook is #49 and Curry appears headed for a top 20 ranking. Where will the madness end? I mean, Steve Nash was 2X MVP and he played forever and he is already ranked (#30). There is no way that Stephen Curry has had a better career than Chris Paul (#29) so far.
The only way you can rank Curry as high as they have is to say to yourself, "Well, we think these past two years will generally be an average year for Steph going forward". If you believe that, then why not just rank him #1? His current season will be maybe the best season ever played, so why not just put him in front of Jordan?
5) Artis Gilmore at #70 is given absolutely no credit for his 5X first-team all-ABA performances or his nearly 190 total ABA/NBA WS. He is ranked behind Vince Carter? 5 spots above Blake Griffin? 11 spots behind Carmelo?
6) Almost Every Old Player Gets the Shaft -- I mean, put to one side Pettit and Mikan (who are both underrated by 20+ spots). Dolph Schayes was 6X first-team all-NBA and 6X second-team. he is ranked at #74, 3 spots above Joe Dumars (never first-team all-NBA). Hal Greer and Dave Bing and Bill Sharman were top 50 players as late as the 1996 list, They are now erased from this current top 100 list (Sharman, a 4X first-team all-NBA player, being the worst snub).
Neal Johnston should have a movie made about him called "The Player Whom Everyone Forgot." http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsne01.html 4X first-team all-NBA. Led the league in WS 5X, couldn't edge out Shawn Kemp?
7) The pro-Boston bias for guys in the Bird Era is pretty apparent. Walton and McHale are 30 spots too high. Dennis Johnson is listed (#84) as a better player than Chris Bosh (#86) There is absolutely no basis for that. http://bkref.com/tiny/5SUja DJ is not a top 100 player. Robert Parish is 13 spots higher than Artis Gilmore? 11 spots higher than Bob Lanier? The 3rd best guy on the Celtics (maybe the 4th offensive option)?
8) There are certain guys on the list that appear to just be "OK, how about him" or "Hey, I used to watch this guy" entries. Mark Price yes, but Dave Bing no. Mo Cheeks yes, but Paul Westphal no? Bobby Jones (who basically never started) yes, but Buck Williams and Horace Grant no? What did poor Jack Sikma do piss off the basketball powers that be? Look at his chart of "similarity scores". 7 of the top 8 "most similar" guys are on the top 100 list. Sikma? He is no Gail Goodrich, Kevin Love or Shawn Kemp.
That is it for now. We can only hope the errors do not become worse ##1-25. Scottie Pippen (my #36) and Steph Curry better show up soon.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
My Continued Lament as a Timberwolves Fan
The Wolves just sent me a bill for season tickets next year -- an extra $600. One would think that such a request from a 14-35 club would at least come with a handwritten apology from the owner. Something like, "Geez, I am sorry that we have completely fucked you over since May of 2004, but you see, I am only worth around $2 billion, so I need to make you pay more while you put three kids through school." You know, something like that.
The last time the Timberwolves made the playoffs, I had just turned 40 and my kids were 10-8-6. It is now 12 years later and they are still sending me bills and explaining from time to time that they are rebuilding and really have a solid young nucleus for the future. And we are 14-35.
Who is the Timberwolves' General Manager/VP of Basketball Operations? Milt Newton. The number of front offices that Milt Newton has run pre-2015? Zero. His hiring announcement for the Wolves says he was the Wizards' Vice President of Player Personnel for.......10 years. During that time in Washington he was the front office.........third in charge. What this resume would suggest is that the Wiz had two guys who they thought were better equipped for the job, and, no one in the NBA believed that Newton was worth looking at, even as a second banana. Now that may not be true, but that is what it looks like -- Newton was a third stringer for a mediocre D.C. organization and moved up to second string by going to a far worse organization.
Who is our coach? Sam Mitchell -- career record before this year? 156-189. After being fired by the Toronto Raptors, Sam was hired and then demoted as an assistant coach for the Nets. Sam's last head coaching task before the Wolves was to coach the US Select team in the 2012 William Jones Cup in Taiwan. The U.S. took....third place.
So, that is our coach and GM. But you know what? Hey, a mediocre coach like Doc Rivers had Tom Thibodeau as and assistant and reached the NBA finals, winning in 2008. So you can win with good assistants..........like, say, Sidney Lowe? Ryan Saunders? Rick Adelman -- oh wait, it is David Adelman. Look, my son has a lot of skills and he is far superior to me in a lot of ways. If I retired or died tomorrow, however, I would recommend hiring him as your attorney on the basis that I am/was his father. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't do that.
The lack of quality on the basketball side of the operation can be seen in the season thus far. Andrew Wiggins has talent -- he has declined as a player. Karl-Anthony Towns is the best rookie the Wolves have ever had (and we have had Garnett and Marbury) by a lot. I despise how Zach LaVine plays, but he has had a nice 4 game stretch here. And we are.....14-35. We may be headed for another 60 loss season.
OK, so we are having YET ANOTHER rebuilding year. But that is OK, because we are giving minutes to young guys like Tyus Jones.........oh, wait, we just played Andre Miller 12 minutes and Tyus Jones 0. And Tayshaun Prince over 30 minutes.
My mom will turn 80 on March 19. That same day, Andre Miller will be half as old as my mom. If we are 14-35, we do not want someone playing who is half as old as my mom. Tayshaun Prince is a professional, and he is willing to play as long as you ask him to play, but he will soon be 36 years old. He has a 6.3 PER (league average is 15) and he plays starter minutes for us. Why? What possible reason could there be for this?
If the reason that we are playing Andre Miller and Tayshaun Prince is that we are trying to win games, then why are we not REALLY trying to win games? If you were coaching this team and someone told you, "OK, you are going to be shot and killed if you do not win 35 games" what would you do? 1) You'd play Towns 40 minutes a night -- he is so obviously your best player on both ends of the floor. 2) you would run plays so that every time down you would have Towns touch the ball at least twice. 3) you'd play Shabazz 30 minutes a night. 4) you would play Rubio 40 minutes a night. 5) You'd tell Wiggins that he needs to get 2 blocks and 3 offensive rebounds a night to justify starter minutes. If you cannot do that, you go down to 24 minutes a night and we will play Tayshaun more.
You would probably also try to find the best advice you could get from folks who are currently out of work (Scott Brooks and Tom Thibodeau maybe) and say, "how do I run an offense? how do I run a defense?" I mean, you have to win 35 games, you cannot be proud. Just ask. Hell, beg.
But the problem with the Timberwolves is that there is no accountability, no sense of urgency. Kurt Rambis was allowed to go 32-132. Think about that. David Kahn was allowed to pass on Steph Curry twice, once for Jonny Flynn. Kept his job for three years.
Rick Adelman was +9, +5 +9 in his three years as the Wolves coach, going from 17-65 (Rambis) to 40-42. Then after Adelman left the Wolves went 16-66 under Flip.
The Wolves after going 16-66 got Karl-Anthony Towns, who may put up 7 Win Shares. Yet the Wolves appear ready to completely squander his effort (LeBron as a rookie had 5.1 WS but the Cavs won 18 more games than the prior year).
Anyway, just another long lament to note how awful I feel and how the Wolves continue to kick me in the balls and then send me a bill for the privilege. As a Timberwolves fane, I am..........the gambler from "Let It Ride" where the main character asks the gambler why, instead of betting $200, the gambler doesn't just give the main character $100 and let the main character kick him in the balls -- it would be quicker and cheaper.
The last time the Timberwolves made the playoffs, I had just turned 40 and my kids were 10-8-6. It is now 12 years later and they are still sending me bills and explaining from time to time that they are rebuilding and really have a solid young nucleus for the future. And we are 14-35.
Who is the Timberwolves' General Manager/VP of Basketball Operations? Milt Newton. The number of front offices that Milt Newton has run pre-2015? Zero. His hiring announcement for the Wolves says he was the Wizards' Vice President of Player Personnel for.......10 years. During that time in Washington he was the front office.........third in charge. What this resume would suggest is that the Wiz had two guys who they thought were better equipped for the job, and, no one in the NBA believed that Newton was worth looking at, even as a second banana. Now that may not be true, but that is what it looks like -- Newton was a third stringer for a mediocre D.C. organization and moved up to second string by going to a far worse organization.
Who is our coach? Sam Mitchell -- career record before this year? 156-189. After being fired by the Toronto Raptors, Sam was hired and then demoted as an assistant coach for the Nets. Sam's last head coaching task before the Wolves was to coach the US Select team in the 2012 William Jones Cup in Taiwan. The U.S. took....third place.
So, that is our coach and GM. But you know what? Hey, a mediocre coach like Doc Rivers had Tom Thibodeau as and assistant and reached the NBA finals, winning in 2008. So you can win with good assistants..........like, say, Sidney Lowe? Ryan Saunders? Rick Adelman -- oh wait, it is David Adelman. Look, my son has a lot of skills and he is far superior to me in a lot of ways. If I retired or died tomorrow, however, I would recommend hiring him as your attorney on the basis that I am/was his father. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't do that.
The lack of quality on the basketball side of the operation can be seen in the season thus far. Andrew Wiggins has talent -- he has declined as a player. Karl-Anthony Towns is the best rookie the Wolves have ever had (and we have had Garnett and Marbury) by a lot. I despise how Zach LaVine plays, but he has had a nice 4 game stretch here. And we are.....14-35. We may be headed for another 60 loss season.
OK, so we are having YET ANOTHER rebuilding year. But that is OK, because we are giving minutes to young guys like Tyus Jones.........oh, wait, we just played Andre Miller 12 minutes and Tyus Jones 0. And Tayshaun Prince over 30 minutes.
My mom will turn 80 on March 19. That same day, Andre Miller will be half as old as my mom. If we are 14-35, we do not want someone playing who is half as old as my mom. Tayshaun Prince is a professional, and he is willing to play as long as you ask him to play, but he will soon be 36 years old. He has a 6.3 PER (league average is 15) and he plays starter minutes for us. Why? What possible reason could there be for this?
If the reason that we are playing Andre Miller and Tayshaun Prince is that we are trying to win games, then why are we not REALLY trying to win games? If you were coaching this team and someone told you, "OK, you are going to be shot and killed if you do not win 35 games" what would you do? 1) You'd play Towns 40 minutes a night -- he is so obviously your best player on both ends of the floor. 2) you would run plays so that every time down you would have Towns touch the ball at least twice. 3) you'd play Shabazz 30 minutes a night. 4) you would play Rubio 40 minutes a night. 5) You'd tell Wiggins that he needs to get 2 blocks and 3 offensive rebounds a night to justify starter minutes. If you cannot do that, you go down to 24 minutes a night and we will play Tayshaun more.
You would probably also try to find the best advice you could get from folks who are currently out of work (Scott Brooks and Tom Thibodeau maybe) and say, "how do I run an offense? how do I run a defense?" I mean, you have to win 35 games, you cannot be proud. Just ask. Hell, beg.
But the problem with the Timberwolves is that there is no accountability, no sense of urgency. Kurt Rambis was allowed to go 32-132. Think about that. David Kahn was allowed to pass on Steph Curry twice, once for Jonny Flynn. Kept his job for three years.
Rick Adelman was +9, +5 +9 in his three years as the Wolves coach, going from 17-65 (Rambis) to 40-42. Then after Adelman left the Wolves went 16-66 under Flip.
The Wolves after going 16-66 got Karl-Anthony Towns, who may put up 7 Win Shares. Yet the Wolves appear ready to completely squander his effort (LeBron as a rookie had 5.1 WS but the Cavs won 18 more games than the prior year).
Anyway, just another long lament to note how awful I feel and how the Wolves continue to kick me in the balls and then send me a bill for the privilege. As a Timberwolves fane, I am..........the gambler from "Let It Ride" where the main character asks the gambler why, instead of betting $200, the gambler doesn't just give the main character $100 and let the main character kick him in the balls -- it would be quicker and cheaper.
Friday, January 29, 2016
ESPN's NBA Rank Reaches its Final 36
My list of 36 contains 32 guys currently not already ranked in the top 100 by ESPN.
I lost 4 guys from my top 36: I am told that I overrated Ray Allen by 22 spots (50 v. 28); Reggie Miller by 17 spots (51 v. 34), Rick Barry by 10 (37 v. 27) and Gary Payton (41 v. 35).
