Charles Barkley does not rank LeBron James as a top 7 player, in part, because LeBron had a "head start" in his first 13 seasons.
Although at first blush that comment makes no sense (13 seasons is 13 seasons, you are evaluating the same thing) a friend said he thought Barkley's point was that LeBron got to play his first 13 seasons at ages 19-31 (whereas Barkley and Jordan, for example, got to play theirs at ages 21-33 or 22-34).
So let's put it to the test and review the issue of what sort of Win Shares do guys put up ages 19-21 versus ages 30-32 and 31-33.
Here goes.
1) 53 guys have put up at least 10 WS by the time they reached their age 21 season (which basketball-reference.com defines as turning 21 before February 1 of the season). http://bkref.com/tiny/vdGNF LeBron is the top at 35.6, the lowest guy on the top 10 is Andre Drummond at 22.0. The median of the top 10 is 25 WS. The median of the 53 guy list is Brook Lopez at 13.7 WS.
2) There are 259 guys who have put up at least 10 WS ages 31-33: http://bkref.com/tiny/Op77U
Karl Malone is #1 at 45.7WS. The 10th ranked guy is Artis Gilmore at 35.4. The median of the top 10 is 40.1 WS. The overall median of the 259 guy list is Jerry Sloan at 14.6 WS.
3) Moving on to ages 32-34. There are 186 guys with at least 10 WS. http://bkref.com/tiny/HAowU The top guy is Michael Jordan at 54.5WS and #10 is John Havlicek at 31.5 WS. The median of the top 10 is 35.8 WS and the median of the entire list is 17 WS.
Ergo, what we see is that there is no evidence that it is better to play your first 3 seasons at ages 19-21 or even 18-21 than it is to play seasons at ages 31-33 or 32-34. If anything, the statistics indicate that you will generally play better at ages 31-33 and 32-34 (and there is generally no significant difference whether it is 31-33 or 32-34).
If you look at the age 31-33 list, in particular, you will see that LeBron's early career 35.6 WS gave him very little, if any, advantage on the 11th-12th-13th seasons of guys with whom he is generally compared. There is either no difference or a very slight difference that cuts both ways depending upon the player.
The greatest indictment of Barkley's claim (if it can fairly be said to be his claim) is that Michael Jordan (to whom James is generally compared) at an older age was better than the 19-21 year old LeBron James, and using the 32-34 age period, the old Jordan was better than the young LeBron by over 6 WS per season. So, if you take two all-time greats and play one at age 19-21 and one at 32-34, they will both lead their age groups in WS, but the one who plays 32-34 will be roughly 50% better!
CONCLUSION -- as a general rule, it is better for your stats to play your first thirteen years in the NBA at ages 21-33 or 22-34 rather than ages 19-31.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
LeBron's Block On Iggy -- Picture
Interesting to note, earlier in the game, Iguodala had a layup where he attempted a reverse layup and was fouled. James obviously subconsciously recalled that event, because as he rises up (per ESPN Sports Science, 35.5 inches at 20 mph, contacting the ball at 11.5 feet) he places his left hand in a position to attempt a block if Iguodala attempted the reverse. Unsung defensive hero per Sports Science - JR Smith, whose flail at Iggy cost Iggy 0.15 seconds, allowing LeBron enough time to get into position, where he had a window of 0.20 seconds from release to backboard to legally block the shot.
Friday, June 24, 2016
The Timberwolves' Draft Night, Kris Dunn and Ricky Rubio
Boston last night was sitting at #3 and everyone said they would take Kris Dunn and trade him. But there was a rub. The Celts have 4 guards who, next year, will be as good or better than Kris Dunn (Thomas, Smart, Bradley, Turner). So, if you take Dunn, your options are to play him almost not at all, trade him, or trade someone else.
The difficulty becomes this -- you are a guy with two nice TV's living in a one-room apartment. They are nice TVs, everyone knows you have them and nowhere to put them. Now you put them on the market and say "best offer." Everyone says "$4". You say, "Hey, I am going to just keep them both, maybe one will break down. Maybe I can put them both up and watch two shows or just watch one on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays."
If your TV is worth $800, you may get $400. Or you may be offered $4.
The Celtics chose not to do that. They chose Jaylen Brown. So they basically bought a stove rather than a fifth TV.
The Timberwolves, on the other hand, had a TV that was a little too big and had some flaws in the picture (Rubio) and they bought a brand new TV.....that is a little too big and has the exact same flaws in the picture. I would bet they thought they could trade Dunn and LaVine for Jimmy Butler, which would have been awesome. (You don't just acquire 27 year old 8 WS guys every day). But that failed.
So now the Wolves live in a one bedroom apartment and have two TVs, same flaws. One is a little newer. So they can just throw the old one in the trash or give it to Goodwill or hope that someone really needs a TV and will pay 50 cents on the dollar.
They really, really needed a shooter, like someone needs to buy food to survive. Two excellent shooters were available (Hield and Murray). The Wolves could have taken their asset and bought some food. Instead, they bought another TV that they did not need. And they spent the rest of the night saying, "Shit! Maybe if I don't take the TV out of the box, it will be worth more than I paid."
That is how the Wolves ended up taking the #5 pick and Ricky Rubio and turning it into Ricky Rubio 1.0 and Ricky Rubio 2.0(Dunn).
So where does that leave the Wolves as far as options go?
1) Keep both and play them at different times -- this is like watching the one TV three days a week and the other 4. Why?
2) Keep both so you have insurance if one breaks down -- certainly a luxury to have if you are the Spurs or Warriors, but c'mon. You spent the #5 for an injury replacement?
3) Keep them both and play them together -- neither can shoot. Wiggy isn't exactly a deadly marksman either. So.....your three smaller positions will feature basically no outside scoring?
4) Trade Dunn -- you won't get the utmost value, but he is like the new TV in the box. You might be able to convince someone he has no flaws at all.
5) Trade Rubio -- his flaws are well known. So you are hoping to trade him for a nice bicycle that no one ever rides, or a used car that runs pretty well for its age. You will get screwed on this deal, but you have to do it or sit there and watch the TV lying dormant on the floor of your closet.
As you can tell, I am no fan of the Kris Dunn draft. Here is a Skip Bayless-esque "hot take" for you -- I predict Tyus Jones will be a more successful NBA player in his career than Kris Dunn. And we already have Tyus Jones.
But if you love Kris Dunn, then your best decision for your team is to play him immediately, dump Rubio for a sack of basketballs and some hand powder and move on to the Kris Dunn Era. If you don't think he is that great, you probably should never have drafted him, kept Rubio and drafted Hield or Murray.
The difficulty becomes this -- you are a guy with two nice TV's living in a one-room apartment. They are nice TVs, everyone knows you have them and nowhere to put them. Now you put them on the market and say "best offer." Everyone says "$4". You say, "Hey, I am going to just keep them both, maybe one will break down. Maybe I can put them both up and watch two shows or just watch one on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays."
If your TV is worth $800, you may get $400. Or you may be offered $4.
The Celtics chose not to do that. They chose Jaylen Brown. So they basically bought a stove rather than a fifth TV.
The Timberwolves, on the other hand, had a TV that was a little too big and had some flaws in the picture (Rubio) and they bought a brand new TV.....that is a little too big and has the exact same flaws in the picture. I would bet they thought they could trade Dunn and LaVine for Jimmy Butler, which would have been awesome. (You don't just acquire 27 year old 8 WS guys every day). But that failed.
So now the Wolves live in a one bedroom apartment and have two TVs, same flaws. One is a little newer. So they can just throw the old one in the trash or give it to Goodwill or hope that someone really needs a TV and will pay 50 cents on the dollar.
They really, really needed a shooter, like someone needs to buy food to survive. Two excellent shooters were available (Hield and Murray). The Wolves could have taken their asset and bought some food. Instead, they bought another TV that they did not need. And they spent the rest of the night saying, "Shit! Maybe if I don't take the TV out of the box, it will be worth more than I paid."
That is how the Wolves ended up taking the #5 pick and Ricky Rubio and turning it into Ricky Rubio 1.0 and Ricky Rubio 2.0(Dunn).
So where does that leave the Wolves as far as options go?
1) Keep both and play them at different times -- this is like watching the one TV three days a week and the other 4. Why?
2) Keep both so you have insurance if one breaks down -- certainly a luxury to have if you are the Spurs or Warriors, but c'mon. You spent the #5 for an injury replacement?
3) Keep them both and play them together -- neither can shoot. Wiggy isn't exactly a deadly marksman either. So.....your three smaller positions will feature basically no outside scoring?
4) Trade Dunn -- you won't get the utmost value, but he is like the new TV in the box. You might be able to convince someone he has no flaws at all.
5) Trade Rubio -- his flaws are well known. So you are hoping to trade him for a nice bicycle that no one ever rides, or a used car that runs pretty well for its age. You will get screwed on this deal, but you have to do it or sit there and watch the TV lying dormant on the floor of your closet.
As you can tell, I am no fan of the Kris Dunn draft. Here is a Skip Bayless-esque "hot take" for you -- I predict Tyus Jones will be a more successful NBA player in his career than Kris Dunn. And we already have Tyus Jones.
But if you love Kris Dunn, then your best decision for your team is to play him immediately, dump Rubio for a sack of basketballs and some hand powder and move on to the Kris Dunn Era. If you don't think he is that great, you probably should never have drafted him, kept Rubio and drafted Hield or Murray.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
LeBron Derangement Syndrome - Why So Angry About 3rd Title & 3rd Finals MVP?
In the movie "Bad Teacher" Jason Segel plays a gym teacher arguing with a grade school student over the Jordan/LeBron debate. The kid says "LeBron is a better passer AND a better rebounder." Segel responds that Jordan won 6 titles. The kid replies, "Is that the only argument you got?" Segel, "It is the only argument I NEED!"
In "We're The Millers" a 10 pound bundle of marijuana falls on Jennifer Aniston's lap in plain sight of another couple, and she and Jason Sudekis claim that it is a baby named LeBron. Sudekis, "We wanted to name him after a prima donna who will never be as good as Jordan."
LeBron's team just won a Finals in which he led both teams in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. That has never occurred. According to ESPN, that has never occurred in any playoff series ever, at any time. They used to play 2 out of 3 series in the late 70s early 80s. Magic and Moses and Bird never did it for a two game stretch? Apparently not. If you search for Finals Games since 1984 (when the basketball-reference.com database goes back to) in which a player registered 25 points, 9 assists, 2 steals and 2 blocks in a game, you get Dennis Johnson 1985, Michael Jordan twice, and LeBron James three times.........three times this year! In this series, LeBron had the #1 and #3 Finals "Game Score" of any Finals game played since 1984. LeBron, therefore, just had two of the three greatest Finals games played in 33 years.
Against this background, the Skip Baylesses of the world replied after these historic results -- "Kyrie should have been the MVP." The Ric Buchers of the world, "LeBron quit on his team in Game 4." These comments make the speaker look so ignorant and borderline insane that you have to wonder what causes the LeBron Derangement Syndrome. I mean, I don't care for Kobe, but this would be similar to me watching Kobe score 81 points and the very next day saying "Carmelo Anthony is better." (Skip Bayless, by the way, has actually stated that Carmelo and Johnny Manziel are better at their sports than is LeBron).
I mean, LeBron is NOT a guy who tanked a playoff game intentionally because he had been criticized for shooting too much the last game (Kobe) or who has been accused of raping a hotel employee, or who regularly showed up for the regular season 20-40 pounds overweight (Shaq - to whom Kobe allegedly compared his own Colorado problems, saying Shaq was just as bad) or who intentionally tried to humiliate his teammates every day in practice (Jordan) or who lost millions gambling and decided to retire suspiciously, or a guy who engaged in an amount of unprotected sex with so many partners while married that he got an incurable disease (Magic). LeBron has not, to my knowledge, ever abandoned his daughter and refused to talk to her or to pay $40/week in child support for her (Bird).
Undoubtedly James has many skeletons in his closet of which I am unaware (almost every athlete cheats on his wife, it is almost a given, so I assume that there is that to start), but certainly the players we hear LeBron compared to are not exactly saints who are preferred to LeBron due to their sparkling reputations and perfect lifestyles. Certainly "The Decision" (which raised money for charity) was poorly done, but has it not been completely redeemed? The people hurt the most by The Decision are now more than happy with LeBron.
And the reasons given for hating LeBron generally range from ridiculous ("I don't like his tweets over Kevin Love") to self-contradictory ("he went to Miami to win/and he doesn't care enough about winning"). I heard one yesterday from a radio caller who said that LeBron's numbers should be "discounted" because "he has the ball in his hands so much" and he doesn't "do much off the ball." So, James is lazy, unassertive, lacks a desire to win, but at the same time puts up otherworldly numbers because he is only playing for himself....but not to win......plus he passes too much to others and should shoot more, except he should also play off the ball more.
The evaluation of LeBron James on a regular season basis and a playoffs pre-Finals basis is that he is a top 2 player. LeBron is #1 all-time in Value Over Replacement Player (VORP), both in the playoffs and the regular season. LeBron is #1 by a substantial margin over Jordan for career playoff Win Shares. LeBron is the most versatile player of all-time and it is not remotely close. He is now 10X first-team all-NBA, so the whole argument that it is "too soon" to evaluate his career makes no sense - he has more first-team all-NBA's than only two guys, and he has played more career minutes than Bird or Magic.
So, why the irrational hate of LeBron James now, after his 3rd title and third Finals MVP (ignoring Russell who played when there was no Finals MVP, only Shaq, Magic, Duncan and Jordan also have 3+ titles and 3+ Finals MVPs)? As I discussed with my friend Scott (shout out to Scott), the reason probably lies way back at the top of this item -- the only argument that these haters have enjoyed against LeBron over the years is this vague belief that he is a loser and if he were so great then why doesn't he win the title and Finals MVP every single year? Well, now he has won as many titles as Bird, and he has more Finals MVPs and two more conference titles. He has as many Finals MVPs as Magic and Duncan and Shaq. He is the only guy to win Finals MVP by defeating Duncan, and he has also won a Finals MVP defeating Curry and the 73-win Warriors. That really sticks in the craw of the people who worship Jordan and Magic and Bird and Kobe and believe that there is something inherently bad about casting LeBron in the same light.
And LeBron's name will always now be mentioned in discussing the NBA Finals -- team overcame a 3-1 deficit to win; only player to lead both teams in all positive stats. That is just galling for haters. Not only did James win, he did so in a manner that was unique. You cannot say, "well Jordan also came back from 3-1...." or "Magic also led the Finals in all 5 stats." It did not occur. So you are left with arguments like "He could have had he wanted to!" which is like me saying that if I were single I COULD go find the hottest professional cheerleader in town and have sex with her. So long as I never am in a position to do that, I don't need to worry about proving or disproving it. Does not trying or having the opportunity make me better than the guy who actually accomplished the feat? One would say ----------- no.
Anyway - when I make up my next "36 greatest players" list, I may have to consider moving LeBron up from #4. He has certainly earned consideration. And with the Mount Rushmore conversations? Hard for anyone seriously to argue LeBron is not top 4. There just is not a lot of meat left on those bones except "I personally dislike the guy."
And to Skip Bayless and Ric Bucher, as Nelson Muntz would say -- "Ha! Ha!"
In "We're The Millers" a 10 pound bundle of marijuana falls on Jennifer Aniston's lap in plain sight of another couple, and she and Jason Sudekis claim that it is a baby named LeBron. Sudekis, "We wanted to name him after a prima donna who will never be as good as Jordan."
LeBron's team just won a Finals in which he led both teams in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. That has never occurred. According to ESPN, that has never occurred in any playoff series ever, at any time. They used to play 2 out of 3 series in the late 70s early 80s. Magic and Moses and Bird never did it for a two game stretch? Apparently not. If you search for Finals Games since 1984 (when the basketball-reference.com database goes back to) in which a player registered 25 points, 9 assists, 2 steals and 2 blocks in a game, you get Dennis Johnson 1985, Michael Jordan twice, and LeBron James three times.........three times this year! In this series, LeBron had the #1 and #3 Finals "Game Score" of any Finals game played since 1984. LeBron, therefore, just had two of the three greatest Finals games played in 33 years.
Against this background, the Skip Baylesses of the world replied after these historic results -- "Kyrie should have been the MVP." The Ric Buchers of the world, "LeBron quit on his team in Game 4." These comments make the speaker look so ignorant and borderline insane that you have to wonder what causes the LeBron Derangement Syndrome. I mean, I don't care for Kobe, but this would be similar to me watching Kobe score 81 points and the very next day saying "Carmelo Anthony is better." (Skip Bayless, by the way, has actually stated that Carmelo and Johnny Manziel are better at their sports than is LeBron).
I mean, LeBron is NOT a guy who tanked a playoff game intentionally because he had been criticized for shooting too much the last game (Kobe) or who has been accused of raping a hotel employee, or who regularly showed up for the regular season 20-40 pounds overweight (Shaq - to whom Kobe allegedly compared his own Colorado problems, saying Shaq was just as bad) or who intentionally tried to humiliate his teammates every day in practice (Jordan) or who lost millions gambling and decided to retire suspiciously, or a guy who engaged in an amount of unprotected sex with so many partners while married that he got an incurable disease (Magic). LeBron has not, to my knowledge, ever abandoned his daughter and refused to talk to her or to pay $40/week in child support for her (Bird).
Undoubtedly James has many skeletons in his closet of which I am unaware (almost every athlete cheats on his wife, it is almost a given, so I assume that there is that to start), but certainly the players we hear LeBron compared to are not exactly saints who are preferred to LeBron due to their sparkling reputations and perfect lifestyles. Certainly "The Decision" (which raised money for charity) was poorly done, but has it not been completely redeemed? The people hurt the most by The Decision are now more than happy with LeBron.
And the reasons given for hating LeBron generally range from ridiculous ("I don't like his tweets over Kevin Love") to self-contradictory ("he went to Miami to win/and he doesn't care enough about winning"). I heard one yesterday from a radio caller who said that LeBron's numbers should be "discounted" because "he has the ball in his hands so much" and he doesn't "do much off the ball." So, James is lazy, unassertive, lacks a desire to win, but at the same time puts up otherworldly numbers because he is only playing for himself....but not to win......plus he passes too much to others and should shoot more, except he should also play off the ball more.
The evaluation of LeBron James on a regular season basis and a playoffs pre-Finals basis is that he is a top 2 player. LeBron is #1 all-time in Value Over Replacement Player (VORP), both in the playoffs and the regular season. LeBron is #1 by a substantial margin over Jordan for career playoff Win Shares. LeBron is the most versatile player of all-time and it is not remotely close. He is now 10X first-team all-NBA, so the whole argument that it is "too soon" to evaluate his career makes no sense - he has more first-team all-NBA's than only two guys, and he has played more career minutes than Bird or Magic.
So, why the irrational hate of LeBron James now, after his 3rd title and third Finals MVP (ignoring Russell who played when there was no Finals MVP, only Shaq, Magic, Duncan and Jordan also have 3+ titles and 3+ Finals MVPs)? As I discussed with my friend Scott (shout out to Scott), the reason probably lies way back at the top of this item -- the only argument that these haters have enjoyed against LeBron over the years is this vague belief that he is a loser and if he were so great then why doesn't he win the title and Finals MVP every single year? Well, now he has won as many titles as Bird, and he has more Finals MVPs and two more conference titles. He has as many Finals MVPs as Magic and Duncan and Shaq. He is the only guy to win Finals MVP by defeating Duncan, and he has also won a Finals MVP defeating Curry and the 73-win Warriors. That really sticks in the craw of the people who worship Jordan and Magic and Bird and Kobe and believe that there is something inherently bad about casting LeBron in the same light.
And LeBron's name will always now be mentioned in discussing the NBA Finals -- team overcame a 3-1 deficit to win; only player to lead both teams in all positive stats. That is just galling for haters. Not only did James win, he did so in a manner that was unique. You cannot say, "well Jordan also came back from 3-1...." or "Magic also led the Finals in all 5 stats." It did not occur. So you are left with arguments like "He could have had he wanted to!" which is like me saying that if I were single I COULD go find the hottest professional cheerleader in town and have sex with her. So long as I never am in a position to do that, I don't need to worry about proving or disproving it. Does not trying or having the opportunity make me better than the guy who actually accomplished the feat? One would say ----------- no.
Anyway - when I make up my next "36 greatest players" list, I may have to consider moving LeBron up from #4. He has certainly earned consideration. And with the Mount Rushmore conversations? Hard for anyone seriously to argue LeBron is not top 4. There just is not a lot of meat left on those bones except "I personally dislike the guy."
And to Skip Bayless and Ric Bucher, as Nelson Muntz would say -- "Ha! Ha!"
5 Most "Consistently Accomplished" Players of All-Time -- Michael, LeBron, Magic, Duncan, Russell - No Advance Stats Used
Here is what I have done, I took my top 18 players (ranked in 2015) and ESPN's top 18 ranked players (ESPN ranked early 2016) and eliminated players who appeared on one list but not the other. This eliminated David Robinson, Mikan, and Pettit from my list and Dirk, Barkley and Dr. J from ESPN's list, leaving these 15 guys:
1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4. LeBron
5. Duncan
6. Magic
7. Karl Malone
8. Bill Russell
9. Shaq
10. West
11. Oscar
12. Bird
13. Hakeem
14. Moses
15. Kobe
I
Those 15 guys have been evaluated both by me and by ESPN's panel of dozens of basketball "experts" to be top 18 players of all-time.
So, how do you cut down the list? Well, to purport to be the most accomplished player of all-time, you should at least have won 2 regular season MVP awards. If you cannot claim to have been evaluated by your contemporaries as the best player in the league twice while you were playing, you don't really have much of an argument. So....
Delete -- West (0), Oscar (1), Shaq (1), Kobe (1)
11 guys left.
Then let's eliminate any player without 3+ titles. This eliminates Hakeem (2), Wilt (2), Moses (1) and Karl Malone (0).
That leaves us with 7 guys -- Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Duncan, Magic, Russell, Bird
Then you eliminate all guys without 3+ Finals MVPs (unless it is Russell, who played when the award did not exist and won 11 titles). This eliminates Bird (2) and Kareem (2).
That leaves you with only 5 guys -- Michael, LeBron, Duncan, Magic, Bill Russell.
You can decide how to break that 5 way tie. But what I did was go back to the ESPN list and my list and give the guys the point level of where they ranked on my list and the ESPN list. Lower score is better:
5th Place -- Bill Russell (7th on ESPN list, 8th on mine)
4th Place -- Tim Duncan (8th on ESPN list, 5th on mine)
3rd Place -- Magic Johnson (4th on ESPN list, 6th on mine)
2nd Place -- LeBron James (3rd on ESPN list, 4th on mine)
1st Place -- Michael Jordan (1st on ESPN list, 1st on mine).
There ya go.
1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4. LeBron
5. Duncan
6. Magic
7. Karl Malone
8. Bill Russell
9. Shaq
10. West
11. Oscar
12. Bird
13. Hakeem
14. Moses
15. Kobe
I
Those 15 guys have been evaluated both by me and by ESPN's panel of dozens of basketball "experts" to be top 18 players of all-time.
So, how do you cut down the list? Well, to purport to be the most accomplished player of all-time, you should at least have won 2 regular season MVP awards. If you cannot claim to have been evaluated by your contemporaries as the best player in the league twice while you were playing, you don't really have much of an argument. So....
Delete -- West (0), Oscar (1), Shaq (1), Kobe (1)
11 guys left.
Then let's eliminate any player without 3+ titles. This eliminates Hakeem (2), Wilt (2), Moses (1) and Karl Malone (0).
That leaves us with 7 guys -- Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Duncan, Magic, Russell, Bird
Then you eliminate all guys without 3+ Finals MVPs (unless it is Russell, who played when the award did not exist and won 11 titles). This eliminates Bird (2) and Kareem (2).
That leaves you with only 5 guys -- Michael, LeBron, Duncan, Magic, Bill Russell.