Here are my 32 remaining guys listed alphabetically by last name):
Kareem, Barkley, Baylor, Bird, Kobe, Wilt, Drexler, Duncan, Durant, Dr. J, Ewing, KG, Havlicek, LeBron, Magic, Jordan, Karl Malone, Moses Malone, George Mikan, Nash, Dirk, Hakeem, Shaq, Chris Paul, Bob Petit, Pippen, Oscar, David Robinson, Russell, Stockton, Wade, West.
I cannot imagine that the remaining 32 guys are not absolute locks to be in ESPN's top 36. Who are the 3 absolute worst guys on my list? Pippen, Ewing and Havlicek? Are those guys gonna be ranked below 100? No.
So who are the 4 guys I missed (supposedly underrated)? We know that, right or (very) wrong, Steph Curry will be on the ESPN top 36.
Of the guys who were on the 1996 Top 50 list and who have not yet been ranked by ESPN in its top 100, we have remaining Dave Bing, Hal Greer, Kevin McHale, and Bill Sharman. You gotta think that McHale at least will make it.
I did not have Jason Kidd on my list, as I did not evaluate him as a top 36 player (was Jason Kidd as good as the guys I have in my top 36? I'd say no.). But he did play 50,000 minutes, so I imagine he will be another fill-in.
Then if you look at the ESPN PG ratings you will see that they have Isiah Thomas above Chris Paul and Kidd, so Isiah will make it.
Therefore, look for ESPN to add McHale, Kidd, Thomas, and Curry to my top 32, probably in that order. Hell, Curry might be #1 overall in their minds.
So what will be the horrible glaring errors for ESPN's #nbarank?
Well, in 1996, Dave Bing, Hal Greer, and Bill Sharman were considered top 50 all-time players by a panel of experts. These three gentlemen are not in the #nbarank top 100. Seems hard to imagine.
In addition, poor Neal Johnston continues to be completely forgotten. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsne01.html Now, compare Neal Johnston's NBA statistics and honors with those of Yao Ming (their #89) or Bill Walton (their #42) and tell me that Neal Johnston deserves to be left out of the top 100 completely.
HM
I lost 4 guys from my top 36: I am told that I overrated Ray Allen by 22 spots (50 v. 28); Reggie Miller by 17 spots (51 v. 34), Rick Barry by 10 (37 v. 27) and Gary Payton (41 v. 35).
Here are my 32 remaining guys listed alphabetically by last name):
Kareem, Barkley, Baylor, Bird, Kobe, Wilt, Drexler, Duncan, Durant, Dr. J, Ewing, KG, Havlicek, LeBron, Magic, Jordan, Karl Malone, Moses Malone, George Mikan, Nash, Dirk, Hakeem, Shaq, Chris Paul, Bob Petit, Pippen, Oscar, David Robinson, Russell, Stockton, Wade, West.
I cannot imagine that the remaining 32 guys are not absolute locks to be in ESPN's top 36. Who are the 3 absolute worst guys on my list? Pippen, Ewing and Havlicek? Are those guys gonna be ranked below 100? No.
So who are the 4 guys I missed (supposedly underrated)? We know that, right or (very) wrong, Steph Curry will be on the ESPN top 36.
Of the guys who were on the 1996 Top 50 list and who have not yet been ranked by ESPN in its top 100, we have remaining Dave Bing, Hal Greer, Kevin McHale, and Bill Sharman. You gotta think that McHale at least will make it.
I did not have Jason Kidd on my list, as I did not evaluate him as a top 36 player (was Jason Kidd as good as the guys I have in my top 36? I'd say no.). But he did play 50,000 minutes, so I imagine he will be another fill-in.
Then if you look at the ESPN PG ratings you will see that they have Isiah Thomas above Chris Paul and Kidd, so Isiah will make it.
Therefore, look for ESPN to add McHale, Kidd, Thomas, and Curry to my top 32, probably in that order. Hell, Curry might be #1 overall in their minds.
So what will be the horrible glaring errors for ESPN's #nbarank?
Well, in 1996, Dave Bing, Hal Greer, and Bill Sharman were considered top 50 all-time players by a panel of experts. These three gentlemen are not in the #nbarank top 100. Seems hard to imagine.
In addition, poor Neal Johnston continues to be completely forgotten. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsne01.html Now, compare Neal Johnston's NBA statistics and honors with those of Yao Ming (their #89) or Bill Walton (their #42) and tell me that Neal Johnston deserves to be left out of the top 100 completely.
HM
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
ESPN Ranks ##51-60 all-time
I must say, I have grown even more confused now. I was skeptical of players like Dwight Howard and Tracy McGrady at 61-70, but geez, compared to many of these guys, 61-70 are "no doubters". Should quickly note, this is the dumping ground for "worst ever League MVP players" with McAdoo, Cowens and Unseld in this group of 10).
ESPN's list
51. Reggie Miller
52. Bob McAdoo
53. Wes Unseld
54. Bernard King
55. Dave Cowens
56. Pau Gasol
57. Robert Parish
58. Tony Parker
59. Carmelo Anthony
60. Earl Monroe
The biggest head scratchers? I had Reggie Miller at #34 on my list. They have him 17 spots lower. Reggie Miller has more WS and a better WS/48 than Kobe. He is #2 all-time in Offensive Rating. If you have Reggie Miller at #51, you are stating that you give NO value to longevity, offensive ability and clutch playoff performances and only care about whether the guy was first-team all-NBA or MVP of the league. Will be interesting to see what wing scorers they put ahead of him.
Terrible injustice.
Second most terrible -- Earl Monroe. Take a good long hard look at Earl Monroe's stats. basketball-reference has him ranked objectively as the #150 most qualified Hall of Fame candidate. So, just move him up say 90 spots because he was flashy and had a cool nickname? Sure, why not.
Moving on -- love Bob McAdoo and Bernard King, but they each had less than 5 outstanding years.
Wes Unseld was a key cog on a constantly winning team, but after his rookie year (where he was ROY and MVP) he really wasn't that great of a player.
Regarding Pau Gasol - probably a tad too low.
Robert Parish -- I am stunned to learn that he is a much better player than Artis Gilmore (as I am sure he is)
Tony Parker - too low, when Tony was going well he was an unstoppable force for a championship club.
Carmelo -- I get a little queasy thinking about him being this high because he is a badly overrated player who has wasted his talent a lot. But is he a WAY better player than Earl Monroe? Sure. He probably deserves to be down below Vince and TMac and CWebb, but is it the end of the world that he is up here at 59 when his physical talent should have had him at around 25? Yeah, it probably still is awful, but not the worst thing ever.
Re-doing the list. if I am stuck with this list:
51. Reggie Miller (same, but should be 34th)
52. Tony Parker (+6)
53. Dave Cowens (+2)
54. Pau Gasol (+2)
55. Carmelo Anthony (+4)
56. Bob McAdoo (-4)
57. Bernard King.(-3)
58. Robert Parish (-1)
59. Wes Unseld (-6)
60. Earl Monroe (same, but should be down in the 70s or 80s).
ESPN's list
51. Reggie Miller
52. Bob McAdoo
53. Wes Unseld
54. Bernard King
55. Dave Cowens
56. Pau Gasol
57. Robert Parish
58. Tony Parker
59. Carmelo Anthony
60. Earl Monroe
The biggest head scratchers? I had Reggie Miller at #34 on my list. They have him 17 spots lower. Reggie Miller has more WS and a better WS/48 than Kobe. He is #2 all-time in Offensive Rating. If you have Reggie Miller at #51, you are stating that you give NO value to longevity, offensive ability and clutch playoff performances and only care about whether the guy was first-team all-NBA or MVP of the league. Will be interesting to see what wing scorers they put ahead of him.
Terrible injustice.
Second most terrible -- Earl Monroe. Take a good long hard look at Earl Monroe's stats. basketball-reference has him ranked objectively as the #150 most qualified Hall of Fame candidate. So, just move him up say 90 spots because he was flashy and had a cool nickname? Sure, why not.
Moving on -- love Bob McAdoo and Bernard King, but they each had less than 5 outstanding years.
Wes Unseld was a key cog on a constantly winning team, but after his rookie year (where he was ROY and MVP) he really wasn't that great of a player.
Regarding Pau Gasol - probably a tad too low.
Robert Parish -- I am stunned to learn that he is a much better player than Artis Gilmore (as I am sure he is)
Tony Parker - too low, when Tony was going well he was an unstoppable force for a championship club.
Carmelo -- I get a little queasy thinking about him being this high because he is a badly overrated player who has wasted his talent a lot. But is he a WAY better player than Earl Monroe? Sure. He probably deserves to be down below Vince and TMac and CWebb, but is it the end of the world that he is up here at 59 when his physical talent should have had him at around 25? Yeah, it probably still is awful, but not the worst thing ever.
Re-doing the list. if I am stuck with this list:
51. Reggie Miller (same, but should be 34th)
52. Tony Parker (+6)
53. Dave Cowens (+2)
54. Pau Gasol (+2)
55. Carmelo Anthony (+4)
56. Bob McAdoo (-4)
57. Bernard King.(-3)
58. Robert Parish (-1)
59. Wes Unseld (-6)
60. Earl Monroe (same, but should be down in the 70s or 80s).
Karl-Anthony Towns Headed for One of the 10 Best Seasons Ever for a Rookie Under Age 21.
http://bkref.com/tiny/r1ihn
Now, as we can see from the list, being on the list does not assure you that you will be an all-time great (DeJuan Blair, Greg Monroe, John Drew). But there are some great players on the list.
If KAT can raise his game a little in the second half (say .200 WS/48 and 4 more WS) then he'd have a top 5 rookie-under-20 season in both categories for his age group.
KAT has had a Game Score of 9 or better in 31 of 46 games, and if you search for player with consistently good Game Scores (greater than 15, greater than 20) you will see KAT's name next to players like Andre Drummond, Dwight Howard, Dwyane Wade, Klay Thompson, and Al Horford.
Based upon WS and WS/48, KAT is a borderline contender for the all-star game (having about the 33rd best overall season to date). Guys with the most similar 2015-16 seasons thus far:
Al Horford, Greg Monroe, Dirk Nowitski, Kemba Walker, Damian Lillard
Now, as we can see from the list, being on the list does not assure you that you will be an all-time great (DeJuan Blair, Greg Monroe, John Drew). But there are some great players on the list.
If KAT can raise his game a little in the second half (say .200 WS/48 and 4 more WS) then he'd have a top 5 rookie-under-20 season in both categories for his age group.
KAT has had a Game Score of 9 or better in 31 of 46 games, and if you search for player with consistently good Game Scores (greater than 15, greater than 20) you will see KAT's name next to players like Andre Drummond, Dwight Howard, Dwyane Wade, Klay Thompson, and Al Horford.
Based upon WS and WS/48, KAT is a borderline contender for the all-star game (having about the 33rd best overall season to date). Guys with the most similar 2015-16 seasons thus far:
Al Horford, Greg Monroe, Dirk Nowitski, Kemba Walker, Damian Lillard
Monday, January 25, 2016
ESPN Going Through and Ranking Top 100 NBA Players of All-Time
https://twitter.com/ESPNNBA and look for the hash tag #nbarank. Some of the rankings are just straight out bizarre, but I will give ESPN credit for undertaking such a difficult task, so I will only start my criticism of them at rankings 70-61.
Here is their 70-61 list:
70. Artis Gilmore
69. Vince Carter
68. Bob Lanier
67. Dwight Howard
66. Chris Webber
65. Alonzo Mourning
64. Dennis Rodman
63. Tracy McGrady
62. Alex English
61. Manu Ginobili
Now, ESPN purports to rank guys based upon both their BEST years and their longevity, meaning that a younger player may not achieve the highest score he ultimately could as he plays longer. (Example, James Harden and Steph Curry have put up ridiculous numbers in a couple seasons, but they should not rank above, say, Jerry West.
OK, so we assume that ESPN is doing what it says it is doing. Let's see what we think of how well they are accomplishing that.
Well, Artis Gilmore has more career Win Shares (almost 190 total) than Oscar Robertson or LeBron James. He has 107 NBA Win Shares, more than anyone else in this group except Vince, Lanier and Dwight Howard. He was first-team All-ABA 5 times and is the career leader in WS and WS/48 in ABA history.
If ESPN wants to give Artis 0 credit for his ABA play, OK. But I will expect Dr. J. to be down around the low 20s based upon his NBA play only. We shall see.
Vince should have been disposed of long before #69. Vince is a great talent, but he is not the 69th best player in NBA history. He has never once been first-team all-NBA and he finished top 9 in MVP balloting.....never.
Webber is too high. Maybe he squeaks in back down at 70 and you move Gilmore way up. But Webber did not have the career that Lanier or Howard have had.