You can decide how to break that 5 way tie. But what I did was go back to the ESPN list and my list and give the guys the point level of where they ranked on my list and the ESPN list. Lower score is better:
5th Place -- Bill Russell (7th on ESPN list, 8th on mine)
4th Place -- Tim Duncan (8th on ESPN list, 5th on mine)
3rd Place -- Magic Johnson (4th on ESPN list, 6th on mine)
2nd Place -- LeBron James (3rd on ESPN list, 4th on mine)
1st Place -- Michael Jordan (1st on ESPN list, 1st on mine).
There ya go.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Logic 101
Exhibit A -- Peter King (not the football writer, the Congressman):
Guy is a terror suspect, can we:
1) tap his phone? Yes.
2) listen in on all of his communications? Yes
3) place him on 24 hour surveillance? Yes
4) send him to a CIA black site? Yes.
4) waterboard him? Yes.
5) take away his right to a public jury trial? Yes.
6) send him to Guantanamo forever with no trial at all? Yes.
7) Make it difficult for him to obtain a gun? Whoa, whoa, whoa, the man has due process rights!!!!
Exhibit B -- LeBron James detractors:
"The guy's game is deficient in many areas."
"The guy doesn't try hard"
But he leads all playoff performers in various stats. "F you, stat nerd!"
His team has lost only 5 games and won 14. "Only the Finals matter!"
And LeBron has been the best player in the Finals. "He should be better. He doesn't try!"
How do you judge whether he tries or not? "When he tries, he goes 40-10-10. He could do that every single night easily."
So the issue of whether he is trying is determined by the stat line he can put up? "Yes."
But when he has the #1 stat line overall, that does not matter and is not a fair measure of his play? "F you, stat nerd."
If his game is deficient in many areas, doesn't that mean it is a miracle he is even good at all in any round of the playoffs? "Apologist!"
So is he a great talent? "No."
But if he tried he could go 40-10-10 every night? "Yes."
Not sure which Exhibit is worse, but what each has in common is that the speaker(s) come into the discussion with a clear conclusion (I can never say anything bad about guns; LeBron sucks) and really refuse to see the glaring logical problems with their position.
Guy is a terror suspect, can we:
1) tap his phone? Yes.
2) listen in on all of his communications? Yes
3) place him on 24 hour surveillance? Yes
4) send him to a CIA black site? Yes.
4) waterboard him? Yes.
5) take away his right to a public jury trial? Yes.
6) send him to Guantanamo forever with no trial at all? Yes.
7) Make it difficult for him to obtain a gun? Whoa, whoa, whoa, the man has due process rights!!!!
Exhibit B -- LeBron James detractors:
"The guy's game is deficient in many areas."
"The guy doesn't try hard"
But he leads all playoff performers in various stats. "F you, stat nerd!"
His team has lost only 5 games and won 14. "Only the Finals matter!"
And LeBron has been the best player in the Finals. "He should be better. He doesn't try!"
How do you judge whether he tries or not? "When he tries, he goes 40-10-10. He could do that every single night easily."
So the issue of whether he is trying is determined by the stat line he can put up? "Yes."
But when he has the #1 stat line overall, that does not matter and is not a fair measure of his play? "F you, stat nerd."
If his game is deficient in many areas, doesn't that mean it is a miracle he is even good at all in any round of the playoffs? "Apologist!"
So is he a great talent? "No."
But if he tried he could go 40-10-10 every night? "Yes."
Not sure which Exhibit is worse, but what each has in common is that the speaker(s) come into the discussion with a clear conclusion (I can never say anything bad about guns; LeBron sucks) and really refuse to see the glaring logical problems with their position.
Monday, June 13, 2016
LeBron James and What Is a Reasonable Expectation
What would be a reasonable expectation for a LeBron James game against Golden State? I mean, would a 30 point triple double be adequate? Would that serve as a reasonable (adequate, not great) level of performance?
We know from last year that LeBron's ridiculous Finals performance was deemed a horrible and complete failure because Cleveland could not win. His 2016 Finals numbers? Roughly 36 points, 13 rebounds and 9 assists a game. So, people had greater expectations for LeBron, because he should have gone, say, 40-15-15 and won the series.
But I would concur that the Cavs are overmatched by Golden State, and that for the Cavs to win the title that LeBron needs a 30 point triple double every night.
So -- getting a 30 point triple double in the NBA Finals since 1984 (when the basketball-reference database goes back to):
http://bkref.com/tiny/ZxDAg It has happened 5 times. Three LeBron's, Worthy in Game 7 in 1988, and Barkley in a loss to the Bulls in 1993. That is it. If you drop it to 30-9-8, to pick up some actual occurrences, you get:
http://bkref.com/tiny/fuEFI 13 times, 5 by LeBron. Jordan and Worthy have 2 each. The other 4 are Shaq, Barkley, Magic, Kareem.
Therefore, what we expect out of LeBron for his team to win a game is simply ridiculous and irrational. Michael Jordan won 6 titles. He went for 30 points, 9 rebounds and 8 assists in a Finals game twice -- 1997 versus Utah and 1993 versus Phoenix. That is it.
It should be noted that 4 of LeBron's 30-9-8 finals efforts involve him being older than anyone to do so, except Michael and Kareem.
What if we geared it all of the way back to 25-5-5. I mean, what chance would the Cavaliers have if LeBron went 25-5-5? Almost no chance, right? Well, in the past 33 Finals, only 30 guys have ever had a game where they went 25-5-5. http://bkref.com/tiny/tZcn8 The absolutely best players have 1 such game per Finals....except Michael and LeBron, who have around 2 per series.
LeBron in 2016 is averaging 25-11-8 in the Finals, with 4.1 steals+blocks! Yet, he sucks. He is a disappointment. He is killing his team.
We have set the bar so high for LeBron that it is virtually impossible for him to play to expectations. The Cavs are likely to lose a close Game 5, and then we can hear all of the crap about how LeBron lost again and he really isn't very good and how ___________ is better. But it is all just that - crap.
We know from last year that LeBron's ridiculous Finals performance was deemed a horrible and complete failure because Cleveland could not win. His 2016 Finals numbers? Roughly 36 points, 13 rebounds and 9 assists a game. So, people had greater expectations for LeBron, because he should have gone, say, 40-15-15 and won the series.
But I would concur that the Cavs are overmatched by Golden State, and that for the Cavs to win the title that LeBron needs a 30 point triple double every night.
So -- getting a 30 point triple double in the NBA Finals since 1984 (when the basketball-reference database goes back to):
http://bkref.com/tiny/ZxDAg It has happened 5 times. Three LeBron's, Worthy in Game 7 in 1988, and Barkley in a loss to the Bulls in 1993. That is it. If you drop it to 30-9-8, to pick up some actual occurrences, you get:
http://bkref.com/tiny/fuEFI 13 times, 5 by LeBron. Jordan and Worthy have 2 each. The other 4 are Shaq, Barkley, Magic, Kareem.
Therefore, what we expect out of LeBron for his team to win a game is simply ridiculous and irrational. Michael Jordan won 6 titles. He went for 30 points, 9 rebounds and 8 assists in a Finals game twice -- 1997 versus Utah and 1993 versus Phoenix. That is it.
It should be noted that 4 of LeBron's 30-9-8 finals efforts involve him being older than anyone to do so, except Michael and Kareem.
What if we geared it all of the way back to 25-5-5. I mean, what chance would the Cavaliers have if LeBron went 25-5-5? Almost no chance, right? Well, in the past 33 Finals, only 30 guys have ever had a game where they went 25-5-5. http://bkref.com/tiny/tZcn8 The absolutely best players have 1 such game per Finals....except Michael and LeBron, who have around 2 per series.
LeBron in 2016 is averaging 25-11-8 in the Finals, with 4.1 steals+blocks! Yet, he sucks. He is a disappointment. He is killing his team.
We have set the bar so high for LeBron that it is virtually impossible for him to play to expectations. The Cavs are likely to lose a close Game 5, and then we can hear all of the crap about how LeBron lost again and he really isn't very good and how ___________ is better. But it is all just that - crap.
Thursday, June 09, 2016
Cavs Get Game 3, Now Get to Determine Their "Relative Worth"
Generally the worse team in any series will get a game. It is almost always Game 3 featuring a huge pop from the fan base or Game 4 where the opponent simply doesn't care and would rather just take Game 5 at home.
There are rare exceptions - Philly took Game 1 from the Lakers in the famous Iverson steps over Lue game and then lost 4 straight. I think Miami won Game 2 in 2014.
Anyway, I predicted GState in 5. My thought was that the Cavs were way worse but would get a game. Now the Cavs can show where they stand on the GState scale
Are they Houston (lucky and happy to get a game)? Are they basically Toronto value to Cleveland (won two home games - never really a threat to win series). Are they Seatle 1996? (Got two games after it was too late)? Are they Utah 1997-98? (Good team, great players, were never going to win but had some hope).
What fans of basketball should hope for is that Cleveland 2016 is either Detroit 2005 (pesky, lose in 7) or Miami 2013 (win in 7 as an underdog).
I am still sticking with GState in 5. But I now see a 49-51% chance that Cleveland can at least be a Toronto equivalent and win a couple at home.
The Cavs' best chance to prevail is injury. So Mozgov and Delly should play some - they are the players most likely to cause injury to the opponent.
There are rare exceptions - Philly took Game 1 from the Lakers in the famous Iverson steps over Lue game and then lost 4 straight. I think Miami won Game 2 in 2014.
Anyway, I predicted GState in 5. My thought was that the Cavs were way worse but would get a game. Now the Cavs can show where they stand on the GState scale
Are they Houston (lucky and happy to get a game)? Are they basically Toronto value to Cleveland (won two home games - never really a threat to win series). Are they Seatle 1996? (Got two games after it was too late)? Are they Utah 1997-98? (Good team, great players, were never going to win but had some hope).
What fans of basketball should hope for is that Cleveland 2016 is either Detroit 2005 (pesky, lose in 7) or Miami 2013 (win in 7 as an underdog).
I am still sticking with GState in 5. But I now see a 49-51% chance that Cleveland can at least be a Toronto equivalent and win a couple at home.
The Cavs' best chance to prevail is injury. So Mozgov and Delly should play some - they are the players most likely to cause injury to the opponent.
Friday, June 03, 2016
A Review of Game 1 of the 2016 NBA Finals
When you hold Steph Curry and Klay Thompson to 20 points on around 25% shooting, and your three best guys score 65 points, you think you ought to win, right?
Wrong, Cavs did all of that and lost by 15. It was the sort of loss that (as someone who used to coach) would keep me up at night saying "what in the hell can we do to compete with this team?" Well, it would help if you kept their bench from shooting around 85% and got some production from your bench. Good starting point.
But if I told you instead, "Warriors will get 100% shooting from Livingston and Barbosa and they will score 30 points combined" you'd say "40 point blowout." So it all depends upon how you look at the game.
Game Observations:
1) Kyrie Irving's presence is a stumper for Coach Lue. If Kyrie cannot score, he is really killing you because he is clearly just a target at the defensive end. So you need to let him score and give him opportunities, but he cannot have a 35% Usage rate and dribble 22 times a possession. That is insane.
2) Coach Lue may have to completely scrap the playing of J.R. Smith as a starter or guy who gets 20+ minutes. J.R. had a Game Score of 0. In 4 of J.R.'s last 7 Finals games, J.R. has had a Game Score (15 is good) of under 4. His Usage Rate last night was 5 (so he was significantly involved in about 5% of offensive plays). Despite rarely ever touching the ball and almost never taking a shot, he regularly got winded and begged to be taken out. He looked about as ready to play as I would.
3) LeBron needs to be more aggressive offensively. Now, that said, the Warriors played a TON of illegal defense last night (the overhead shot of the Warriors' "great defense" in clogging the lane showed that three of their guys were in an illegal defense position). But LeBron is the only hope for Cleveland. He needs to have 30+ point triple doubles every night. If he shoots 35-40% in that effort, so be it.
4) LeBron could not be any more aggressive on defense. My goodness, he was basically hugging Curry and Klay off ball screen action and there were times when he literally had both arms surrounding them when they dribbled. If LeBron is allowed to do that, you are not going to score much on him, no matter who you are. That is like being guarded by a large bear with "call your own" fouling rules.
5) The "too many holes in the dyke" theory comes around again for Cleveland. Curry can't get hot - put LeBron on him. Thompson can't get hot - put LeBron on him. Livingston is killing us - they actually did put LeBron on him eventually. You cannot win games that way. Sorry. Some non-star at least has to do some guarding.