Mourning has under 90 career WS. If you are going to rank Vince high because he has played forever, then Mourning must be marked down for longevity.
I am not going to bitch too much on Rodman, T Mac, English and Ginobili -- they are all roughly 61-70 area, give or take a few spots. Rodman was one of the game's great defenders and rebounders, won titles. English was an epic scorer, played forever. TMac had a top 10 all-time individual NBA season and was top 8 in MVP balloting 6 times. Ginobili is one of the greatest winners and clutch performers of all-time. But I will say that his overall statistics and honors in the regular season do not justify his lofty ranking. So I'd drop him a little.
If you forced me to take these ten guys and rank them 70-61, here is my list:
70. Vince Carter (-1)
69. Chris Webber (-3)
68. Alonzo Mourning (-3)
67. Bob Lanier (+1)
66. Dwight Howard (+1, it kills me, but he is 5X 1st team all-NBA)
65. Alex English (-3)
64. Manu Ginobili (-3)
63. Dennis Rodman (+1)
62. Tracy McGrady (+1)
61. Artis Gilmore (+9)
Again, if the rules are that you cannot consider ABA stats AT ALL, then I will wait the rankings of Dr. J, Moses Malone and Rick Barry and we will see if they are similarly dropped 10-20 spots. But it seems to me that you cannot just take a guy who was 5X first-team all-ABA and 5X first team all-defense and just completely ignore those stats/ That is particularly true when, after his athletic ability declined somewhat, Gilmore was still a 6X an all-star in the NBA and 62nd in career WS for only the NBA!
Here is their 70-61 list:
70. Artis Gilmore
69. Vince Carter
68. Bob Lanier
67. Dwight Howard
66. Chris Webber
65. Alonzo Mourning
64. Dennis Rodman
63. Tracy McGrady
62. Alex English
61. Manu Ginobili
Now, ESPN purports to rank guys based upon both their BEST years and their longevity, meaning that a younger player may not achieve the highest score he ultimately could as he plays longer. (Example, James Harden and Steph Curry have put up ridiculous numbers in a couple seasons, but they should not rank above, say, Jerry West.
OK, so we assume that ESPN is doing what it says it is doing. Let's see what we think of how well they are accomplishing that.
Well, Artis Gilmore has more career Win Shares (almost 190 total) than Oscar Robertson or LeBron James. He has 107 NBA Win Shares, more than anyone else in this group except Vince, Lanier and Dwight Howard. He was first-team All-ABA 5 times and is the career leader in WS and WS/48 in ABA history.
If ESPN wants to give Artis 0 credit for his ABA play, OK. But I will expect Dr. J. to be down around the low 20s based upon his NBA play only. We shall see.
Vince should have been disposed of long before #69. Vince is a great talent, but he is not the 69th best player in NBA history. He has never once been first-team all-NBA and he finished top 9 in MVP balloting.....never.
Webber is too high. Maybe he squeaks in back down at 70 and you move Gilmore way up. But Webber did not have the career that Lanier or Howard have had.
Mourning has under 90 career WS. If you are going to rank Vince high because he has played forever, then Mourning must be marked down for longevity.
I am not going to bitch too much on Rodman, T Mac, English and Ginobili -- they are all roughly 61-70 area, give or take a few spots. Rodman was one of the game's great defenders and rebounders, won titles. English was an epic scorer, played forever. TMac had a top 10 all-time individual NBA season and was top 8 in MVP balloting 6 times. Ginobili is one of the greatest winners and clutch performers of all-time. But I will say that his overall statistics and honors in the regular season do not justify his lofty ranking. So I'd drop him a little.
If you forced me to take these ten guys and rank them 70-61, here is my list:
70. Vince Carter (-1)
69. Chris Webber (-3)
68. Alonzo Mourning (-3)
67. Bob Lanier (+1)
66. Dwight Howard (+1, it kills me, but he is 5X 1st team all-NBA)
65. Alex English (-3)
64. Manu Ginobili (-3)
63. Dennis Rodman (+1)
62. Tracy McGrady (+1)
61. Artis Gilmore (+9)
Again, if the rules are that you cannot consider ABA stats AT ALL, then I will wait the rankings of Dr. J, Moses Malone and Rick Barry and we will see if they are similarly dropped 10-20 spots. But it seems to me that you cannot just take a guy who was 5X first-team all-ABA and 5X first team all-defense and just completely ignore those stats/ That is particularly true when, after his athletic ability declined somewhat, Gilmore was still a 6X an all-star in the NBA and 62nd in career WS for only the NBA!
Friday, January 22, 2016
Jordan, Kobe and LeBron Through Roughly 37,000 Minutes and 7,500 Playoff Minutes
http://bkref.com/tiny/97JbE
Jordan clearly the best player. James a clear second. Kobe languishes behind in virtually every stat (particularly in the advanced stats).
One thing that caught my eye -- probably due to his superior defensive rebounding, LeBron gets more defensive credit in advanced stats than does even Jordan.
The weirdest stat is this: as of 1/22/16 -- James is 1,303 for 3829 from 3, which is EXACTLY what Kobe was from 3 through roughly 200 more minutes in his career. Bizarre. particularly when if you asked anyone (OK, if you asked me) they/I would tell you that Kobe jacked a ton more threes and was far more dangerous from three. Not so on either account.
HM
Jordan clearly the best player. James a clear second. Kobe languishes behind in virtually every stat (particularly in the advanced stats).
One thing that caught my eye -- probably due to his superior defensive rebounding, LeBron gets more defensive credit in advanced stats than does even Jordan.
The weirdest stat is this: as of 1/22/16 -- James is 1,303 for 3829 from 3, which is EXACTLY what Kobe was from 3 through roughly 200 more minutes in his career. Bizarre. particularly when if you asked anyone (OK, if you asked me) they/I would tell you that Kobe jacked a ton more threes and was far more dangerous from three. Not so on either account.
HM
Monday, January 18, 2016
30 Invited to Olympic Tryouts -- Who Were the Snubs and the "Shouldn't Be Invited" Folks?
Guys who have played 1,000 minutes and accounted for at least 3 Win Shares (52 guys): http://bkref.com/tiny/L13q4
Invited (7 guy in Bold who do not qualify under both criteria)
LaMarcus Aldridge (San Antonio Spurs)
Carmelo Anthony (New York Knicks)
Harrison Barnes (Golden State Warriors)
Bradley Beal (Washington Wizards)
Jimmy Butler (Chicago Bulls)
Mike Conley (Memphis Grizzlies)
DeMarcus Cousins (Sacramento Kings)
Stephen Curry (Golden State Warriors)
Anthony Davis (New Orleans Pelicans)
DeMar DeRozan (Toronto Raptors)
Andre Drummond (Detroit Pistons)
Kevin Durant (Oklahoma City Thunder)
Kenneth Faried (Denver Nuggets)
Rudy Gay (Sacramento Kings)
Paul George (Indiana Pacers)
Draymond Green (Golden State Warriors)
Blake Griffin (Los Angeles Clippers)
James Harden (Houston Rockets)
Gordon Hayward (Utah Jazz)
Dwight Howard (Houston Rockets)
Andre Iguodala (Golden State Warriors)
Kyrie Irving (Cleveland Cavaliers)
LeBron James (Cleveland Cavaliers)
DeAndre Jordan (Los Angeles Clippers)
Kawhi Leonard (San Antonio Spurs)
Kevin Love (Cleveland Cavaliers)
Chris Paul (Los Angeles Clippers)
Klay Thompson (Golden State Warriors)
John Wall (Washington Wizards)
Russell Westbrook (Oklahoma City Thunder).
Biggest snubs -- Kyle Lowry, Chris Bosh, Paul Millsap, Isaiah Thomas -- all have more than 5 Win Shares and have played over 1,200 minutes.
Invited (7 guy in Bold who do not qualify under both criteria)
LaMarcus Aldridge (San Antonio Spurs)
Carmelo Anthony (New York Knicks)
Harrison Barnes (Golden State Warriors)
Bradley Beal (Washington Wizards)
Jimmy Butler (Chicago Bulls)
Mike Conley (Memphis Grizzlies)
DeMarcus Cousins (Sacramento Kings)
Stephen Curry (Golden State Warriors)
Anthony Davis (New Orleans Pelicans)
DeMar DeRozan (Toronto Raptors)
Andre Drummond (Detroit Pistons)
Kevin Durant (Oklahoma City Thunder)
Kenneth Faried (Denver Nuggets)
Rudy Gay (Sacramento Kings)
Paul George (Indiana Pacers)
Draymond Green (Golden State Warriors)
Blake Griffin (Los Angeles Clippers)
James Harden (Houston Rockets)
Gordon Hayward (Utah Jazz)
Dwight Howard (Houston Rockets)
Andre Iguodala (Golden State Warriors)
Kyrie Irving (Cleveland Cavaliers)
LeBron James (Cleveland Cavaliers)
DeAndre Jordan (Los Angeles Clippers)
Kawhi Leonard (San Antonio Spurs)
Kevin Love (Cleveland Cavaliers)
Chris Paul (Los Angeles Clippers)
Klay Thompson (Golden State Warriors)
John Wall (Washington Wizards)
Russell Westbrook (Oklahoma City Thunder).
Biggest snubs -- Kyle Lowry, Chris Bosh, Paul Millsap, Isaiah Thomas -- all have more than 5 Win Shares and have played over 1,200 minutes.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Is Rafael "Ted" Cruz a "Natural Born Citizen"? I'd Vote No.
Compare
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
with
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/07/yes-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
So, as I have said in the past, I believe that Ted Cruz's argument to be a "natural born citizen" is a 50-50% shot. Now, if you read the cases on the issue, it is pretty clear that virtually no one has standing to get a court to rule on the issue, so the gatekeepers on this sort of thing are: 1) voters; 2) Electoral Congress delegates; and 3) Congress, which may, I would think, impeach and remove a President for violating the Constitution by serving as a non-NBC.
That said, it is an important issue, so let me tell you why I would vote no. that Cruz cannot be President.
1) If you read the two articles linked to above, you will see that there are arguments pro and con about whether Cruz is a "natural born citizen" (he wins) or a "naturalized citizen" (he loses) or a person who is treated as a "natural born citizen" by statute (in my opinion, he loses).
I will take Cruz at his word and state that he was born in Canada and, at the time of his birth, his mom was a U.S. citizen and his dad was a Cuban citizen. If those are the facts, then he was clearly NOT born in the United States or a territory of the United States. At the time of his birth, his parents were not subject to the laws of the United States. They were both residents of another country.
2) I think that the winning argument in such a situation is that the child's "natural born citizenship," or not, is determined by his place of birth. What do we know about the founding fathers? They specifically made an exception in the written Constitution to state that someone who was not a NBC could be President anyhow if that person was "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."
The founding fathers understood that they were all born in British colonies under British rule (Alexander Hamilton was born under British rule outside of the 13 colonies) and that, should they limit the Presidential contenders to those who were not British born, they would have no one to serve as President. (Washington, Jefferson and Adams were all born in the 13 colonies; everyone knew that Washington would be the first President, so they clearly considered him NOT to be a natural-born citizen but DID consider him to be a Citizen at the time of the Constitution).
The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. 35 years prior to that was 1753. There was no United States in 1753, and, therefore, no "natural born citizens" was available who could serve as President in 1789. (Even if you considered someone born in late 1776 a NBC, they would have been 13 years old, not 35.)
What this exception does tell you is that there is something important about being born in the United States. A natural born citizen is one who, unlike George Washington, was actually born inside the U.S. after it became the U.S. (an issue could arise as to whether Martin Van Buren was the first NBC President (born after Declaration but before Constitution) or whether it was John Tyler (born 1790)).
If there is not a difference between being a "natural born citizen" and a "citizen" then why does the Constitution clearly indicate that you can be other than a NBC and qualify if you are a citizen at the time of the Constitution? I think that this distinction defeats the argument that a "natural born citizen" is anyone who the Congress says it is. If Congress could have just made Washington a NBC by passing a law saying, "He is a NBC" then why have the two rules? Why not say "a NBC is any U.S. Citizen recognized as such by Congress" or state "all people born in the colonies are natural born citizens"?
If Congress can pass a law saying someone is a natural born citizen, what, if anything, is the limitation on Congress's power? "A natural born citizen is anyone who says they really love it here and/or who has won more than 5 Mr. Olympia titles." Is that a NBC? If the word "born" means "Congress says they are/were a citizen at birth" then Congress can basically write the requirement out of the Constitution. Anyone it says is a NBC is a NBC, no matter where that person was born or to whom.
This also creates an awful problem -- if in 2018 one Congress says that Michael J. Fox is a natural born citizen, and then in 2022 the next Congress says he is not, do we really want our qualifications for who can be President to vary from Congress to Congress? I would say not.
3) What concern is expressed by the NBC clause? I have read a lot of books about the mood back in those days, and the big concern from Jefferson's side was that we would be taken over by the English, and Hamilton just absolutely hated the French and feared their influence. So, what is being expressed here is that someone born in England or France should not get to be President of the United States.....ever. You cannot trust them.
If that is the basis for the rule -- fear of people born outside of the U.S. -- then why should that fear be lessened because the person had one parent who (while a citizen) did not even care enough about the U.S. to stay here and, in fact, actually took up residency outside of the country.....with a non-citizen! Reading the Constitution, we must assume that fear of the foreigner is justified. That is the whole basis of the rule. So why would Cruz - admittedly born outside of the U.S. - not be subject to the same prejudice that the founders had against the foreign born? He would.
If someone with one citizen parent can be President, then that means that a prospective mother or father from, say Saudi Arabia, can stay in the U.S. long enough to gain naturalized citizenship, can then move to Iran, join some terrorist group, and his or her kid (born in Iran to one U.S. parent) can some day be President. Right? We were terrified that someone from the House of Lords might move to the U.S. and run for President, but heck, the loyalties of a kid born overseas to one U.S. parent don't bother us.....?
4) I think the 14th Amendment hurt Cruz. Many people believe that the 14th Amendment (which bestows citizenship on anyone born in the U.S. and gives Congress the power to enforce the Amendment) helps Cruz because it gives Congress power and, if you asked Congress, they'd say that Cruz should be a citizen to the maximum amount possible. (This argument also can be bolstered by the power of Congress to make immigration and naturalization laws.) Probably true, but....
The 14th Amendment actually does not make everyone born in the U.S. a citizen. You also must be "subject to the jurisdiction of' the U.S." Cruz fails on both counts - when he was born, he was not born in the U.S., and when he was born, he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. He lived in another country. While one could argue that his mother's citizenship rendered him somehow "subject to the jurisdiction of' the U.S." that is a stretch, particularly in light of #5......
5) Cruz's dad was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Cruz's birth, Cruz is a big believer in "original intent" and the belief that the Constitution does not change with time but, rather, it must be interpreted to reflect only the time in which it was made. When the Constitution was ratified, there is no way that someone who claimed American citizenship only through his mother could have any chance of being considered a natural born U.S. citizen. It was the father's citizenship that mattered. The mother was basically considered chattel as far as the law was concerned. (Recall that women could not even vote until 50+ years after black men could vote).
Laurence Tribe (a constitutional law professor and Democrat) has opined that there are serious issues regarding Cruz's citizenship. Tribe points out that HIS view of the law (that the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted differently as it ages) would help Cruz's position. But Cruz's actual position on the Constitution is that it NEVER evolves and it NEVER can be changed. It meant something in 1788 and it will mean that forever. Well, if so, then the founders clearly understood that someone born in Canada who claimed citizenship only through his mother was, in no way, a "natural born citizen." Sorry, Ted, you are stuck with that understanding from 228 years ago.
I would vote that Cruz is not a natural born citizen, and I would say he is ineligible to be President.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
with
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/07/yes-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
So, as I have said in the past, I believe that Ted Cruz's argument to be a "natural born citizen" is a 50-50% shot. Now, if you read the cases on the issue, it is pretty clear that virtually no one has standing to get a court to rule on the issue, so the gatekeepers on this sort of thing are: 1) voters; 2) Electoral Congress delegates; and 3) Congress, which may, I would think, impeach and remove a President for violating the Constitution by serving as a non-NBC.
That said, it is an important issue, so let me tell you why I would vote no. that Cruz cannot be President.
1) If you read the two articles linked to above, you will see that there are arguments pro and con about whether Cruz is a "natural born citizen" (he wins) or a "naturalized citizen" (he loses) or a person who is treated as a "natural born citizen" by statute (in my opinion, he loses).
I will take Cruz at his word and state that he was born in Canada and, at the time of his birth, his mom was a U.S. citizen and his dad was a Cuban citizen. If those are the facts, then he was clearly NOT born in the United States or a territory of the United States. At the time of his birth, his parents were not subject to the laws of the United States. They were both residents of another country.
2) I think that the winning argument in such a situation is that the child's "natural born citizenship," or not, is determined by his place of birth. What do we know about the founding fathers? They specifically made an exception in the written Constitution to state that someone who was not a NBC could be President anyhow if that person was "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."
The founding fathers understood that they were all born in British colonies under British rule (Alexander Hamilton was born under British rule outside of the 13 colonies) and that, should they limit the Presidential contenders to those who were not British born, they would have no one to serve as President. (Washington, Jefferson and Adams were all born in the 13 colonies; everyone knew that Washington would be the first President, so they clearly considered him NOT to be a natural-born citizen but DID consider him to be a Citizen at the time of the Constitution).
The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. 35 years prior to that was 1753. There was no United States in 1753, and, therefore, no "natural born citizens" was available who could serve as President in 1789. (Even if you considered someone born in late 1776 a NBC, they would have been 13 years old, not 35.)
What this exception does tell you is that there is something important about being born in the United States. A natural born citizen is one who, unlike George Washington, was actually born inside the U.S. after it became the U.S. (an issue could arise as to whether Martin Van Buren was the first NBC President (born after Declaration but before Constitution) or whether it was John Tyler (born 1790)).
If there is not a difference between being a "natural born citizen" and a "citizen" then why does the Constitution clearly indicate that you can be other than a NBC and qualify if you are a citizen at the time of the Constitution? I think that this distinction defeats the argument that a "natural born citizen" is anyone who the Congress says it is. If Congress could have just made Washington a NBC by passing a law saying, "He is a NBC" then why have the two rules? Why not say "a NBC is any U.S. Citizen recognized as such by Congress" or state "all people born in the colonies are natural born citizens"?
If Congress can pass a law saying someone is a natural born citizen, what, if anything, is the limitation on Congress's power? "A natural born citizen is anyone who says they really love it here and/or who has won more than 5 Mr. Olympia titles." Is that a NBC? If the word "born" means "Congress says they are/were a citizen at birth" then Congress can basically write the requirement out of the Constitution. Anyone it says is a NBC is a NBC, no matter where that person was born or to whom.
This also creates an awful problem -- if in 2018 one Congress says that Michael J. Fox is a natural born citizen, and then in 2022 the next Congress says he is not, do we really want our qualifications for who can be President to vary from Congress to Congress? I would say not.
3) What concern is expressed by the NBC clause? I have read a lot of books about the mood back in those days, and the big concern from Jefferson's side was that we would be taken over by the English, and Hamilton just absolutely hated the French and feared their influence. So, what is being expressed here is that someone born in England or France should not get to be President of the United States.....ever. You cannot trust them.
If that is the basis for the rule -- fear of people born outside of the U.S. -- then why should that fear be lessened because the person had one parent who (while a citizen) did not even care enough about the U.S. to stay here and, in fact, actually took up residency outside of the country.....with a non-citizen! Reading the Constitution, we must assume that fear of the foreigner is justified. That is the whole basis of the rule. So why would Cruz - admittedly born outside of the U.S. - not be subject to the same prejudice that the founders had against the foreign born? He would.
If someone with one citizen parent can be President, then that means that a prospective mother or father from, say Saudi Arabia, can stay in the U.S. long enough to gain naturalized citizenship, can then move to Iran, join some terrorist group, and his or her kid (born in Iran to one U.S. parent) can some day be President. Right? We were terrified that someone from the House of Lords might move to the U.S. and run for President, but heck, the loyalties of a kid born overseas to one U.S. parent don't bother us.....?
4) I think the 14th Amendment hurt Cruz. Many people believe that the 14th Amendment (which bestows citizenship on anyone born in the U.S. and gives Congress the power to enforce the Amendment) helps Cruz because it gives Congress power and, if you asked Congress, they'd say that Cruz should be a citizen to the maximum amount possible. (This argument also can be bolstered by the power of Congress to make immigration and naturalization laws.) Probably true, but....
The 14th Amendment actually does not make everyone born in the U.S. a citizen. You also must be "subject to the jurisdiction of' the U.S." Cruz fails on both counts - when he was born, he was not born in the U.S., and when he was born, he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. He lived in another country. While one could argue that his mother's citizenship rendered him somehow "subject to the jurisdiction of' the U.S." that is a stretch, particularly in light of #5......
5) Cruz's dad was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Cruz's birth, Cruz is a big believer in "original intent" and the belief that the Constitution does not change with time but, rather, it must be interpreted to reflect only the time in which it was made. When the Constitution was ratified, there is no way that someone who claimed American citizenship only through his mother could have any chance of being considered a natural born U.S. citizen. It was the father's citizenship that mattered. The mother was basically considered chattel as far as the law was concerned. (Recall that women could not even vote until 50+ years after black men could vote).
Laurence Tribe (a constitutional law professor and Democrat) has opined that there are serious issues regarding Cruz's citizenship. Tribe points out that HIS view of the law (that the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted differently as it ages) would help Cruz's position. But Cruz's actual position on the Constitution is that it NEVER evolves and it NEVER can be changed. It meant something in 1788 and it will mean that forever. Well, if so, then the founders clearly understood that someone born in Canada who claimed citizenship only through his mother was, in no way, a "natural born citizen." Sorry, Ted, you are stuck with that understanding from 228 years ago.
I would vote that Cruz is not a natural born citizen, and I would say he is ineligible to be President.
Monday, January 11, 2016
It Is Official -- I Root For the Worst Franchise Ever In NBA Basketball
Last night the Clippers won and the Wolves lost, bringing the Clippers above the Wolves (both are around 39%) for franchise all-time winning percentage.
So, in 26 years, I have paid for season tickets and won 39% of the time, losing roughly 61% of the time.
I doubted that the Lions were better - they are. Or the Bills -- they are.
I am struggling to find any franchise even close to a 39% winning percentage (other than the Wolves for whom I currently root, and the Clips, for whom I rooted in Buffalo).
Well, at least it is official -- pretty certain that no other 26 year plus season ticket holder has a worse franchise record than I.
So, in 26 years, I have paid for season tickets and won 39% of the time, losing roughly 61% of the time.
I doubted that the Lions were better - they are. Or the Bills -- they are.
I am struggling to find any franchise even close to a 39% winning percentage (other than the Wolves for whom I currently root, and the Clips, for whom I rooted in Buffalo).
Well, at least it is official -- pretty certain that no other 26 year plus season ticket holder has a worse franchise record than I.
Wednesday, January 06, 2016
Rubio Super PAC Blasts Chris Christie
No matter how hard you blast Chris Christie, it is hard to dislodge him very far, so I guess you gotta go big or go home.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-christie-marco-rubio-wont-be-able-to-slime-his-way-to-white-house/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17
Two awesome ads and all 100% true. Christie's response about slimy-amnesty-loving Rubio also is 100% accurate.
I love GOP primary ads. So much truth.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-christie-marco-rubio-wont-be-able-to-slime-his-way-to-white-house/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17
Two awesome ads and all 100% true. Christie's response about slimy-amnesty-loving Rubio also is 100% accurate.
I love GOP primary ads. So much truth.
Sunday, January 03, 2016
Things Get Worse and Worse for the Timberwolves
The Wolves started the year 8-8. They are currently 12-22. So they have lost 14 of 18.
Last night against the Bucks, the Wolves led 22-5 and lost by double digits. A difficult thing to do, but even up 17 it never seemed to a fan like the Wolves would win the game.
The Wolves are a horribly dysfunctional team. At the helm is Interim Head Coach Sam Mitchell, who should be happy to remain interim, because once he is fired he will be able to say that since he was labeled "interim" he was never given a fair chance.
The Wolves organization has no idea what it is doing. It lost its leader Flip Saunders (who wasn't doing a particularly good job while he was alive) and has not really replaced him. Of note to me last night was Sidney Lowe's doing a lot of coaching from the bench. Sid is Sam's #1 assistant. Here is Sidney Lowe's career coaching record:
Pros -- 79-228
College -- 86-78 (he coached at NC State and achieved 0 NCAA appearances in 5 years).
When Sidney (a nice guy) starts to take over the sideline, you are floundering.