6) Iggy plays with Draymond Green and he gets upset when he get an inadvertent slap in the balls?
7) Draymond Green is so happy to be away from Steven Adams. Draymond is now one of the biggest guys on the court and doesn't have someone 5 inches taller taking his rebounds and outworking him.
8) Kevin Love missed a bunch of bunnies, but he was adequate defensively and tried hard. He'd be all-NBA if he was willing to give a similar effort every night in the regular season.
9) Ty Lue tried one offensive set with LeBron off the ball -- didn't work. Never had anything else to even try?
So, what do you do as Cavs coach (other than cry)? There are no really obvious good options, but let's go with the not-so-worst ones that I can imagine:
A) You have to play Delly, Shump, Jefferson and Frye more. You just have to. Kerr isn't going to suddenly play 6 guys, so you have to play your bench more. Hell, even try Mozgov for 5 minutes when Curry is not in. Cutting JR's minutes is a start.
B) LeBron needs to run the offense. Sorry, Kyrie, but your low efficiency high usage play just destroys the team rhythm. The fact of the matter is that if LeBron cannot 30+ point triple double every night, you are gonna lose. So if he tells you as coach "I cannot do that any more and chase Curry also" then you need to go back to the "cry" option.
C) You probably have to play faster. It is basically "pick your poison" here. Play slow and struggle to score 80 or risk giving up 120. I don't see the Warriors ever losing a game where their opponent scores 80. So you have to hope you shoot well, make their life hard and try to win 118-115. (Hey look, nothing is easy, so this idea may be a disaster, but at least 150 year old Barbosa isn't going to enjoy this pace of play).
D) For God's sake, run some passing sets. The Warriors line up very much like the 2008 Celtics when they see LeBron with the ball up front -- basically turn toward the ball and stand on the corners of the lane. The only tweak is that they never leave J.R. Smith. LeBron to succeed will need to beat a good defender in Thompson, Iggy or Barnes, and then be faced with bigger guys at the rim (note that Kerr still plays a center a lot). Try to run some sets where the opponent gets backscreened or diagonally cut against; do something. How about just some basic screening away from the ball when LeBron is posting? Moving a couple feet when your guy turns his head?
As I previously stated, the Warriors are a terrible matchup for Cleveland. They can exploit every Cleveland weakness and Cleveland has a far worse coach than GState, so the Cavs will always be a step or two behind in adjustments. So, I predicted Warriors in 5 and certainly nothing in Game 1 changed that.
As I said on Twitter -- barring injury or Pop coming in to coach the Cavs, Cleveland stands very little chance.
Wrong, Cavs did all of that and lost by 15. It was the sort of loss that (as someone who used to coach) would keep me up at night saying "what in the hell can we do to compete with this team?" Well, it would help if you kept their bench from shooting around 85% and got some production from your bench. Good starting point.
But if I told you instead, "Warriors will get 100% shooting from Livingston and Barbosa and they will score 30 points combined" you'd say "40 point blowout." So it all depends upon how you look at the game.
Game Observations:
1) Kyrie Irving's presence is a stumper for Coach Lue. If Kyrie cannot score, he is really killing you because he is clearly just a target at the defensive end. So you need to let him score and give him opportunities, but he cannot have a 35% Usage rate and dribble 22 times a possession. That is insane.
2) Coach Lue may have to completely scrap the playing of J.R. Smith as a starter or guy who gets 20+ minutes. J.R. had a Game Score of 0. In 4 of J.R.'s last 7 Finals games, J.R. has had a Game Score (15 is good) of under 4. His Usage Rate last night was 5 (so he was significantly involved in about 5% of offensive plays). Despite rarely ever touching the ball and almost never taking a shot, he regularly got winded and begged to be taken out. He looked about as ready to play as I would.
3) LeBron needs to be more aggressive offensively. Now, that said, the Warriors played a TON of illegal defense last night (the overhead shot of the Warriors' "great defense" in clogging the lane showed that three of their guys were in an illegal defense position). But LeBron is the only hope for Cleveland. He needs to have 30+ point triple doubles every night. If he shoots 35-40% in that effort, so be it.
4) LeBron could not be any more aggressive on defense. My goodness, he was basically hugging Curry and Klay off ball screen action and there were times when he literally had both arms surrounding them when they dribbled. If LeBron is allowed to do that, you are not going to score much on him, no matter who you are. That is like being guarded by a large bear with "call your own" fouling rules.
5) The "too many holes in the dyke" theory comes around again for Cleveland. Curry can't get hot - put LeBron on him. Thompson can't get hot - put LeBron on him. Livingston is killing us - they actually did put LeBron on him eventually. You cannot win games that way. Sorry. Some non-star at least has to do some guarding.
6) Iggy plays with Draymond Green and he gets upset when he get an inadvertent slap in the balls?
7) Draymond Green is so happy to be away from Steven Adams. Draymond is now one of the biggest guys on the court and doesn't have someone 5 inches taller taking his rebounds and outworking him.
8) Kevin Love missed a bunch of bunnies, but he was adequate defensively and tried hard. He'd be all-NBA if he was willing to give a similar effort every night in the regular season.
9) Ty Lue tried one offensive set with LeBron off the ball -- didn't work. Never had anything else to even try?
So, what do you do as Cavs coach (other than cry)? There are no really obvious good options, but let's go with the not-so-worst ones that I can imagine:
A) You have to play Delly, Shump, Jefferson and Frye more. You just have to. Kerr isn't going to suddenly play 6 guys, so you have to play your bench more. Hell, even try Mozgov for 5 minutes when Curry is not in. Cutting JR's minutes is a start.
B) LeBron needs to run the offense. Sorry, Kyrie, but your low efficiency high usage play just destroys the team rhythm. The fact of the matter is that if LeBron cannot 30+ point triple double every night, you are gonna lose. So if he tells you as coach "I cannot do that any more and chase Curry also" then you need to go back to the "cry" option.
C) You probably have to play faster. It is basically "pick your poison" here. Play slow and struggle to score 80 or risk giving up 120. I don't see the Warriors ever losing a game where their opponent scores 80. So you have to hope you shoot well, make their life hard and try to win 118-115. (Hey look, nothing is easy, so this idea may be a disaster, but at least 150 year old Barbosa isn't going to enjoy this pace of play).
D) For God's sake, run some passing sets. The Warriors line up very much like the 2008 Celtics when they see LeBron with the ball up front -- basically turn toward the ball and stand on the corners of the lane. The only tweak is that they never leave J.R. Smith. LeBron to succeed will need to beat a good defender in Thompson, Iggy or Barnes, and then be faced with bigger guys at the rim (note that Kerr still plays a center a lot). Try to run some sets where the opponent gets backscreened or diagonally cut against; do something. How about just some basic screening away from the ball when LeBron is posting? Moving a couple feet when your guy turns his head?
As I previously stated, the Warriors are a terrible matchup for Cleveland. They can exploit every Cleveland weakness and Cleveland has a far worse coach than GState, so the Cavs will always be a step or two behind in adjustments. So, I predicted Warriors in 5 and certainly nothing in Game 1 changed that.
As I said on Twitter -- barring injury or Pop coming in to coach the Cavs, Cleveland stands very little chance.
Thursday, June 02, 2016
Steph Curry after His Age 27 Season -- a Top 19 Playoff Performer
http://bkref.com/tiny/wGWBL
Certainly we can take into account that some of these guys have played a LOT more games and minutes than Curry through his age 27 season (basketball-reference.com uses the player's age as of February 1 of the season, so it is not entirely a fair comparison, but if you want to sort through 19 guys and figure out their birthdays, go ahead). In any event, Curry is a March 14 birthday, so he is really 28. If anything, this flaw in the system favors him by giving him an extra year to qualify versus, say, LeBron who is a December 30 birthday.
LeBron and Magic are far and away the biggest minutes guys on the list.
Jordan, Wilt, Shaq and LeBron and Kareem are the most effective per minute. Duncan and Durant deserve mention for having good total WS.
(Note - I sort of cheated and tailored the list to get Durant in. He has the worst WS/48 - I kept him in and left Wade out. Wade almost makes the list).
It should be noted that lists like this are a major reason why I place Bird so low on my all-time rank list (13th). Bird is last on the list in PER, 3rd to last in WS/48 and 11th in Win Shares. He was a great player, but he does not deserve a top 5 or even top 10 ranking among the all-time greats.
For those of you wondering, through his age 27 season, 2006, Kobe had a playoff PER of 20.5 and a WS/48 of .139 good for 26th and 37th place on a far expanded list.
Curry is 17th in PER, 15th in WS/48 and 19th in WS for guys on this list.
No matter what Curry does in this series, he isn't going to be anywhere near the top 4 or 5 guys for overall production or production per minute.
Summary -- Curry has been excellent, but certainly not at the very top of the all-time best NBA playoff greats.
Certainly we can take into account that some of these guys have played a LOT more games and minutes than Curry through his age 27 season (basketball-reference.com uses the player's age as of February 1 of the season, so it is not entirely a fair comparison, but if you want to sort through 19 guys and figure out their birthdays, go ahead). In any event, Curry is a March 14 birthday, so he is really 28. If anything, this flaw in the system favors him by giving him an extra year to qualify versus, say, LeBron who is a December 30 birthday.
LeBron and Magic are far and away the biggest minutes guys on the list.
Jordan, Wilt, Shaq and LeBron and Kareem are the most effective per minute. Duncan and Durant deserve mention for having good total WS.
(Note - I sort of cheated and tailored the list to get Durant in. He has the worst WS/48 - I kept him in and left Wade out. Wade almost makes the list).
It should be noted that lists like this are a major reason why I place Bird so low on my all-time rank list (13th). Bird is last on the list in PER, 3rd to last in WS/48 and 11th in Win Shares. He was a great player, but he does not deserve a top 5 or even top 10 ranking among the all-time greats.
For those of you wondering, through his age 27 season, 2006, Kobe had a playoff PER of 20.5 and a WS/48 of .139 good for 26th and 37th place on a far expanded list.
Curry is 17th in PER, 15th in WS/48 and 19th in WS for guys on this list.
No matter what Curry does in this series, he isn't going to be anywhere near the top 4 or 5 guys for overall production or production per minute.
Summary -- Curry has been excellent, but certainly not at the very top of the all-time best NBA playoff greats.
Wednesday, June 01, 2016
Michael Scott -- Boom, Roasted.
Guy on Twitter just compared me to Michael Scott's great "boom roasted" routine.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
A Review of the Cavaliers and My Thoughts On Their Chances At Willing the 2016 NBA Title.
The Cavs are 9-0 this post season after throttling Toronto in Cleveland last night. So, will they go 16-0 and become the only team to ever win 16 playoff games without a loss? Probably not. But will they beat Toronto? How badly? And can they beat Golden State or Oklahoma City. What is my analysis?
Begin.
Strengths of the Cavs:
1. The Cavs have LeBron -- LeBron is the most versatile player ever to play the game. It is not a close call. Review THIS ENTRY and you will see the statistical backup. LeBron is the #1 player in both regular season history and playoff history in VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) which means he has created more wins for his team in the regular season and playoffs than any other player. LeBron is getting old, but if you assume he is not going to get 25% worse tomorrow, you could put him on any mediocre NBA team in 2017 and that team would immediately become 15 wins better. So, the 29-53 Wolves would be 44-38. Then you figure you would immediately add a couple vets who wanted to play with LeBron, so add 3-4 more wins due to their addition. A 29-win NBA club becomes a 46 or 47 win club with no other player or coaching upgrade. There is no other player in the league who can do that.
Why? Because LeBron is an 85th percentile defender, a 95th percentile scorer, a 99th percentile passer, a 90th percentile rebounder. You replace whatever you have at his spot with a much, much better player and improve your team's offense and defense and rebounding. Your team is immediately better.
The Cavs have LeBron. None of their potential opponents have LeBron.
2. Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love are playing well and filling their roles. LeBron, despite averaging 28 PPG in his playoff career, has never really wanted to be a scorer. He would rather be Magic than Michael. Love and Kyrie are starting to click with LeBron. He would like them to take 50 shots a game and they are working toward that. This allows LeBron to rest and his fresh legs create scary plays such as his drive and dunk on the Raptors last night.