Sam Mitchell has obviously been told that he has to play Tyus Jones. Sam does not want to do so. So Sam has an episode every game where he screams at Tyus for making a mistake. To punish management for making him play Tyus, Sam has benched his only quality NBA shooter in Kevin Martin, telling him, "Sorry, I have to play the young guys."
And when Sam loses his mind and unloads on Tyus, Rubio (twice) and KG (once) walk out from the bench, remove Tyus from the situation in the huddle, and tell him what he did wrong and how not to do it again. This creates a bizarre situation in which the head coach is irate at a player, but his teammates are not. The players are the adult and the coach is the whiny baby.
Since Tyus has been playing (96 total minutes), Zach LaVine has been put back into his old position as an off guard. Of course, what this has done is cut LaVine's minutes (Sam likes to play Wiggins at off guard, so LaVine doesn't get the 20-24 minutes he was getting when backing up Rubio). What we have learned by watching Zach LaVine play off guard for 15 minutes a game is that he cannot do it. He cannot catch and shoot. He does not spot up in open positions at the 3 point line. He does not do well coming off screens (does not use screens well or shoot well when catching the ball off a screen). He is a very poor defender and thin and weak. He is not an accurate shooter from any distance beyond 3 feet. In his last three games he has registered a NEGATIVE game score for each game. That is very, very difficult to do, and it certainly should not occur when your Usage Rate is pushing 29%. What that says is: you hog the ball a lot when you play and (over the past 3 games) you are one of the worst players in the NBA while you are doing it. Wow.
So, what have we learned about LaVine? He does well only when he can pound the ball for 5-15 seconds and basically wear out an opponent who tires of watching so much dribbling. This is simply not a good strategy for a guy playing PG, but he is so terrible at playing off guard that to get any value out of him you would need to play him at PG and just let him be a far-worse Russell Westbrook -- a PG with a Usage Rate over 30.
Early in the season it was easy to see how much Kevin Martin and LaVine hated one another (at least on the court). But we are now 34 games in and there are a ton of relationships that are poor:
-- Sam hates Tyus
-- LaVine hates Tyus
-- Martin and LaVine hate one another
-- Shabazz hates the fact that he is not playing more
-- Andre Miller hates the whole situation, since he cannot figure out why he is not playing or why the team brought him here,
-- Rubio just last night expressed his disdain for his teammates who could not hold a 20 point lead (therefore putting Rubio at odds with his fellow starters, since the bench was still up 15 when Ricky returned last night).
You can go through many on the Wolves roster and be baffled by what is happening:
-- KG - miraculously has turned it around from early in the year and has become a very good player, but can only play 18 mpg and never plays back to back games. He needs 75 defensive rebounds to pass Artis Gilmore on the NBA/ABA list. He is likely to get it. But KG knows his body cannot hold up, so it is weird to see him accept playing 15 minutes when, at his position more than any, the Wolves need help.
-- Bejelica -- came in and played well for 16 games, then has turned just simply awful. He and the huge guy for the Spurs were all-Euroleague last year. The big guy is great for the Spurs, and "Belly" is awful. He is probably a small forward in the NBA due to his complete lack of strength or toughness, but he is slow footed defensively, so he won't be a good defender as a small forward either.
-- Rubio -- he does nothing in the off season except practice shooting. He still cannot shoot. He is historically the worst shooter the NBA has ever seen. Yet he complains about his teammates' play? If you get your percentage up to 40%, then maybe you will have reason to start complaining.
-- Rudez and Payne -- Rudez and Payne give you about the same thing defensively (they will try hard but are terrible). Payne and Rudez have similar shooting stats, but Payne has played twice as much. Virtually impossible to tell why.
Dieng -- if ever there was a player who fans are split on, it is Gorgui Dieng. If you go through his stats, he has really solid stats. For example, his assist to turnover ratio is better than Towns' ratio. But watching the guy play every other night, there are times that you simply want to kill yourself or him. Can he allow yet another offensive rebound? Get dunked on again? Commit another just horrendous turnover? It is rough to watch, even if the end result is pretty good. It is like watching sausage get made. It can turn you off in a hurry.
Wiggins -- remarkably, Wiggins is getting worse. He simply cannot make a jumper, he is shooting 24% from 3. He is still piss poor at getting steals, blocks and assists, and he has a 28 Usage Rate and .054 WS/48 and at a VORP of less than zero. This means that if you took a random NBA guy who played any and inserted him into the Wolves lineup, he would probably play around the same level, or better, than Wiggins.
Want to see a scary chart, Wolves fans? http://bkref.com/tiny/oEV5P Of the 6 guys in the league who have a Usage of 28+ and a WS/48 and VORP as bad as the figures for Wiggins (or worse) THE TIMBERWOLVES HAVE TWO OF THEM!!!! Tony Wroten has been released. Speights is fat and unhappy. Kyrie (leg) and Kobe (age) have excuses. Then there is Wiggins and LaVine. Yikes.
Sam Mitchell is not a winning coach. He has had one season where he was slightly above .500, and that year he was named Coach of the Year. He seemingly has no offensive or defensive strategy. The Wolves played the Bucks last night and were absolutely beaten to death on side pick and rolls. On both ends. When the Wolves attempted to run a side pick and roll (guard goes outside of the wing screen) the Bucks aggressively trapped the dribbler and made an effective first pass almost impossible. When the Bucks ran side pick and roll, the Wolves tried to help and recover, failing to ever actually recover and failing to get any help in cutting off the pass to the rolling player, resulting in constant scoring by the Bucks.
When someone is beating you to absolute death with one play, perhaps (rather than screaming at your players as if they had committed a crime) you should call time out and say, "Guys, that is not happening anymore. Let's do this: [fill in the blank]." There is absolutely no clearer sign of a bad coach than a coach who just allows a team to beat him doing the same thing repeatedly. I mean, OK, you cannot stop everything an opponent is doing, but you can stop one thing....right? I guess not.
What is the remedy for the Wolves? Well, as I have said for years, it is a thankless job to make suggestions, since there is so much to fix. But here goes:
1) The offense just simply has to take and make more threes. Even if we are making fewer threes than we want, you cannot survive in today's NBA ranking 30th in 3-point attempts and makes and 25th in percentage. Run your offense to set up some threes. Every other team in the league is capable of it.
2) Trade LaVine to someone. If you can get Nerlens Noel for LaVine (a rumored trade)? Done deal. If you can get a low #1? A bag of practice balls? Done and done. He simply is not a winning player, and by the time he figures out how to be a winning player (if ever) he will be long gone from Minnesota.
3) Sit down with Wiggins and explain expectations -- the typical NBA player is at his peak of athletic ability at age 27. Andrew Wiggins will be crippled by age 27. You simply cannot take the ball at 3-4 huge men every possession. Work on your jumper, gain some weight, lift weights. And, most of all, for the love of God, please try to put up stats that do not resemble Kevin Martin's non-shooting stats. Try to get 1.4 steals, 0.6 blocks, 5 rebounds, 3 assists. That should be your goal for the season. These are the guys you should aspire to be: http://bkref.com/tiny/xn29i If you do all of those things and work on your jumper, the points and accolades will come.
4) Fire Sam and the entire basketball side of the operation. A secret that not many know -- the Wolves' non-basketball side (fan relations, media, etc.) is excellent. The basketball side, however -- I mean, come on. Look Glen Taylor, you need to go out and find competent people and give them a lot of money and power. You simply cannot continue to allow marginal employees to run an organization that finally has a chance of actually becoming good. Wiggins should be much better than he is and he has huge upside for talent. Towns is a potential star (he is on pace for 6+ Win Shares as a 20 year old player). Rubio, if someone could teach him to shoot, would be an above average NBA guard. I know that I am in the minority, but I think Tyus Jones will become a good NBA player.
You need to find someone to accurately evaluate your assets. Some examples -- I hate LaVine, but a lot of people love him. So find an experienced NBA guy who can tell you "He is a _________ and we should keep/trade him" Same with Pekovic. Same with Dieng. Same with Shabazz. Same with Kevin Martin. What are they as an asset? Can they be starting players on a playoff team? Good backup players? Do teams elsewhere value them at a level above their actual ability (so we can get more for them than they are actually worth)?
You just never feel with the Wolves that they understand what they have or how to get the best out of it. I mean, Bazz may be a 20 ppg guy. He may be a guy whose defense is always so awful that he will never play 10+ minutes on a playoff team. I'd say he fits roughly in between those two guideposts, but I have not been a successful NBA coach or NBA GM for 5-10-15 years. Sadly, neither has anyone in charge of the Wolves currently.
There. Enough bitching for now.
Last night against the Bucks, the Wolves led 22-5 and lost by double digits. A difficult thing to do, but even up 17 it never seemed to a fan like the Wolves would win the game.
The Wolves are a horribly dysfunctional team. At the helm is Interim Head Coach Sam Mitchell, who should be happy to remain interim, because once he is fired he will be able to say that since he was labeled "interim" he was never given a fair chance.
The Wolves organization has no idea what it is doing. It lost its leader Flip Saunders (who wasn't doing a particularly good job while he was alive) and has not really replaced him. Of note to me last night was Sidney Lowe's doing a lot of coaching from the bench. Sid is Sam's #1 assistant. Here is Sidney Lowe's career coaching record:
Pros -- 79-228
College -- 86-78 (he coached at NC State and achieved 0 NCAA appearances in 5 years).
When Sidney (a nice guy) starts to take over the sideline, you are floundering.
Sam Mitchell has obviously been told that he has to play Tyus Jones. Sam does not want to do so. So Sam has an episode every game where he screams at Tyus for making a mistake. To punish management for making him play Tyus, Sam has benched his only quality NBA shooter in Kevin Martin, telling him, "Sorry, I have to play the young guys."
And when Sam loses his mind and unloads on Tyus, Rubio (twice) and KG (once) walk out from the bench, remove Tyus from the situation in the huddle, and tell him what he did wrong and how not to do it again. This creates a bizarre situation in which the head coach is irate at a player, but his teammates are not. The players are the adult and the coach is the whiny baby.
Since Tyus has been playing (96 total minutes), Zach LaVine has been put back into his old position as an off guard. Of course, what this has done is cut LaVine's minutes (Sam likes to play Wiggins at off guard, so LaVine doesn't get the 20-24 minutes he was getting when backing up Rubio). What we have learned by watching Zach LaVine play off guard for 15 minutes a game is that he cannot do it. He cannot catch and shoot. He does not spot up in open positions at the 3 point line. He does not do well coming off screens (does not use screens well or shoot well when catching the ball off a screen). He is a very poor defender and thin and weak. He is not an accurate shooter from any distance beyond 3 feet. In his last three games he has registered a NEGATIVE game score for each game. That is very, very difficult to do, and it certainly should not occur when your Usage Rate is pushing 29%. What that says is: you hog the ball a lot when you play and (over the past 3 games) you are one of the worst players in the NBA while you are doing it. Wow.
So, what have we learned about LaVine? He does well only when he can pound the ball for 5-15 seconds and basically wear out an opponent who tires of watching so much dribbling. This is simply not a good strategy for a guy playing PG, but he is so terrible at playing off guard that to get any value out of him you would need to play him at PG and just let him be a far-worse Russell Westbrook -- a PG with a Usage Rate over 30.
Early in the season it was easy to see how much Kevin Martin and LaVine hated one another (at least on the court). But we are now 34 games in and there are a ton of relationships that are poor:
-- Sam hates Tyus
-- LaVine hates Tyus
-- Martin and LaVine hate one another
-- Shabazz hates the fact that he is not playing more
-- Andre Miller hates the whole situation, since he cannot figure out why he is not playing or why the team brought him here,
-- Rubio just last night expressed his disdain for his teammates who could not hold a 20 point lead (therefore putting Rubio at odds with his fellow starters, since the bench was still up 15 when Ricky returned last night).
You can go through many on the Wolves roster and be baffled by what is happening:
-- KG - miraculously has turned it around from early in the year and has become a very good player, but can only play 18 mpg and never plays back to back games. He needs 75 defensive rebounds to pass Artis Gilmore on the NBA/ABA list. He is likely to get it. But KG knows his body cannot hold up, so it is weird to see him accept playing 15 minutes when, at his position more than any, the Wolves need help.
-- Bejelica -- came in and played well for 16 games, then has turned just simply awful. He and the huge guy for the Spurs were all-Euroleague last year. The big guy is great for the Spurs, and "Belly" is awful. He is probably a small forward in the NBA due to his complete lack of strength or toughness, but he is slow footed defensively, so he won't be a good defender as a small forward either.