3. The Cavs' ability to shoot the three leaves an opponent with no reasonable options. If you have Kyrie and Love hot and J.R. Smith and Channing Frye hot, and you play through LeBron, that leaves an opponent with two options: a) allow LeBron to score layups and dunks; or b) collapse on him and allow some open 3s. The Hawks tried option b and were ridiculed as they were swept. The Raptors last night went small and tried option a - LeBron shot 85% and scored 24 points in 3 quarters of play.
The best option is probably to hope you have a defender who can limit LeBron (Kawhi Leonard, Draymond Green) one on one and not allow LeBron to pass to open players. Good luck finding guys like that.
4) Tristan Thompson gets the Cavs extra shots. It is absolute death to allow the Cavs to miss a shot and them get the ball back to try again. Tristan Thompson, for his height, may be one of the best 5 rebounders I have ever seen.
What Can Toronto Do?
The Cavs are poor at stopping guard penetration and the Cavs don't like to play their big men. So, you can score on the Cavs, and at times that can be very easy to do. Lowry and DeRozan need to be aggressive and attempt not to settle for long jumpers. The Cavs always seemingly come up one defender short on rotations off guard penetration. This is generally a Kevin Love fuck up or LeBron deciding that he already has one foul and allowing the big guy to score instead of picking up another foul.
If I am the Raptors, and since they are a big underdog, I decide not to let LeBron just get layups against me. I think you need to play standard help defense and hope to rotate to shooters. It did not work for the Hawks, but remember that the Hawks had some close games in the series using the helping strategy.
LeBron is old and he has logged 40,000 minutes of hard play. If you want to beat his team, you need to aggressively make him work. Do not ever let him bring the ball up the court unguarded after you have scored. Find him on your offensive end and involve him in ball screens and off the ball screens. Try to get him to foul. Even if these efforts do not work right away, Toronto lacks the players to defeat a fresh LeBron James. You need to wear him down.
Likely Eastern Conference Result?
I see Toronto losing in 5. Without a healthy Valenciunas, they just don't have enough weapons to oppose a healthy Cleveland team. I think they get a game on a night where they shoot really well or Cleveland does not.
Can Cleveland Beat a Healthy GState or OKC?
Obviously if Curry or Draymond Green goes down or one of Westbrook or Durant goes down, Cleveland would be favored in the Finals. That said, suppose a fully healthy Cleveland team plays a fully healthy Western Conference opponent. Who wins?
My Prediction -- Cleveland beats OKC; Cleveland loses to Golden State.
OKC sets up as a nice opponent for Cleveland. They don't spread out the floor and play drive and kick basketball. They play post players, they play a ton of one on one, you can pack it in against their stars and force them to toss out to unreliable players like Dion Waiters and Roberson and Foye and Ibaka (who has been hot, but that is not as reliable as Reggie Miller thinks). Cleveland has enough interior rebounding force (Thompson, LeBron, Love) to rebound with OKC. OKC is very good and they have the 4th and 5th best player in the league both who are in their absolute prime at age 27. They are no pushovers. But the Cavs match up very well with OKC.
I'd say Cavs in 6.
Golden State, however, is a nightmare for Cleveland. Watch a Cleveland game closely - as stated above, the Cavs are terrible against guard penetration, and if they have to play Love (which they will) he is particularly poor defensively and lacks both concentration AND consistent effort (he generally does not care and he generally does not try). Even if he could cure both, he is undersized and a poor leaper.
The Warriors also can play Iggy and Klay and Draymond on James and wear him down. The only plus the Cavs might possibly have in the series is that Kyrie is playing so well and he might score 30 a game. But the Warriors can hide Curry's defense on J.R. Smith, and Klay Thompson's size may bother Kyrie.
I hate to say it (since the Cavs are playing so well) but I don't see the Cavs getting two games against GState. Now, one would reply, "LeBron got two games against them last year!" Well the Warriors were new to the whole thing last year and were not defending champions who had won 73 games. They were simply put, choking. Their cocah was sitting on his ass doing nothing for 3 games. It was only after Iguodala starting playing and making the wide open jumpers the Cavs were giving him that the Warriors overcame the enormous choke job and won in 6. This year's team will suffer no such mental problems and will be prepared to just smoke the Cavs. I really honestly do not see the Cavs going beyond 5.
Summary -- I think the Cavs go to the Finals rather easily. If they play OKC they win in 6. If they play GState, they lose badly.
We shall see.
Begin.
Strengths of the Cavs:
1. The Cavs have LeBron -- LeBron is the most versatile player ever to play the game. It is not a close call. Review THIS ENTRY and you will see the statistical backup. LeBron is the #1 player in both regular season history and playoff history in VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) which means he has created more wins for his team in the regular season and playoffs than any other player. LeBron is getting old, but if you assume he is not going to get 25% worse tomorrow, you could put him on any mediocre NBA team in 2017 and that team would immediately become 15 wins better. So, the 29-53 Wolves would be 44-38. Then you figure you would immediately add a couple vets who wanted to play with LeBron, so add 3-4 more wins due to their addition. A 29-win NBA club becomes a 46 or 47 win club with no other player or coaching upgrade. There is no other player in the league who can do that.
Why? Because LeBron is an 85th percentile defender, a 95th percentile scorer, a 99th percentile passer, a 90th percentile rebounder. You replace whatever you have at his spot with a much, much better player and improve your team's offense and defense and rebounding. Your team is immediately better.
The Cavs have LeBron. None of their potential opponents have LeBron.
2. Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love are playing well and filling their roles. LeBron, despite averaging 28 PPG in his playoff career, has never really wanted to be a scorer. He would rather be Magic than Michael. Love and Kyrie are starting to click with LeBron. He would like them to take 50 shots a game and they are working toward that. This allows LeBron to rest and his fresh legs create scary plays such as his drive and dunk on the Raptors last night.
3. The Cavs' ability to shoot the three leaves an opponent with no reasonable options. If you have Kyrie and Love hot and J.R. Smith and Channing Frye hot, and you play through LeBron, that leaves an opponent with two options: a) allow LeBron to score layups and dunks; or b) collapse on him and allow some open 3s. The Hawks tried option b and were ridiculed as they were swept. The Raptors last night went small and tried option a - LeBron shot 85% and scored 24 points in 3 quarters of play.
The best option is probably to hope you have a defender who can limit LeBron (Kawhi Leonard, Draymond Green) one on one and not allow LeBron to pass to open players. Good luck finding guys like that.
4) Tristan Thompson gets the Cavs extra shots. It is absolute death to allow the Cavs to miss a shot and them get the ball back to try again. Tristan Thompson, for his height, may be one of the best 5 rebounders I have ever seen.
What Can Toronto Do?
The Cavs are poor at stopping guard penetration and the Cavs don't like to play their big men. So, you can score on the Cavs, and at times that can be very easy to do. Lowry and DeRozan need to be aggressive and attempt not to settle for long jumpers. The Cavs always seemingly come up one defender short on rotations off guard penetration. This is generally a Kevin Love fuck up or LeBron deciding that he already has one foul and allowing the big guy to score instead of picking up another foul.
If I am the Raptors, and since they are a big underdog, I decide not to let LeBron just get layups against me. I think you need to play standard help defense and hope to rotate to shooters. It did not work for the Hawks, but remember that the Hawks had some close games in the series using the helping strategy.
LeBron is old and he has logged 40,000 minutes of hard play. If you want to beat his team, you need to aggressively make him work. Do not ever let him bring the ball up the court unguarded after you have scored. Find him on your offensive end and involve him in ball screens and off the ball screens. Try to get him to foul. Even if these efforts do not work right away, Toronto lacks the players to defeat a fresh LeBron James. You need to wear him down.
Likely Eastern Conference Result?
I see Toronto losing in 5. Without a healthy Valenciunas, they just don't have enough weapons to oppose a healthy Cleveland team. I think they get a game on a night where they shoot really well or Cleveland does not.
Can Cleveland Beat a Healthy GState or OKC?
Obviously if Curry or Draymond Green goes down or one of Westbrook or Durant goes down, Cleveland would be favored in the Finals. That said, suppose a fully healthy Cleveland team plays a fully healthy Western Conference opponent. Who wins?
My Prediction -- Cleveland beats OKC; Cleveland loses to Golden State.
OKC sets up as a nice opponent for Cleveland. They don't spread out the floor and play drive and kick basketball. They play post players, they play a ton of one on one, you can pack it in against their stars and force them to toss out to unreliable players like Dion Waiters and Roberson and Foye and Ibaka (who has been hot, but that is not as reliable as Reggie Miller thinks). Cleveland has enough interior rebounding force (Thompson, LeBron, Love) to rebound with OKC. OKC is very good and they have the 4th and 5th best player in the league both who are in their absolute prime at age 27. They are no pushovers. But the Cavs match up very well with OKC.
I'd say Cavs in 6.
Golden State, however, is a nightmare for Cleveland. Watch a Cleveland game closely - as stated above, the Cavs are terrible against guard penetration, and if they have to play Love (which they will) he is particularly poor defensively and lacks both concentration AND consistent effort (he generally does not care and he generally does not try). Even if he could cure both, he is undersized and a poor leaper.
The Warriors also can play Iggy and Klay and Draymond on James and wear him down. The only plus the Cavs might possibly have in the series is that Kyrie is playing so well and he might score 30 a game. But the Warriors can hide Curry's defense on J.R. Smith, and Klay Thompson's size may bother Kyrie.
I hate to say it (since the Cavs are playing so well) but I don't see the Cavs getting two games against GState. Now, one would reply, "LeBron got two games against them last year!" Well the Warriors were new to the whole thing last year and were not defending champions who had won 73 games. They were simply put, choking. Their cocah was sitting on his ass doing nothing for 3 games. It was only after Iguodala starting playing and making the wide open jumpers the Cavs were giving him that the Warriors overcame the enormous choke job and won in 6. This year's team will suffer no such mental problems and will be prepared to just smoke the Cavs. I really honestly do not see the Cavs going beyond 5.
Summary -- I think the Cavs go to the Finals rather easily. If they play OKC they win in 6. If they play GState, they lose badly.
We shall see.
Friday, May 06, 2016
1,000-1,000-1,000 NBA Playoff Stats Club
When I plugged this search in, I had no idea that it would net so few guys. I guess it is really hard to get to 1,000 in all three stats:
http://bkref.com/tiny/8Ofmk
1. So, only 7 guys are in the Club -- Michael, LeBron, Magic, Kobe, Bird, Pippen and Jason Kidd.
2. The list stays the same if you ask for 2,000+ points (Kidd barely squeaking in).
3. Kidd falls out at 3,000-1,000-1,000
4. Pippen, Bird and Magic did not reach 4,000 points. So the 4,000-1,000-1,000 club is Michael LeBron and Kobe, as is the 5,000-1,000-1,000 club.
5. There is no 6,000-1,000-1,000 club, since Jordan is the all-time playoff leader at 5,987 playoff points.
6. It is interesting to note that there is no 1,500-1,500-1,500 club. Magic comes very close, but falls 35 rebounds short.
7. Magic is currently the only member of the 1,400-1,400-1,400 club. LeBron would need 171 assists to join him. Probably this year of playoffs and 2 more.
8. To give you some indication of how difficult the task of 1,000-1,000-1,000 is, guys like Kareem, Wilt, Duncan, Stockton, Baylor, Karl Malone, Hakeem never came close. Duncan, still active, is 238 assists short. Dirk would need 640 more assists.
9. Oscar Robertson, in the greatest blemish on his career, played in only 86 playoff games. He never came close to the triple 1,000 Club.
10. Well, so what? We certainly have some active guys who in a couple years will crack this list.....right? Wrong -- Russell Westbrook is 27 years old. He is roughly halfway there on rebounds and assists. Assuming he plays until he is 35, he is likely to make it. Otherwise? Is 31 year old Chris Paul going to get 675 more playoff rebounds? Kevin Durant is 27. Is he going to get roughly 700 more playoff assists? Not likely. Rajon Rondo is 30 and stuck on an awful team. He has made great progress to date, but I would bet against 500 more career playoff rebounds. Harden is at around 400-400. How many more years is a 6'5" player going to get 7 rebounds a game in the playoffs?
The guy who stands a chance is Dwyane Wade, who plays for a good team and is above 800 on both categories. So, if you assume he plays this year and 3 more years and gets in 60 playoff games, he'd only need roughly 3 assists and 3 rebounds a game to make it. Now, Wade is 34.3 years old as I write this, so he ain't getting any younger. But if he were to cross 1,000-1,000, he would probably also go above 5,000 points and join MJ, LeBron and Kobe's list.
http://bkref.com/tiny/8Ofmk
1. So, only 7 guys are in the Club -- Michael, LeBron, Magic, Kobe, Bird, Pippen and Jason Kidd.
2. The list stays the same if you ask for 2,000+ points (Kidd barely squeaking in).
3. Kidd falls out at 3,000-1,000-1,000
4. Pippen, Bird and Magic did not reach 4,000 points. So the 4,000-1,000-1,000 club is Michael LeBron and Kobe, as is the 5,000-1,000-1,000 club.
5. There is no 6,000-1,000-1,000 club, since Jordan is the all-time playoff leader at 5,987 playoff points.
6. It is interesting to note that there is no 1,500-1,500-1,500 club. Magic comes very close, but falls 35 rebounds short.
7. Magic is currently the only member of the 1,400-1,400-1,400 club. LeBron would need 171 assists to join him. Probably this year of playoffs and 2 more.
8. To give you some indication of how difficult the task of 1,000-1,000-1,000 is, guys like Kareem, Wilt, Duncan, Stockton, Baylor, Karl Malone, Hakeem never came close. Duncan, still active, is 238 assists short. Dirk would need 640 more assists.
9. Oscar Robertson, in the greatest blemish on his career, played in only 86 playoff games. He never came close to the triple 1,000 Club.
10. Well, so what? We certainly have some active guys who in a couple years will crack this list.....right? Wrong -- Russell Westbrook is 27 years old. He is roughly halfway there on rebounds and assists. Assuming he plays until he is 35, he is likely to make it. Otherwise? Is 31 year old Chris Paul going to get 675 more playoff rebounds? Kevin Durant is 27. Is he going to get roughly 700 more playoff assists? Not likely. Rajon Rondo is 30 and stuck on an awful team. He has made great progress to date, but I would bet against 500 more career playoff rebounds. Harden is at around 400-400. How many more years is a 6'5" player going to get 7 rebounds a game in the playoffs?
The guy who stands a chance is Dwyane Wade, who plays for a good team and is above 800 on both categories. So, if you assume he plays this year and 3 more years and gets in 60 playoff games, he'd only need roughly 3 assists and 3 rebounds a game to make it. Now, Wade is 34.3 years old as I write this, so he ain't getting any younger. But if he were to cross 1,000-1,000, he would probably also go above 5,000 points and join MJ, LeBron and Kobe's list.
Thursday, May 05, 2016
LeBron Moves Into the top 5 In 3 Playoff Stats
http://hoopshype.com/2016/05/05/lebron-james-has-joined-kareem-and-shaq-in-a-very-select-club/
This knocks Tim Duncan out of the top 5 in points and leaves LeBron as top 5 in points, assists and steals. Shaq and Kareem are also top 5 in 3 playoff stats.
The most remarkable thing to me about these all-time lists is the top 2 in rebounds and assists. Assuming LeBron can play 5 more years of playoff basketball at 20 games a year and average 22-5-5 (he is getting old, there isn't much tread left on the tire, but let's assume he can do this), he can add 2,200 points, 500 assist and 500 rebounds to his totals. While this result would absolutely shatter Jordan's playoff scoring mark, LeBron would STILL not reach Stockton or Magic's playoff assist marks, and he would not have even 60% of the career playoff rebound totals of Russell or Wilt.
It should be noted that James has ALREADY played more playoff minutes than Wilt or Russell, so their rebounding totals are simply astounding. The 3rd place rebounder, Duncan, has already played roughly 1,500 more minutes than Wilt or Russell, and Duncan is not within 1000 rebounds of either man! Duncan is 40 and still playing on a great team. But unless he plays until he is 50, he will NEVER reach Russell or Wilt.
This knocks Tim Duncan out of the top 5 in points and leaves LeBron as top 5 in points, assists and steals. Shaq and Kareem are also top 5 in 3 playoff stats.
The most remarkable thing to me about these all-time lists is the top 2 in rebounds and assists. Assuming LeBron can play 5 more years of playoff basketball at 20 games a year and average 22-5-5 (he is getting old, there isn't much tread left on the tire, but let's assume he can do this), he can add 2,200 points, 500 assist and 500 rebounds to his totals. While this result would absolutely shatter Jordan's playoff scoring mark, LeBron would STILL not reach Stockton or Magic's playoff assist marks, and he would not have even 60% of the career playoff rebound totals of Russell or Wilt.
It should be noted that James has ALREADY played more playoff minutes than Wilt or Russell, so their rebounding totals are simply astounding. The 3rd place rebounder, Duncan, has already played roughly 1,500 more minutes than Wilt or Russell, and Duncan is not within 1000 rebounds of either man! Duncan is 40 and still playing on a great team. But unless he plays until he is 50, he will NEVER reach Russell or Wilt.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Two Reasons to Vote for Bernie Sanders
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Good-Bye Sam Mitchell -- Thanks for Trying (No, I mean it)....
When I awoke this morning, I learned that Sam Mitchell was fired by the Timberwolves. There have been several Timberwolves coaches where their firing has resulted in me literally dancing in place the second I heard the news. I have repeatedly called for Sam's firing, yet I did not do my Lowe/Rodgers/Blair/Wittman/Rambis jig when I heard the news. This felt very odd, almost as if I had a soul or something. But I have had some time to digest the firing (which I am still in favor of) and the reason for my ambivalence, and I will attempt to explain it here.
As I have stated a number of times this year, it is rough being a Wolves fan. http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2016/01/things-get-worse-and-worse-for.html http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-continued-lament-as-timberwolves-fan.html
and
http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/12/things-that-concern-me-about-2015-16.html
Sam isn't a particularly good coach, and as I stated on December 8, 2015 (see last link above), the problems that the Timberwolves had were many and needed immediate correction in early December.
The Wolves needed to find 5-7 guys to rely upon and play that rotation a lot, play Tyus Jones as the backup PG, move LaVine to shooting guard (where he likes to play), jettison Kevin Martin, stop playing Andre Miller and Tayshaun Prince, and do basic NBA things like making offense-defense substitutions late in games. Wiggins was regressing, so he needed to be told how to improve.
The Wolves were 8-12. They fell quickly to 22 games under .500 (14-36) by going 6-24 over their next 30. They ended the season 29-53, so it was those 30 games where it all went wrong. What happened in December and January? Well, KAT played about 30 mpg. Why? Who knows. Why would you play your best player 30 mpg? The rest of the year KAT played roughly 36 mpg, and the Wolves went 15-17.
So....settle on a rotation. Use your best players. Pretty simple stuff.
Tyus Jones through Jan. 31 had played 98 minutes. And Andre Miller was starting to play some PG minutes in early February. Tyus then started to play more in late February and March, ending the season as the backup PG. Zach LaVine as a starter (off guard) had a Net Rating of negative 8. As a bench player (PG) - negative 14. As an off guard his scoring went up and his assists stayed roughly the same. During the Wolves' darkest days, LaVine's terrible PG play really hurt them, as is reflected in his advanaced stats during that period.
Ricky Rubio, who never liked the fact that Sam liked to play LaVine 20+ minutes at PG, thrived when Miller and then Tyus became the backup, having his best months in February and March.
Andrew Wiggins, once informed that he actually needed to try to be involved in most possessions every game and attempt some jumpers and pass when tripled on drives to the hoop, played his best in March.
So, all of the things I begged for in early December of 2015 started to change around in February and March of 2016, but not until a 6-24 stretch that ruined the season. If I can notice glaring weaknesses/issues with an NBA club, and see what needs fixing, why does it take SO long for an NBA coach to get it fixed? It is really baffling.
An above average coach does things where a fan doesn't quite understand why they are doing them, but they seem to work. Rick Adelman ran the exact same out of bounds play under his scoring basket 90% of the time - worked for a basket 40% of the time, got the ball in 100% of the time. A guy like Brad Steven just baffles you with the mystery of why his team believes they are good and then goes out and beats teams with far superior talent. Same with Pop - when the Spurs play only bench players 6-12, they still often win against good teams.
I am not asking that the Wolves hire the #1 overall coach ever to stalk the sidelines, but I would like it if I did not have to watch every single game and see the opposing PG stroll into the lane off the pick and roll for a layup or a pass for a dunk. There ARE other ways to play the pick and roll rather than yelling at Rubio "Come on Ricky, get through there!" Sam's team would get absolutely pounded to death with the same play, and we would still defend it the exact same way (poorly).
Sam could be petty and condescending to the press and the fans, and I didn't appreciate his idea that the Wolves played better on the road because the home fans sucked. He also had an odd habit of blaming his young players for poor play when, in fact, those young guys were having the best games.
So, do I think Sam should be fired - yes. Do I hate the guy - no. Why?
He tried.
I mean, it maybe took him 2-3 months to see the problems I was seeing and try to fix them, but at least he kept trying. He didn't insist, in most instances, that what he was doing was 100% correct. Eventually: He played Towns more. He moved LaVine (eventually) to off guard and convinced him that dribbling was a tool to be used when necessary and not a drug to make your brain think you are Kobe or Iverson. He got Wiggy to show a LITTLE more interest in the off the ball game, and some desire to pass the ball. He got rid of the old guys. He started to do offense/defense substitutions late in games (albeit some odd ones at times - taking out KAT for defense?). He stopped playing Prince 35 minutes and played him 10 mpg as a novelty defender/defender of last resort. All of that resulted in Sam's club getting better. He was trying. He also stood up for his club at appropriate times. Rambis NEVER stood up for his players with the refs. Wittman's tirades at the refs appeared to work off a random number generator program -- "OK, today, 7th call of the game, get really mad. 12th call, pretend you don't care."
Sam was interested in the game and appeared to grasp (albeit belatedly) the general concepts of the game that needed improvement from his team. He worked to make the young guys better. He tried to learn something about his players and his players SOMETIMES played hard for him. (The Wolves never played hard for Rambis). His guys weren't crying out for him to be fired.
So, good-bye Sam Mitchell. I won't really miss you that much, but I will appreciate that you tried hard and helped the young guys make progress. For that, I thank you for your service.
As I have stated a number of times this year, it is rough being a Wolves fan. http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2016/01/things-get-worse-and-worse-for.html http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-continued-lament-as-timberwolves-fan.html
and
http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/12/things-that-concern-me-about-2015-16.html
Sam isn't a particularly good coach, and as I stated on December 8, 2015 (see last link above), the problems that the Timberwolves had were many and needed immediate correction in early December.
The Wolves needed to find 5-7 guys to rely upon and play that rotation a lot, play Tyus Jones as the backup PG, move LaVine to shooting guard (where he likes to play), jettison Kevin Martin, stop playing Andre Miller and Tayshaun Prince, and do basic NBA things like making offense-defense substitutions late in games. Wiggins was regressing, so he needed to be told how to improve.
The Wolves were 8-12. They fell quickly to 22 games under .500 (14-36) by going 6-24 over their next 30. They ended the season 29-53, so it was those 30 games where it all went wrong. What happened in December and January? Well, KAT played about 30 mpg. Why? Who knows. Why would you play your best player 30 mpg? The rest of the year KAT played roughly 36 mpg, and the Wolves went 15-17.
So....settle on a rotation. Use your best players. Pretty simple stuff.
Tyus Jones through Jan. 31 had played 98 minutes. And Andre Miller was starting to play some PG minutes in early February. Tyus then started to play more in late February and March, ending the season as the backup PG. Zach LaVine as a starter (off guard) had a Net Rating of negative 8. As a bench player (PG) - negative 14. As an off guard his scoring went up and his assists stayed roughly the same. During the Wolves' darkest days, LaVine's terrible PG play really hurt them, as is reflected in his advanaced stats during that period.