-- Rubio -- he does nothing in the off season except practice shooting. He still cannot shoot. He is historically the worst shooter the NBA has ever seen. Yet he complains about his teammates' play? If you get your percentage up to 40%, then maybe you will have reason to start complaining.
-- Rudez and Payne -- Rudez and Payne give you about the same thing defensively (they will try hard but are terrible). Payne and Rudez have similar shooting stats, but Payne has played twice as much. Virtually impossible to tell why.
Dieng -- if ever there was a player who fans are split on, it is Gorgui Dieng. If you go through his stats, he has really solid stats. For example, his assist to turnover ratio is better than Towns' ratio. But watching the guy play every other night, there are times that you simply want to kill yourself or him. Can he allow yet another offensive rebound? Get dunked on again? Commit another just horrendous turnover? It is rough to watch, even if the end result is pretty good. It is like watching sausage get made. It can turn you off in a hurry.
Wiggins -- remarkably, Wiggins is getting worse. He simply cannot make a jumper, he is shooting 24% from 3. He is still piss poor at getting steals, blocks and assists, and he has a 28 Usage Rate and .054 WS/48 and at a VORP of less than zero. This means that if you took a random NBA guy who played any and inserted him into the Wolves lineup, he would probably play around the same level, or better, than Wiggins.
Want to see a scary chart, Wolves fans? http://bkref.com/tiny/oEV5P Of the 6 guys in the league who have a Usage of 28+ and a WS/48 and VORP as bad as the figures for Wiggins (or worse) THE TIMBERWOLVES HAVE TWO OF THEM!!!! Tony Wroten has been released. Speights is fat and unhappy. Kyrie (leg) and Kobe (age) have excuses. Then there is Wiggins and LaVine. Yikes.
Sam Mitchell is not a winning coach. He has had one season where he was slightly above .500, and that year he was named Coach of the Year. He seemingly has no offensive or defensive strategy. The Wolves played the Bucks last night and were absolutely beaten to death on side pick and rolls. On both ends. When the Wolves attempted to run a side pick and roll (guard goes outside of the wing screen) the Bucks aggressively trapped the dribbler and made an effective first pass almost impossible. When the Bucks ran side pick and roll, the Wolves tried to help and recover, failing to ever actually recover and failing to get any help in cutting off the pass to the rolling player, resulting in constant scoring by the Bucks.
When someone is beating you to absolute death with one play, perhaps (rather than screaming at your players as if they had committed a crime) you should call time out and say, "Guys, that is not happening anymore. Let's do this: [fill in the blank]." There is absolutely no clearer sign of a bad coach than a coach who just allows a team to beat him doing the same thing repeatedly. I mean, OK, you cannot stop everything an opponent is doing, but you can stop one thing....right? I guess not.
What is the remedy for the Wolves? Well, as I have said for years, it is a thankless job to make suggestions, since there is so much to fix. But here goes:
1) The offense just simply has to take and make more threes. Even if we are making fewer threes than we want, you cannot survive in today's NBA ranking 30th in 3-point attempts and makes and 25th in percentage. Run your offense to set up some threes. Every other team in the league is capable of it.
2) Trade LaVine to someone. If you can get Nerlens Noel for LaVine (a rumored trade)? Done deal. If you can get a low #1? A bag of practice balls? Done and done. He simply is not a winning player, and by the time he figures out how to be a winning player (if ever) he will be long gone from Minnesota.
3) Sit down with Wiggins and explain expectations -- the typical NBA player is at his peak of athletic ability at age 27. Andrew Wiggins will be crippled by age 27. You simply cannot take the ball at 3-4 huge men every possession. Work on your jumper, gain some weight, lift weights. And, most of all, for the love of God, please try to put up stats that do not resemble Kevin Martin's non-shooting stats. Try to get 1.4 steals, 0.6 blocks, 5 rebounds, 3 assists. That should be your goal for the season. These are the guys you should aspire to be: http://bkref.com/tiny/xn29i If you do all of those things and work on your jumper, the points and accolades will come.
4) Fire Sam and the entire basketball side of the operation. A secret that not many know -- the Wolves' non-basketball side (fan relations, media, etc.) is excellent. The basketball side, however -- I mean, come on. Look Glen Taylor, you need to go out and find competent people and give them a lot of money and power. You simply cannot continue to allow marginal employees to run an organization that finally has a chance of actually becoming good. Wiggins should be much better than he is and he has huge upside for talent. Towns is a potential star (he is on pace for 6+ Win Shares as a 20 year old player). Rubio, if someone could teach him to shoot, would be an above average NBA guard. I know that I am in the minority, but I think Tyus Jones will become a good NBA player.
You need to find someone to accurately evaluate your assets. Some examples -- I hate LaVine, but a lot of people love him. So find an experienced NBA guy who can tell you "He is a _________ and we should keep/trade him" Same with Pekovic. Same with Dieng. Same with Shabazz. Same with Kevin Martin. What are they as an asset? Can they be starting players on a playoff team? Good backup players? Do teams elsewhere value them at a level above their actual ability (so we can get more for them than they are actually worth)?
You just never feel with the Wolves that they understand what they have or how to get the best out of it. I mean, Bazz may be a 20 ppg guy. He may be a guy whose defense is always so awful that he will never play 10+ minutes on a playoff team. I'd say he fits roughly in between those two guideposts, but I have not been a successful NBA coach or NBA GM for 5-10-15 years. Sadly, neither has anyone in charge of the Wolves currently.
There. Enough bitching for now.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Happy 31st Birthday to LeBron James
So, for guys who met my criteria as statistically top 100 NBA players while under the age of 31.5 (basketball-reference measures player age as "how old were you on February 1 of that season") we get these stats for the regular season:
http://bkref.com/tiny/LsAUt
Where does LeBron James rank on this list (he still has January, February, March, and most of April to play this year, so his raw numbers will likely go up)?
Regular Season Win Shares -- 2nd 0.2 behind Wilt, LBJ will likely be #1
Points -- 2nd, 133 behind Kobe, LBJ will likely be #1
Games Started -- 2nd behind KG, LBJ will likely be #1
FG made -- 2nd, substantially behind Wilt
Turnovers - 2nd behind Magic (he will not catch Magic)
FG attempted - 3rd behind Kobe and Wilt - he won't catch Wilt
Games Played - 3rd behind Kobe and KG, he won't catch KG
Minutes Played - 3rd, he will catch KG most likely and be #1
Assists - 6th, over 3,400 behind Magic
PER -- 6th this is a declining stat, he won't reach higher than 6th (Jordan #1)
WS/48 -- 8th see above (Jordan #1)
Steals 8th, over 400 behind Stockton
James 29th in blocks, 32nd in rebounds
Funny one -- he is only 67th in fouls, Shawn Kemp had over 500 more fouls by age 31.5 than anyone else on the list!
PLAYOFFS
http://bkref.com/tiny/ZqExp
Playoff Win Shares - #1
Category finishes of 2nd place (before this set of playoffs, in some categories he can move up): FG, FGA, Assists, Steals, Turnovers, Points, Games Started, Minutes Played
PER -- 4th (Jordan, Mikan Shaq)
Rebounds -- 5th
WS/48 -- 5th (Mikan, Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, LeBron).
Blocks -- 9th
I find it interesting that LeBron follows (in order) Jordan, Wilt and Kareem in Playoff WS/48 since I have him ranked as the #4 overall player in NBA history, behind those three guys, in that order.
http://bkref.com/tiny/LsAUt
Where does LeBron James rank on this list (he still has January, February, March, and most of April to play this year, so his raw numbers will likely go up)?
Regular Season Win Shares -- 2nd 0.2 behind Wilt, LBJ will likely be #1
Points -- 2nd, 133 behind Kobe, LBJ will likely be #1
Games Started -- 2nd behind KG, LBJ will likely be #1
FG made -- 2nd, substantially behind Wilt
Turnovers - 2nd behind Magic (he will not catch Magic)
FG attempted - 3rd behind Kobe and Wilt - he won't catch Wilt
Games Played - 3rd behind Kobe and KG, he won't catch KG
Minutes Played - 3rd, he will catch KG most likely and be #1
Assists - 6th, over 3,400 behind Magic
PER -- 6th this is a declining stat, he won't reach higher than 6th (Jordan #1)
WS/48 -- 8th see above (Jordan #1)
Steals 8th, over 400 behind Stockton
James 29th in blocks, 32nd in rebounds
Funny one -- he is only 67th in fouls, Shawn Kemp had over 500 more fouls by age 31.5 than anyone else on the list!
PLAYOFFS
http://bkref.com/tiny/ZqExp
Playoff Win Shares - #1
Category finishes of 2nd place (before this set of playoffs, in some categories he can move up): FG, FGA, Assists, Steals, Turnovers, Points, Games Started, Minutes Played
PER -- 4th (Jordan, Mikan Shaq)
Rebounds -- 5th
WS/48 -- 5th (Mikan, Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, LeBron).
Blocks -- 9th
I find it interesting that LeBron follows (in order) Jordan, Wilt and Kareem in Playoff WS/48 since I have him ranked as the #4 overall player in NBA history, behind those three guys, in that order.
Monday, December 21, 2015
Anthony Bennett - Sent to the D League
The first ever #1 overall pick to go to the D League
When Cleveland drafted Bennett at #1 overall, I was stunned. I had never seen or read any draft preview that had him at #1. (It was a terrible draft, but still, Bennett's name was top 5 or top 3, never #1).
I then, of course, went and looked at his highlight film, including a breakdown of strengths and weaknesses. When your weaknesses are listed as "poor ball handler, selfish, overweight and undersized" then I am not sure how any team could pick you top 5, let alone #1.
Watching Bennett play in Minnesota -- he tries hard. He could be a plus rebounder if given minutes. He has good form on his jumper and can make a wide open shot. He occasionally shows bursts of athletic ability where he will flash (block a shot, dunk on the break).
The problems with Bennett as a player:
1) He has terrible shot selection. He thinks he is a scorer. He is not. Therefore, when he gets the ball he thinks he needs to shoot it. Guys can be 6 inches from him when he receives the ball and he will still shoot it. There are no players in the NBA who can be effective as catch and shoot players when their guy is right up on them. He never figured that out.
2) He has very poor agility. This means that he cannot shot fake and do anything. If he starts to shoot, just jump out on his shooting hand as hard as you can. He cannot dribble, he cannot drive, he cannot escape dribble and re-set his feet. He cannot do anything. This means that he can only be an offensive option when left wide open.
3) He needs a running start to jump well. I haven't gone through and analyzed tape, but I would guess that AB is a 2-foot jumper. He needs some space and a run up to gather his body weight and get up in the air. Look, Nique and KG are both two-foot jumpers also, but they are freakishly athletic and agile. Bennett, on the other hand, being undersized and not agile, struggles mightily to defend inside or get his own shot off in the post. So, if you are a poor interior defender and cannot score inside, exactly when can you play? I guess if you are a 50% three point shooter like Matt Bonner, you can play. But you need a great team to hide all of your weaknesses.
4) He will always have the stigma of being a #1 pick. Look, if you found a hard working 23 year old guy who was 6'8", occasionally athletic and who could hit an open shot, you'd work with him to see if he could be a contributor (Bennett is certainly no worse of a player than Adrian Payne, whom the Wolves traded a mid-one to get). But there is a stigma to trading for a sucky failed draft pick. People know his weaknesses and they see him on the court and go -- "Go right at him defensively and get up on him offensively". Most mediocre bench players can get 4-8 points a game for a stretch simply because the other team's bench players don't spend any time studying their strengths or weaknesses. Not true with failed high draft picks.
The saddest thing about Bennett is that he is not lazy. He worked to get himself into better shape. He works on his jumper. He asked to be sent to the D League. He wants to be good. I saw him play for Team Canada. Against poor athletes, his willingness to play hard and be active made him look like a better player than Andrew Wiggins (who always seems willing to float and do nothing if he can). But Bennett is undersized and not agile and lacks judgment. Wiggins is properly sized, unbelievably athletic and, if anything, does not try to do ENOUGH on the court.
Good luck, Anthony Bennett. Perhaps some day you will be a 10 point and 5 rebound guy off the bench for someone. I will root for you because you try and because it is not your fault that someone picked you #1 overall.
A personal note -- I once was in a tennis tournament at an old law firm that I worked for in the summer of 1987. I am not a good tennis player. I try, and I have played a lot with my brother, but I am not good. But in 1987, I was 23 and a very good athlete (I could get the ball back in play). As the tourney continued on, I was beating guys just because I could get the ball back and they were old and would make mistakes. I reached the finals, where I was quickly dispatched 6-0, winning maybe 4 points all match. The response? "My lord, HM sucks. How did he ever reach the final? Good lord. His presence just makes everyone look bad." On Monday, the word around the office was about how badly I sucked in the final and how everyone was embarrassed for me.