Ricky Rubio, who never liked the fact that Sam liked to play LaVine 20+ minutes at PG, thrived when Miller and then Tyus became the backup, having his best months in February and March.
Andrew Wiggins, once informed that he actually needed to try to be involved in most possessions every game and attempt some jumpers and pass when tripled on drives to the hoop, played his best in March.
So, all of the things I begged for in early December of 2015 started to change around in February and March of 2016, but not until a 6-24 stretch that ruined the season. If I can notice glaring weaknesses/issues with an NBA club, and see what needs fixing, why does it take SO long for an NBA coach to get it fixed? It is really baffling.
An above average coach does things where a fan doesn't quite understand why they are doing them, but they seem to work. Rick Adelman ran the exact same out of bounds play under his scoring basket 90% of the time - worked for a basket 40% of the time, got the ball in 100% of the time. A guy like Brad Steven just baffles you with the mystery of why his team believes they are good and then goes out and beats teams with far superior talent. Same with Pop - when the Spurs play only bench players 6-12, they still often win against good teams.
I am not asking that the Wolves hire the #1 overall coach ever to stalk the sidelines, but I would like it if I did not have to watch every single game and see the opposing PG stroll into the lane off the pick and roll for a layup or a pass for a dunk. There ARE other ways to play the pick and roll rather than yelling at Rubio "Come on Ricky, get through there!" Sam's team would get absolutely pounded to death with the same play, and we would still defend it the exact same way (poorly).
Sam could be petty and condescending to the press and the fans, and I didn't appreciate his idea that the Wolves played better on the road because the home fans sucked. He also had an odd habit of blaming his young players for poor play when, in fact, those young guys were having the best games.
So, do I think Sam should be fired - yes. Do I hate the guy - no. Why?
He tried.
I mean, it maybe took him 2-3 months to see the problems I was seeing and try to fix them, but at least he kept trying. He didn't insist, in most instances, that what he was doing was 100% correct. Eventually: He played Towns more. He moved LaVine (eventually) to off guard and convinced him that dribbling was a tool to be used when necessary and not a drug to make your brain think you are Kobe or Iverson. He got Wiggy to show a LITTLE more interest in the off the ball game, and some desire to pass the ball. He got rid of the old guys. He started to do offense/defense substitutions late in games (albeit some odd ones at times - taking out KAT for defense?). He stopped playing Prince 35 minutes and played him 10 mpg as a novelty defender/defender of last resort. All of that resulted in Sam's club getting better. He was trying. He also stood up for his club at appropriate times. Rambis NEVER stood up for his players with the refs. Wittman's tirades at the refs appeared to work off a random number generator program -- "OK, today, 7th call of the game, get really mad. 12th call, pretend you don't care."
Sam was interested in the game and appeared to grasp (albeit belatedly) the general concepts of the game that needed improvement from his team. He worked to make the young guys better. He tried to learn something about his players and his players SOMETIMES played hard for him. (The Wolves never played hard for Rambis). His guys weren't crying out for him to be fired.
So, good-bye Sam Mitchell. I won't really miss you that much, but I will appreciate that you tried hard and helped the young guys make progress. For that, I thank you for your service.
Thursday, April 07, 2016
Sam Hinkie's 13-page resignation letter - My thoughts
http://espn.go.com/pdf/2016/0406/nba_hinkie_redact.pdf
A few thoughts:
1) My dad liked to heat our farmhouse with a wood burning stove, so once every couple of years we would go to our 50 acres of woods and cut down trees (using a chainsaw, not an axe). We would then cut the wood into 24 inch sections and put it all in an enormous pile by the barn. By the summer of 1984, the pile was 14 feet high by 20 feet wide. It was enormous. I didn't have a real job in the summer of 1984, so my job was to keep the house for my mom (who worked) and split wood (and do other farm work) for my dad (who worked at the school as his real job). He expected me to split wood every day. So that summer I would split wood using a mall and wedges and also using an axe. Some days one hour, some days up to three hours. So, there are probably not many people who know more about using an axe than I do.
Hinkie makes this statement -- "Abraham Lincoln said, 'Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four hours sharpening the axe."
Now, as someone who has swung an axe for 1-3 hours a day, the idea that I would spend 6 hours chopping down a tree struck me as shocking. I know that people back in Lincoln's day were frigging tough, but swinging an axe for six hours to cut down one tree would ruin you physically and mentally. (Most people pre-chainsaw used a crosscut saw to cut down trees, not an axe, but anyway...). Since there were no Sequoia trees in Illinois or Kentucky (to my knowledge) I cannot imagine anyone ever taking 6 hours to cut down a tree. You can chop down a 12 inch diameter tree in under 30 minutes. And if my father gave me 6 hours to chop down a tree and I told him "I will sit on my ass and sharpen my axe for 4 hours first" he would kill me.
Plus, it takes like 10 minutes or less to sharpen an axe. If you sharpened an axe for 4 hours, there would be no axe left. (Imagine sharpening a knife for 4 hours or sharpening a pencil for 4 hours - it would be non-existent when you were done - you are doing more harm than good).
So, in light of this knowledge on wood chopping, I decided that Lincoln must have been joking. The only way the comment makes any sense is if Lincoln was saying, by analogy, "give someone a loose deadline and they will sit around and not do much." So I looked it up.
Lincoln never said any such thing. The quote was always an old saying about if you had 5 (or 10) MINUTES to cut down a tree you'd spend half that time sharpening the axe: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/03/29/sharp-axe/ The quote was never attributed to Lincoln until the 1980s when the sort of business books that Hinkie loves to read started to need to explain why you should spend a lot of time preparing for what you are eventually going to do.
This is not mere nitpicking. What Hinkie is trying to say by using this quote is that he needed 5 years to turn around the Sixers, and he has spent 34 months trying to do so. That is more than reasonable, since it might take 6 hours to chop down a tree and you need 4 hours to sharpen the axe. But the actual source of the quote is that you have 5 or 10 MINUTES to cut down a tree. That is very little time. Sure you cannot just start swinging wildly with a dull axe, but that frigging tree has to come down in a few minutes, not six hours (or in Hinkie's case, 5 years).
Hinkie's situation is not akin to someone having 6 hours to cut down a tree. His situation is more like someone being called in to unclog a drain or a toilet in someone's house. Sure the plumber might say "we need to re-do the plumbing so this never happens again" but will the homeowner agree to wait 2-3-4 months with no working plumbing? Doubtful.
2) His Buffett analogy baffles me. According to this interview: http://www.shookrun.com/documents/buffett_Forbes_1974.pdf Buffett had determined that by 1969 there were simply no good investments out there and he would rather give the people who trusted him their money back rather than try to invest it and lose it.
So, by analogy, Hinkie would be saying that the Sixers had no more deals to make. The market sucks and all of the assets that the Sixers have gathered were the best they could do in the current market. His job is done, he cannot do any more.
But that is really not what he says. He makes analogies to collecting a ton of assets designed to acquire great veteran players (Boston getting Garnett, the Spurs waiting 5 years to get Aldridge). So........if the Sixers have Embiid (who apparently is really lighting it up in practice gyms) and Okafor and 100 draft picks (plus Jerian Grant, my lord he loves Jerian Grant) [NOTE -- it is Jerami Grant, not Jerian Grant - my bad] then aren't Hinkie's services needed most RIGHT NOW? Surely in 34 months he has put together a sign-and-trade plan to get Kevin Durant or LeBron or some other great player. Right? Why not stay around to pull the trigger on that deal?
If you look very closely, what he actually says is that he has to leave because of "management changes." So this implies that he has so little power that he cannot do what he wants to do. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Warren Buffett did -- Buffett had people lining up to give him money to invest, he could have invested it anyway he wanted. Buffett, however, felt the market was so awful that the best decision was to do nothing - so he did nothing. What Hinkie is really whining about is that the Sixers won't let him do what he wants. That has nothing to do with what Warren Buffett did in 1969.
3) Hinkie makes some rather odd statements. First, he mentions that in 2012-13 the Sixers had won a "disappointing" 34 games. What Sixers fan today wouldn't be ecstatic if in the next 2 years they somehow managed to win 34 games in a season?
Second, he states how great the Sixers were on defense with a great veteran like Luc Richard Mbah a Moute anchoring the defense, but declined thereafter when using young players. I don't recall there being any significant bidding war for Luc. If the Sixers wanted to retain him, I am sure they could have. So why state that you used to be great at something with a guy you basically threw away for nothing?
Third, he emphasizes that the Sixers' future is bright by stating that a website projects them in 3 years as the 12th best team in the NBA. 12th best - wow. So it only took three years of the darkest ugliest basketball in the last 40 years to get to a point where the Sixers (in the future) may be the 12th best team! (Hinkie suggests maybe 10th best). Wow. Awesome. So you took over a team that had won a "disappointing 34 games" and now someone projects a 12th place future for you! That is around 45 wins.
"Give me a team that won 34 games, give me three years where you are the league laughingstock and I will turn that into the possibility of 45 wins five years from now!"
Sign me up!
Back to my plumbing analogy - toilet needs unclogging, guy comes in, says, "I will make things worse for 3 months, and you will have to use an outhouse that I will place out by the road during that time, but in 5 months you will have a 25% better plumbing system. Not the best system, mind you, but pretty good."
Finally, his 'zero sum game" analysis is odd. First, all teams do not have the same 82 games. There are not 82 games "up for grabs" -- There are 30 teams and 82 games per team and one winner per game. I would imagine that is 1,230 wins up for grabs, not 82. (I am pretty sure that math is correct - if it were a two-team league each team would play 82 games and there would be 82 wins and 82 losses up for grabs). What Hinkie's approach has proved is that you do not have to "take" wins necessarily, sometimes teams will tank and give you wins. His entire letter implies that the Sixers intentionally lost games to gather better assets and have a steeper recovery. Every team who played the Sixers had a better chance as a result of this strategy.
If what you need to do is "zig" while the other teams "comfortably zag" then why must we "respect tradition" as well? I feel almost as if I am a 12 year old boy again listening to Joe Garagiola every week discuss that the number one key to pitching is (fill in different thing every week - a good fastball, changing speeds, location, being mentally tough, having a good breaking ball). This is the sort of mental masturbation and CYA that people do who cannot explain what their philosophy is. "I try to be a harsh grader, but fair" said one of my college professors. "I will run you to exhaustion, but you will love showing up for practice" said a coach. Both extremely terrible at their jobs, but both had read books stating that you need to be "_________ but the opposite of ________."
Conclusion
I am not saying that The Process put in place by Hinkie may not work. I mean, the Sixers have a good player in Okafor, an OK player in Noel and just a bevy of draft picks -- some of which may be very high picks in what is expected to be a very good draft. Could they get Ben Simmons and Jamal Murray and all of a sudden become a playoff team? Sure. Hinkie may have done a good job. Time will tell.
But when you are quitting because the boss prefers someone else, say, "Look, the boss prefers someone else, I am a figurehead, so I am moving on." You can mention the good things you have done and say how you think the team has potential to be #1 in the East if they draft well. No harm in that. But the gibberish and self-contradictory crap that Hinkie tosses into 13 pages says to me that he is a very insecure person who wants everyone to know that he has met a lot of people and read a lot of books and needs people to believe that he is far, far smarter than anyone who criticizes him. That does not earn him any points in my book, and I will always try to avoid such people, particularly where they accept at face value ridiculous quotes incorrectly attributed to Abe Lincoln.
A few thoughts:
1) My dad liked to heat our farmhouse with a wood burning stove, so once every couple of years we would go to our 50 acres of woods and cut down trees (using a chainsaw, not an axe). We would then cut the wood into 24 inch sections and put it all in an enormous pile by the barn. By the summer of 1984, the pile was 14 feet high by 20 feet wide. It was enormous. I didn't have a real job in the summer of 1984, so my job was to keep the house for my mom (who worked) and split wood (and do other farm work) for my dad (who worked at the school as his real job). He expected me to split wood every day. So that summer I would split wood using a mall and wedges and also using an axe. Some days one hour, some days up to three hours. So, there are probably not many people who know more about using an axe than I do.
Hinkie makes this statement -- "Abraham Lincoln said, 'Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four hours sharpening the axe."