What was I supposed to have done? Lose on purpose? I had reached the final. I tried, but against truly good competition, I sucked. I think, ultimately, Anthony Bennett may look back on his career and say the same thing. ala James Ingram, "I did my best, but I guess my best wasn't good enough..."
When Cleveland drafted Bennett at #1 overall, I was stunned. I had never seen or read any draft preview that had him at #1. (It was a terrible draft, but still, Bennett's name was top 5 or top 3, never #1).
I then, of course, went and looked at his highlight film, including a breakdown of strengths and weaknesses. When your weaknesses are listed as "poor ball handler, selfish, overweight and undersized" then I am not sure how any team could pick you top 5, let alone #1.
Watching Bennett play in Minnesota -- he tries hard. He could be a plus rebounder if given minutes. He has good form on his jumper and can make a wide open shot. He occasionally shows bursts of athletic ability where he will flash (block a shot, dunk on the break).
The problems with Bennett as a player:
1) He has terrible shot selection. He thinks he is a scorer. He is not. Therefore, when he gets the ball he thinks he needs to shoot it. Guys can be 6 inches from him when he receives the ball and he will still shoot it. There are no players in the NBA who can be effective as catch and shoot players when their guy is right up on them. He never figured that out.
2) He has very poor agility. This means that he cannot shot fake and do anything. If he starts to shoot, just jump out on his shooting hand as hard as you can. He cannot dribble, he cannot drive, he cannot escape dribble and re-set his feet. He cannot do anything. This means that he can only be an offensive option when left wide open.
3) He needs a running start to jump well. I haven't gone through and analyzed tape, but I would guess that AB is a 2-foot jumper. He needs some space and a run up to gather his body weight and get up in the air. Look, Nique and KG are both two-foot jumpers also, but they are freakishly athletic and agile. Bennett, on the other hand, being undersized and not agile, struggles mightily to defend inside or get his own shot off in the post. So, if you are a poor interior defender and cannot score inside, exactly when can you play? I guess if you are a 50% three point shooter like Matt Bonner, you can play. But you need a great team to hide all of your weaknesses.
4) He will always have the stigma of being a #1 pick. Look, if you found a hard working 23 year old guy who was 6'8", occasionally athletic and who could hit an open shot, you'd work with him to see if he could be a contributor (Bennett is certainly no worse of a player than Adrian Payne, whom the Wolves traded a mid-one to get). But there is a stigma to trading for a sucky failed draft pick. People know his weaknesses and they see him on the court and go -- "Go right at him defensively and get up on him offensively". Most mediocre bench players can get 4-8 points a game for a stretch simply because the other team's bench players don't spend any time studying their strengths or weaknesses. Not true with failed high draft picks.
The saddest thing about Bennett is that he is not lazy. He worked to get himself into better shape. He works on his jumper. He asked to be sent to the D League. He wants to be good. I saw him play for Team Canada. Against poor athletes, his willingness to play hard and be active made him look like a better player than Andrew Wiggins (who always seems willing to float and do nothing if he can). But Bennett is undersized and not agile and lacks judgment. Wiggins is properly sized, unbelievably athletic and, if anything, does not try to do ENOUGH on the court.
Good luck, Anthony Bennett. Perhaps some day you will be a 10 point and 5 rebound guy off the bench for someone. I will root for you because you try and because it is not your fault that someone picked you #1 overall.
A personal note -- I once was in a tennis tournament at an old law firm that I worked for in the summer of 1987. I am not a good tennis player. I try, and I have played a lot with my brother, but I am not good. But in 1987, I was 23 and a very good athlete (I could get the ball back in play). As the tourney continued on, I was beating guys just because I could get the ball back and they were old and would make mistakes. I reached the finals, where I was quickly dispatched 6-0, winning maybe 4 points all match. The response? "My lord, HM sucks. How did he ever reach the final? Good lord. His presence just makes everyone look bad." On Monday, the word around the office was about how badly I sucked in the final and how everyone was embarrassed for me.
What was I supposed to have done? Lose on purpose? I had reached the final. I tried, but against truly good competition, I sucked. I think, ultimately, Anthony Bennett may look back on his career and say the same thing. ala James Ingram, "I did my best, but I guess my best wasn't good enough..."
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Marco Rubio aka "Mr.Amnesty Is Great!"
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/rubio-i-think-american-people-are-going-be-reasonable-11m-illegal-aliens
So THIS guy wants to be the Republican nominee? THIS is their savior? A name born to non-citizens who is pro-immigration/amnesty?
We will see if GOP voters can him rammed down their throats by their wealthy overlords, just like they did with McCain and Romney.
So THIS guy wants to be the Republican nominee? THIS is their savior? A name born to non-citizens who is pro-immigration/amnesty?
We will see if GOP voters can him rammed down their throats by their wealthy overlords, just like they did with McCain and Romney.
Chris Christie -- "I Will Be More Trusted By a Guy Dead Since 1999"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chris-christie-hell-trusted-dead-king-jordan/story?id=35785558
Well, in his defense, Chris had just been moved up from JV and was not used to people actually watching him debate.
And I think he was probably really hungry.
Well, in his defense, Chris had just been moved up from JV and was not used to people actually watching him debate.
And I think he was probably really hungry.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Trump Up 25% in Zogby Poll
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/poll-donald-trump-widens-lead/2015/12/09/id/705229/
Here is what I do not understand about all of the hand wringing regarding Trump:
1) According to THIS: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-middle-class-now-smaller-144022535.html, 20% of households make less than $42,000 a year, 49% of households make between $42K and $126K, and that leaves 31% of U.S. households making over $126,000 a year....31% seems high to me, but I guess that is how I am reading this. (If 31% is high, that makes my pro-Trump point even stronger).
2) If you look at 2012 exit polls, Obama gets about 60% of votes in the sub-$50K area, 46% in middle class and 44% above that. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/
(I should note that I have seen some exit polls broken out by state and in the northern states Obama gets like 70% of the poor and in the southern states Romney gets over 55% of the poor -- southern poor folks vote more GOP than do northern poor folks....at least in 2012).
4) So, assuming that poor or middle class GOP voters = .4X20% plus .54X49% --
about 35% of the country is poor or middle class Romney voters and the other 12% of the country that voted for Romney is rich GOP.
5) That means that there are at least 3 times as many GOP voters who will NOT benefit directly from tax breaks for the wealthy as there are GOP voters who WILL benefit from tax breaks for the wealthy. (Recall that Obama only repealed the tax cuts of GWB above $250K for singles and $400K for married filing jointly, so the number is probably 4-5-6 times more non-tax-voters, but I will use 3X since I have to assume that the wealthy vote more often than do the poor).
6) You have to assume, then, that 75% of GOP voters are people who care more about the other GOP party planks -- guns and God (including anti-abortion here) and overall hatred of minorities and immigrants.
Why would ANY of these 75% of voters prefer a candidate like Jeb Bush who is kinda weak and mealy-mouthed and talks about how tax cuts will lead to 4% compounded annual growth? Would they not be FAR more likely to vote for someone who screams about how he will kill every enemy of the state and their families? Trump should have at least 3 voters to every one for Bush....and he does.
The only real crack in Trump' political wall is the second G - God. He is a many times divorced northerner who is not a born-again evangelical. That is why his closest pursuers are usually Cruz and Carson, both of whom want the country run by their interpretation of the Bible.
Look, you may not like Trump, but he has a very solid appeal to 75% of the GOP base. Unless he is shown trucking illegal immigrants and terrorists into the country in the back of a car stolen from Ted Nugent, I don't see any reason why his poll numbers should decline. He epitomizes what 35% of the country loves the most.
Here is what I do not understand about all of the hand wringing regarding Trump:
1) According to THIS: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-middle-class-now-smaller-144022535.html, 20% of households make less than $42,000 a year, 49% of households make between $42K and $126K, and that leaves 31% of U.S. households making over $126,000 a year....31% seems high to me, but I guess that is how I am reading this. (If 31% is high, that makes my pro-Trump point even stronger).
2) If you look at 2012 exit polls, Obama gets about 60% of votes in the sub-$50K area, 46% in middle class and 44% above that. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/
(I should note that I have seen some exit polls broken out by state and in the northern states Obama gets like 70% of the poor and in the southern states Romney gets over 55% of the poor -- southern poor folks vote more GOP than do northern poor folks....at least in 2012).
4) So, assuming that poor or middle class GOP voters = .4X20% plus .54X49% --
about 35% of the country is poor or middle class Romney voters and the other 12% of the country that voted for Romney is rich GOP.
5) That means that there are at least 3 times as many GOP voters who will NOT benefit directly from tax breaks for the wealthy as there are GOP voters who WILL benefit from tax breaks for the wealthy. (Recall that Obama only repealed the tax cuts of GWB above $250K for singles and $400K for married filing jointly, so the number is probably 4-5-6 times more non-tax-voters, but I will use 3X since I have to assume that the wealthy vote more often than do the poor).
6) You have to assume, then, that 75% of GOP voters are people who care more about the other GOP party planks -- guns and God (including anti-abortion here) and overall hatred of minorities and immigrants.
Why would ANY of these 75% of voters prefer a candidate like Jeb Bush who is kinda weak and mealy-mouthed and talks about how tax cuts will lead to 4% compounded annual growth? Would they not be FAR more likely to vote for someone who screams about how he will kill every enemy of the state and their families? Trump should have at least 3 voters to every one for Bush....and he does.
The only real crack in Trump' political wall is the second G - God. He is a many times divorced northerner who is not a born-again evangelical. That is why his closest pursuers are usually Cruz and Carson, both of whom want the country run by their interpretation of the Bible.
Look, you may not like Trump, but he has a very solid appeal to 75% of the GOP base. Unless he is shown trucking illegal immigrants and terrorists into the country in the back of a car stolen from Ted Nugent, I don't see any reason why his poll numbers should decline. He epitomizes what 35% of the country loves the most.
Tuesday, December 08, 2015
Things That Concern Me About the 2015-16 Timberwolves
The Wolves continue to give me (a 26 year season ticket holder) the giant middle finger by playing so awfully at home (2-8 versus 6-3 on the road). But their apparent hatred for their home court/home fans is not what troubles me. Here are some things that trouble me:
1) The failure of Sam Mitchell to find a rotation and 5 go-to guys. Look, it is a basic element of any good NBA team that they have guys whom they can turn to at key times, including end of game, and say, "Go get em." Now, the 5 guys may vary slightly (maybe you choose 5 of 6 or 5 of 7 depending upon who plays well) but it cannot just be a horrible jumble or grab bag where you go "Well, I guess Towns won't play at all in the 4th tonight....for some reason...."
As George Karl once screamed at Marcus Camby as he sulked off the floor at Target Center, "It is called a player rotation. Get used to it." The Wolves' players never have to worry about hearing that from Sam, as he appears to pick names out of hat throughout the game.
2) Andrew Wiggins' Game Is Less Efficient and Overall Less Productive -- His shooting has actually gotten worse. He percentage is down across the board, but he is taking more 3s. His jumper is all kinds of crazy looking and he is squeezing off shots with absolutely no rhythm. As a rookie he had a beautiful release and perfect rotation. He now shoots the ball as if it were aflame when he receives it, often resulting in wild side spin efforts that clank harshly.
Add to this the fact that Wiggins (already sort of a Jeb Bush-ian "low energy" player away from the ball) has had his numbers in assists, rebounds, steals+blocks ALL go down this year. How is that possible? The guy to whom I most often compare Wiggy's upside is Paul George. Paul George's rebounds and assists numbers are DOUBLE those of Wiggins. It isn't like the Wolves are so awesome that there are just not enough stats to go around. If Shabazz Muhammed can play 20 minutes and get 9 rebounds, certainly Wiggins could get his overall rebounding up to 6 a game.
3) The Tyus Jones Fiasco -- Look, the Wolves traded to get Tyus. They obviously felt they had a player who could play in the NBA. Now I realize that Flip (who loved Tyus) died, but the the situation in Minnesota just seems to scream out for Tyus to play the backup point guard. LaVine is far more productive and happy playing off guard. One of Rubio's best attributes is he can play 36-44 minutes a game. So you play Rubio and you play Jones 4 to 12 minutes off the bench.
The rap on Jones is that he is small and cannot defend. The Wolves last year played Zach LaVine almost 2,000 minutes, often at starting PG. He had negative Win Shares for the year. His Offensive Rating was 19 points worse than his Defensive Rating, for the year. Now, you take Tyus and you actually play him and you don't make him play out of position and you play him 6 minutes when he is awful and 15 when he is good. How much worse could he be than LaVine was last year?
Instead, what the Wolves have done is use LaVine at PG, a position where he will never be happy or particularly great, and send Tyus to the D League to languish in Boise. All for.....what? So they can solidify LaVine as Rubio's backup? So they can get time for Tayshaun Prince?
4) Kevin Martin May Have Just Straight Out "Lost It." Not including his rookie year, when he played only 455 minutes, Kevin Martin's worst PER has been 14.8. His PER this year is 10.8. If Kevin Martin is a sub-par offensive player, you may as well release him, because he is a poor defender, he won't rebound, and he never gets an assist. If you play him with Wiggins, you have two guys who may very well combine for fewer than 5 rebounds and 5 assists in 70 minutes of combined play. That sucks.
If Martin has "lost it" then you need to move him and get what you can. But if you came into the season (as I did) thinking you have an above average off guard and now you have a terrible off guard, that is a huge problem.
5) End of Game Substitutions -- as a general rule, Kevin Garnett and Tayshaun Prince cannot score. They should NEVER be in the game at the end when you need a basket to catch up or go ahead. Yet Sam Mitchell, oddly, doesn't go offense-defense in late game situations and the ball will end up with one of these oldsters, who is often (wisely) left all alone by opponents. Similarly confusing is Sam's insistence that Tayshaun Prince can still stop good offensive players. If you look at his "Per 100" stats, Tayshaun Prince stopped being a good defensive player around 2008: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/princta01.html which was the last full season where he posted a Defensive Rating of 106 or lower.
Prince will be 36 this coming year, so it really isn't his fault. But why Sam consistently refers to him as "our best defender" is a mystery, as he ranks 10th on the Wolves in Defensive Rating, one spot behind Zach LaVine.
6) History If I know anything from watching sports for probably 47 of my 51 years it is that it is very easy to be a loser, and very hard to change a losing atmosphere/history. When you are 8-11, it is far easier to drop to 8-15 than it is to rise to 12-11.
1) The failure of Sam Mitchell to find a rotation and 5 go-to guys. Look, it is a basic element of any good NBA team that they have guys whom they can turn to at key times, including end of game, and say, "Go get em." Now, the 5 guys may vary slightly (maybe you choose 5 of 6 or 5 of 7 depending upon who plays well) but it cannot just be a horrible jumble or grab bag where you go "Well, I guess Towns won't play at all in the 4th tonight....for some reason...."
As George Karl once screamed at Marcus Camby as he sulked off the floor at Target Center, "It is called a player rotation. Get used to it." The Wolves' players never have to worry about hearing that from Sam, as he appears to pick names out of hat throughout the game.
2) Andrew Wiggins' Game Is Less Efficient and Overall Less Productive -- His shooting has actually gotten worse. He percentage is down across the board, but he is taking more 3s. His jumper is all kinds of crazy looking and he is squeezing off shots with absolutely no rhythm. As a rookie he had a beautiful release and perfect rotation. He now shoots the ball as if it were aflame when he receives it, often resulting in wild side spin efforts that clank harshly.
Add to this the fact that Wiggins (already sort of a Jeb Bush-ian "low energy" player away from the ball) has had his numbers in assists, rebounds, steals+blocks ALL go down this year. How is that possible? The guy to whom I most often compare Wiggy's upside is Paul George. Paul George's rebounds and assists numbers are DOUBLE those of Wiggins. It isn't like the Wolves are so awesome that there are just not enough stats to go around. If Shabazz Muhammed can play 20 minutes and get 9 rebounds, certainly Wiggins could get his overall rebounding up to 6 a game.
3) The Tyus Jones Fiasco -- Look, the Wolves traded to get Tyus. They obviously felt they had a player who could play in the NBA. Now I realize that Flip (who loved Tyus) died, but the the situation in Minnesota just seems to scream out for Tyus to play the backup point guard. LaVine is far more productive and happy playing off guard. One of Rubio's best attributes is he can play 36-44 minutes a game. So you play Rubio and you play Jones 4 to 12 minutes off the bench.
The rap on Jones is that he is small and cannot defend. The Wolves last year played Zach LaVine almost 2,000 minutes, often at starting PG. He had negative Win Shares for the year. His Offensive Rating was 19 points worse than his Defensive Rating, for the year. Now, you take Tyus and you actually play him and you don't make him play out of position and you play him 6 minutes when he is awful and 15 when he is good. How much worse could he be than LaVine was last year?
Instead, what the Wolves have done is use LaVine at PG, a position where he will never be happy or particularly great, and send Tyus to the D League to languish in Boise. All for.....what? So they can solidify LaVine as Rubio's backup? So they can get time for Tayshaun Prince?
4) Kevin Martin May Have Just Straight Out "Lost It." Not including his rookie year, when he played only 455 minutes, Kevin Martin's worst PER has been 14.8. His PER this year is 10.8. If Kevin Martin is a sub-par offensive player, you may as well release him, because he is a poor defender, he won't rebound, and he never gets an assist. If you play him with Wiggins, you have two guys who may very well combine for fewer than 5 rebounds and 5 assists in 70 minutes of combined play. That sucks.
If Martin has "lost it" then you need to move him and get what you can. But if you came into the season (as I did) thinking you have an above average off guard and now you have a terrible off guard, that is a huge problem.
5) End of Game Substitutions -- as a general rule, Kevin Garnett and Tayshaun Prince cannot score. They should NEVER be in the game at the end when you need a basket to catch up or go ahead. Yet Sam Mitchell, oddly, doesn't go offense-defense in late game situations and the ball will end up with one of these oldsters, who is often (wisely) left all alone by opponents. Similarly confusing is Sam's insistence that Tayshaun Prince can still stop good offensive players. If you look at his "Per 100" stats, Tayshaun Prince stopped being a good defensive player around 2008: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/princta01.html which was the last full season where he posted a Defensive Rating of 106 or lower.
Prince will be 36 this coming year, so it really isn't his fault. But why Sam consistently refers to him as "our best defender" is a mystery, as he ranks 10th on the Wolves in Defensive Rating, one spot behind Zach LaVine.
6) History If I know anything from watching sports for probably 47 of my 51 years it is that it is very easy to be a loser, and very hard to change a losing atmosphere/history. When you are 8-11, it is far easier to drop to 8-15 than it is to rise to 12-11.
Saturday, December 05, 2015
Kobe's Historically Terrible 2015-16 Season Thus Far
Currently in the middle of the list of all-time shittiest Trash Heap seasons.
http://bkref.com/tiny/ifZMo
How to explain the historical crappiness of this Kobe season? Well, Kobe is on pace to shoot the ball between 800 and 1200 times this year (depending upon injury and whether he ever develops a conscience) If he reaches 1200 shot attempts and shoots his current 30%, or so, he will be performing at a level of inefficiency not seen since the late 1940s or early 1950s. In fact, only Joe Fulks has seasons where he shot the ball so many times and had such a low percentage. Of course. When Fulks shot 30-33%, that was far closer to league average.
Kobe has negative 0.8 Win Shares and falling. Assuming he can manage to keep up this level of terrible play for the rest of the year (doubtful, but possible) he could register around 3 NEGATIVE Win Shares. No player in NBA ABA or BAA history has ever registered negative 3 win shares. Woody Sauldsberry had a year where he shot .299 and .560 from the line and registered negative 2.8 WS. It is conceivable that Kobe (4-19 last night) could do worse in FG% and WS. Woody played during the Kennedy Administration.
The names that start to come up when you start to estimate a Kobe season continuing on are frightening - Flynn, Beasley, Tskita, Donte Greene, DeShawn Stevenson, Marc Macon. And a whole bunch of guys who played before the Korean War.
But even put to one side the shocking awfulness of Kobe's stats. Let's consider what is going on in L.A. A future Hall of Fame player is playing 33+ mpg a night, taking minutes from highly drafted younger players and also drawing $25m per year. He is shooting a historically low percentage and yet he continues to shoot and the coach continues to play him and he is helping the Lakers draft lottery chances. Yet there is no chance he gets traded and, at least it appears, no chance of having his minutes cut going forward.
There are two HOF players in the Hall at least partially for their pro play (Ralph Sampson and Joe Fulks) who have registered at least 2 seasons with negative win shares. Kobe has one such season already and he is headed for #2. Fulks was an early pioneer of the game, and, if reports on line are accurate, probably a top 100 all-time player. Sampson is not close to a too 100 all-time player. Kobe, however, is my #18 and his fans suggest a top 10 or even top 5 status.
In light of Kobe's place in the history of the game, it is astounding that no one will step forward and say "you should not be doing this - get out" or "I am not playing you anymore" or even "I am going to stop passing you the ball". But no one has, and it appears no one will. So we are about to see the weirdest (and perhaps worst) season ever played
http://bkref.com/tiny/ifZMo
How to explain the historical crappiness of this Kobe season? Well, Kobe is on pace to shoot the ball between 800 and 1200 times this year (depending upon injury and whether he ever develops a conscience) If he reaches 1200 shot attempts and shoots his current 30%, or so, he will be performing at a level of inefficiency not seen since the late 1940s or early 1950s. In fact, only Joe Fulks has seasons where he shot the ball so many times and had such a low percentage. Of course. When Fulks shot 30-33%, that was far closer to league average.
Kobe has negative 0.8 Win Shares and falling. Assuming he can manage to keep up this level of terrible play for the rest of the year (doubtful, but possible) he could register around 3 NEGATIVE Win Shares. No player in NBA ABA or BAA history has ever registered negative 3 win shares. Woody Sauldsberry had a year where he shot .299 and .560 from the line and registered negative 2.8 WS. It is conceivable that Kobe (4-19 last night) could do worse in FG% and WS. Woody played during the Kennedy Administration.
The names that start to come up when you start to estimate a Kobe season continuing on are frightening - Flynn, Beasley, Tskita, Donte Greene, DeShawn Stevenson, Marc Macon. And a whole bunch of guys who played before the Korean War.
But even put to one side the shocking awfulness of Kobe's stats. Let's consider what is going on in L.A. A future Hall of Fame player is playing 33+ mpg a night, taking minutes from highly drafted younger players and also drawing $25m per year. He is shooting a historically low percentage and yet he continues to shoot and the coach continues to play him and he is helping the Lakers draft lottery chances. Yet there is no chance he gets traded and, at least it appears, no chance of having his minutes cut going forward.
There are two HOF players in the Hall at least partially for their pro play (Ralph Sampson and Joe Fulks) who have registered at least 2 seasons with negative win shares. Kobe has one such season already and he is headed for #2. Fulks was an early pioneer of the game, and, if reports on line are accurate, probably a top 100 all-time player. Sampson is not close to a too 100 all-time player. Kobe, however, is my #18 and his fans suggest a top 10 or even top 5 status.
In light of Kobe's place in the history of the game, it is astounding that no one will step forward and say "you should not be doing this - get out" or "I am not playing you anymore" or even "I am going to stop passing you the ball". But no one has, and it appears no one will. So we are about to see the weirdest (and perhaps worst) season ever played
Friday, December 04, 2015
My Favorite Mitt Romney Exit Poll Answer
Most important quality in a leader:
(3 different ones listed -- Romney narrowly defeats Obama in all 3)
# 4. "Cares about People Like Me" -- of people who felt this was the most important quality --
Obama 81%, Romney 18%.
What does this tell you? Perhaps the GOP has to come up with SOME platform piece other than cutting taxes for millionaires and taking rights away from women?
We shall see.
(3 different ones listed -- Romney narrowly defeats Obama in all 3)
# 4. "Cares about People Like Me" -- of people who felt this was the most important quality --
Obama 81%, Romney 18%.
What does this tell you? Perhaps the GOP has to come up with SOME platform piece other than cutting taxes for millionaires and taking rights away from women?
We shall see.
Tuesday, December 01, 2015
Presidential Candidate Blasts Typical Republican Party Foreign Policy Plank
I do not believe that our foreign policy needs to be that "we've got to be these crazy neo-con invade-every-country-on-earth and send our kids to die in the Middle East.”
Pretty aggressive words by Bernie Sanders....er, I mean, TED CRUZ!!!!!!
Wow.
Pretty aggressive words by Bernie Sanders....er, I mean, TED CRUZ!!!!!!
Wow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)