Now, as someone who has swung an axe for 1-3 hours a day, the idea that I would spend 6 hours chopping down a tree struck me as shocking. I know that people back in Lincoln's day were frigging tough, but swinging an axe for six hours to cut down one tree would ruin you physically and mentally. (Most people pre-chainsaw used a crosscut saw to cut down trees, not an axe, but anyway...). Since there were no Sequoia trees in Illinois or Kentucky (to my knowledge) I cannot imagine anyone ever taking 6 hours to cut down a tree. You can chop down a 12 inch diameter tree in under 30 minutes. And if my father gave me 6 hours to chop down a tree and I told him "I will sit on my ass and sharpen my axe for 4 hours first" he would kill me.
Plus, it takes like 10 minutes or less to sharpen an axe. If you sharpened an axe for 4 hours, there would be no axe left. (Imagine sharpening a knife for 4 hours or sharpening a pencil for 4 hours - it would be non-existent when you were done - you are doing more harm than good).
So, in light of this knowledge on wood chopping, I decided that Lincoln must have been joking. The only way the comment makes any sense is if Lincoln was saying, by analogy, "give someone a loose deadline and they will sit around and not do much." So I looked it up.
Lincoln never said any such thing. The quote was always an old saying about if you had 5 (or 10) MINUTES to cut down a tree you'd spend half that time sharpening the axe: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/03/29/sharp-axe/ The quote was never attributed to Lincoln until the 1980s when the sort of business books that Hinkie loves to read started to need to explain why you should spend a lot of time preparing for what you are eventually going to do.
This is not mere nitpicking. What Hinkie is trying to say by using this quote is that he needed 5 years to turn around the Sixers, and he has spent 34 months trying to do so. That is more than reasonable, since it might take 6 hours to chop down a tree and you need 4 hours to sharpen the axe. But the actual source of the quote is that you have 5 or 10 MINUTES to cut down a tree. That is very little time. Sure you cannot just start swinging wildly with a dull axe, but that frigging tree has to come down in a few minutes, not six hours (or in Hinkie's case, 5 years).
Hinkie's situation is not akin to someone having 6 hours to cut down a tree. His situation is more like someone being called in to unclog a drain or a toilet in someone's house. Sure the plumber might say "we need to re-do the plumbing so this never happens again" but will the homeowner agree to wait 2-3-4 months with no working plumbing? Doubtful.
2) His Buffett analogy baffles me. According to this interview: http://www.shookrun.com/documents/buffett_Forbes_1974.pdf Buffett had determined that by 1969 there were simply no good investments out there and he would rather give the people who trusted him their money back rather than try to invest it and lose it.
So, by analogy, Hinkie would be saying that the Sixers had no more deals to make. The market sucks and all of the assets that the Sixers have gathered were the best they could do in the current market. His job is done, he cannot do any more.
But that is really not what he says. He makes analogies to collecting a ton of assets designed to acquire great veteran players (Boston getting Garnett, the Spurs waiting 5 years to get Aldridge). So........if the Sixers have Embiid (who apparently is really lighting it up in practice gyms) and Okafor and 100 draft picks (plus Jerian Grant, my lord he loves Jerian Grant) [NOTE -- it is Jerami Grant, not Jerian Grant - my bad] then aren't Hinkie's services needed most RIGHT NOW? Surely in 34 months he has put together a sign-and-trade plan to get Kevin Durant or LeBron or some other great player. Right? Why not stay around to pull the trigger on that deal?
If you look very closely, what he actually says is that he has to leave because of "management changes." So this implies that he has so little power that he cannot do what he wants to do. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Warren Buffett did -- Buffett had people lining up to give him money to invest, he could have invested it anyway he wanted. Buffett, however, felt the market was so awful that the best decision was to do nothing - so he did nothing. What Hinkie is really whining about is that the Sixers won't let him do what he wants. That has nothing to do with what Warren Buffett did in 1969.
3) Hinkie makes some rather odd statements. First, he mentions that in 2012-13 the Sixers had won a "disappointing" 34 games. What Sixers fan today wouldn't be ecstatic if in the next 2 years they somehow managed to win 34 games in a season?
Second, he states how great the Sixers were on defense with a great veteran like Luc Richard Mbah a Moute anchoring the defense, but declined thereafter when using young players. I don't recall there being any significant bidding war for Luc. If the Sixers wanted to retain him, I am sure they could have. So why state that you used to be great at something with a guy you basically threw away for nothing?
Third, he emphasizes that the Sixers' future is bright by stating that a website projects them in 3 years as the 12th best team in the NBA. 12th best - wow. So it only took three years of the darkest ugliest basketball in the last 40 years to get to a point where the Sixers (in the future) may be the 12th best team! (Hinkie suggests maybe 10th best). Wow. Awesome. So you took over a team that had won a "disappointing 34 games" and now someone projects a 12th place future for you! That is around 45 wins.
"Give me a team that won 34 games, give me three years where you are the league laughingstock and I will turn that into the possibility of 45 wins five years from now!"
Sign me up!
Back to my plumbing analogy - toilet needs unclogging, guy comes in, says, "I will make things worse for 3 months, and you will have to use an outhouse that I will place out by the road during that time, but in 5 months you will have a 25% better plumbing system. Not the best system, mind you, but pretty good."
Finally, his 'zero sum game" analysis is odd. First, all teams do not have the same 82 games. There are not 82 games "up for grabs" -- There are 30 teams and 82 games per team and one winner per game. I would imagine that is 1,230 wins up for grabs, not 82. (I am pretty sure that math is correct - if it were a two-team league each team would play 82 games and there would be 82 wins and 82 losses up for grabs). What Hinkie's approach has proved is that you do not have to "take" wins necessarily, sometimes teams will tank and give you wins. His entire letter implies that the Sixers intentionally lost games to gather better assets and have a steeper recovery. Every team who played the Sixers had a better chance as a result of this strategy.
If what you need to do is "zig" while the other teams "comfortably zag" then why must we "respect tradition" as well? I feel almost as if I am a 12 year old boy again listening to Joe Garagiola every week discuss that the number one key to pitching is (fill in different thing every week - a good fastball, changing speeds, location, being mentally tough, having a good breaking ball). This is the sort of mental masturbation and CYA that people do who cannot explain what their philosophy is. "I try to be a harsh grader, but fair" said one of my college professors. "I will run you to exhaustion, but you will love showing up for practice" said a coach. Both extremely terrible at their jobs, but both had read books stating that you need to be "_________ but the opposite of ________."
Conclusion
I am not saying that The Process put in place by Hinkie may not work. I mean, the Sixers have a good player in Okafor, an OK player in Noel and just a bevy of draft picks -- some of which may be very high picks in what is expected to be a very good draft. Could they get Ben Simmons and Jamal Murray and all of a sudden become a playoff team? Sure. Hinkie may have done a good job. Time will tell.
But when you are quitting because the boss prefers someone else, say, "Look, the boss prefers someone else, I am a figurehead, so I am moving on." You can mention the good things you have done and say how you think the team has potential to be #1 in the East if they draft well. No harm in that. But the gibberish and self-contradictory crap that Hinkie tosses into 13 pages says to me that he is a very insecure person who wants everyone to know that he has met a lot of people and read a lot of books and needs people to believe that he is far, far smarter than anyone who criticizes him. That does not earn him any points in my book, and I will always try to avoid such people, particularly where they accept at face value ridiculous quotes incorrectly attributed to Abe Lincoln.
Tuesday, April 05, 2016
Report on North Carolina's Academic Fraud
http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf
While you really need to be a Pollyanna to believe that Roy Williams did not know about all of this fraud, the 2005 title team was populated by AMFAM majors who were not taking real classes and, instead, were taking classes to remain eligible (that did not require class attendance and were graded by someone other than the assigned professor).
Rashad McCants, a starter on the title team, has stated that he never wrote his own papers and went over and picked up the papers he had to hand in right before he had to hand them in.
I do not see how the 2005 title is not vacated. Then you have the 2009 title, which occurred right as UNC was ending the program (the primary person responsible for the program was retiring). That one would probably also be vacated if the NCAA had any balls, but I imagine they will say that there is not enough evidence.
While you really need to be a Pollyanna to believe that Roy Williams did not know about all of this fraud, the 2005 title team was populated by AMFAM majors who were not taking real classes and, instead, were taking classes to remain eligible (that did not require class attendance and were graded by someone other than the assigned professor).
Rashad McCants, a starter on the title team, has stated that he never wrote his own papers and went over and picked up the papers he had to hand in right before he had to hand them in.
I do not see how the 2005 title is not vacated. Then you have the 2009 title, which occurred right as UNC was ending the program (the primary person responsible for the program was retiring). That one would probably also be vacated if the NCAA had any balls, but I imagine they will say that there is not enough evidence.
Monday, April 04, 2016
Shane McMahon Off the Top of a 20 foot cage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ds8wQcptZuo
Really an amazing decision. How much would they need to pay you for you to do this?
Really an amazing decision. How much would they need to pay you for you to do this?
Friday, March 04, 2016
Paul Krugman on the GOP
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/opinion/clash-of-republican-con-artists.html?_r=0
And I imagine that Krugman had to write this piece without the benefit of last night's unbelievable debate in which Rubio and Cruz called Trump a fraud and an idiot and a buffoon and then, when asked whether they would support him if he were the nominee, said, "oh sure."
This isn't a situation where you are saying, "Hey, Joe Blow is an intelligent and honorable man, but we disagree on policy." This is a situation where you are spending 2 hours calling someone a fraud and a con man and then at the end say "but, yes, I am OK with that."
It puts me in mind of the Warner Brothers cartoon where the sheepdog and the wolf are friends who go to work every day and the wolf's job is to steal sheep and the sheepdog's job is to beat the shit out of him. Then at the end of the day they leave and say, "hey, see you tomorrow buddy."
And I imagine that Krugman had to write this piece without the benefit of last night's unbelievable debate in which Rubio and Cruz called Trump a fraud and an idiot and a buffoon and then, when asked whether they would support him if he were the nominee, said, "oh sure."
This isn't a situation where you are saying, "Hey, Joe Blow is an intelligent and honorable man, but we disagree on policy." This is a situation where you are spending 2 hours calling someone a fraud and a con man and then at the end say "but, yes, I am OK with that."
It puts me in mind of the Warner Brothers cartoon where the sheepdog and the wolf are friends who go to work every day and the wolf's job is to steal sheep and the sheepdog's job is to beat the shit out of him. Then at the end of the day they leave and say, "hey, see you tomorrow buddy."
Wednesday, March 02, 2016
Ben Carson -- Anticipated Quitter
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ben-carson-sees-no-path-forward-191755324.html
I am going to go with the statement that I think he will quit, given that even Indiana Jones at his peak could not find "a way forward" as Carson says he will need to find in order to continue.
It is amazing the guy could be a great surgeon, because the opinion you get of the guy is that he is really struggling just to get through interacting with people in everyday life.
If the GOP voter doesn't want a guy who stabbed his friends as a youth and who believes that pyramids were grain storage units, how can we possibly appease such voters?
I am going to go with the statement that I think he will quit, given that even Indiana Jones at his peak could not find "a way forward" as Carson says he will need to find in order to continue.
It is amazing the guy could be a great surgeon, because the opinion you get of the guy is that he is really struggling just to get through interacting with people in everyday life.
If the GOP voter doesn't want a guy who stabbed his friends as a youth and who believes that pyramids were grain storage units, how can we possibly appease such voters?
Monday, February 29, 2016
Best Looking Regular People Entry
https://www.facebook.com/TheBestLookingRegularPeople
A Cat? Small children? What kind of entry is this?
A Cat? Small children? What kind of entry is this?
Gawker "Goes There" With The Marco Rubio Infidelity Rumors
http://gawker.com/5994678/here-are-the-career-ending-marco-rubio-rumors-buzzfeed-wants-to-write-about-without-writing-about
I am shocked and disappointed in Gawker. I cannot imagine that women would want to endure that level of sweat and those ears, even for the requisite 17 seconds.
Shame, Gawker, shame!
I am shocked and disappointed in Gawker. I cannot imagine that women would want to endure that level of sweat and those ears, even for the requisite 17 seconds.
Shame, Gawker, shame!
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Numbers 37 through 100 of ESPN's 2016 all-time #NBARank (Not a Click Through)
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).
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).
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)