Just recently won a big verdict on behalf of my client. Some trial highlights:
1) My client has to prove damages. Put my client on the stand and ask, "What is the total amount of your damages that you are claiming?" Objection - irrelevant.
Now, without proving damages, there can be no case win. The objection is that the proof of damages is "irrelevant"?
Overruled.
Shocker (my opponents brought 5 attorneys to trial, some of whom bill $800/hour - they objected to this question as "irrelevant.").
2) Going through damages -- "And what is $4,000 times 6 years?" "Objection your honor - Leading!" No. Leading would be "And $4,000 times 6 years is $24,000, right?"
Overruled.
3) Now, sir, by sending out this document, was it your intent to frighten my client? "Objection, mischaracterizes his testimony!" Mischaracterizes his testimony? His testimony is mentioned nowhere in the question. The question merely asks if his motivation in sending the letter was to frighten. The question involves neither his testimony nor any characterization of the testimony. And even if it would have (for example, "Didn't you just testify that the letter was designed to frighten someone?') I don't think that is a valid objection to cross examination.
Overruled.
4) Opponents brought 5 attorneys and 3 support staff every day. One of their litigation themes? "We are a small company being bullied." Well, when you have a theme like that, you probably don't want to flood the counsel area with people billing a total of $3,000 an hour and leave them there for 60 hours of trial.
5) One of the key arguments in the case, raised to the judge many times, was that because my client had been in business many years that he could claim many years of future damages. Judge had ruled on that theory 3-5 times during motions, always saying such testimony would, in fact, help to prove damages.
Q - "How long have you been in business?"
Objection - irrelevant.
Um, you have already lost this 3-5 times, there is binding case law directly on point, why continue?
6) Opposing counsel loses to my objections on the relevance of an issue 4 times. Finally says, "You honor, may I approach and be heard?" Judge - "On this line of questioning?" Yes. Judge, "No, you may not." Ouch.
7) One opponent objection was untimely disclosure of a witness. Move to exclude - denied. "We have no time to prepare!" Tough. Witness testifies - they have a rebuttal witness and a 29 page PowerPoint presentation with 4 separate attacks. Guess they were adequately prepared.
8) Local counsel asked me, "If we lose, are we polling the jury?" Uh, no. That is classless and, in my opinion, very unprofessional. These people have given us 8 days of their lives. We aren't doing that. We will take our loss with dignity and thank the folks for their service.
Then we win. Opponent -- "I would like the jury polled."
73 year old female juror, when asked, stops deliberately, turns to look directly at opposing counsel and says, "YES. It IS my verdict!" She is SUPER pissed.
9) When I won, two of opposing counsel walked up very graciously and professionally and said, "Congratulations, you did a good job." Main opponent, "See you at the Court of Appeals!" I relied, "You could, instead, just pay me now." Fucker.
When I was a really young kid, my dad taught us many card games. At the end of the game, you shook hands and said, "Good game." It was required. That was taught to me at age 6. Just stick out your hand and say "Good game." It may be hard in the moment, but it is a sign of class and good upbringing. I have lost cases at various stages and every time I have called or emailed opposing counsel as soon as possible and said, "Good job. Congrats." Or some variant of that. I could never do otherwise.
10) Doing 5 cross examinations back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back is exhausting. I would not wish that on my worst enemy.
11) Client stops me in the hall just before Day 4 of trial. "My wife was here yesterday." Yes, I saw. "Last night she said, 'gee, that guy we have from out of town is really, really good. Really good.'".
That made me smile.
12) I posted my win on Facebook. My sister called my mom and dad. The two 80 year olds called their 52 year old son and said how happy they were to learn I had done something well.
That was nice.
HM
Thursday, November 03, 2016
Monday, October 10, 2016
For Donald Trump -- Why One Senator Cannot Pass a Law
http://www.schooltube.com/video/fcde4d15a9276c9a09d3/
See, in particular, about 2:25 in.
"That's called a VEEEE-to...."
See, in particular, about 2:25 in.
"That's called a VEEEE-to...."
Sunday, September 25, 2016
Kevin Garnett Retires From My Beloved Timberwolves -- My #22 NBA/ABA Player of All-Time
When I watch basketball, what I become most frustrated with is lack of effort. I will at times stand up and yell at coaches or players "come on, TRY!"
As a Timberwolves season ticket holder, I watched Kevin Garnett play around 300 games in person and 500 more on TV. I never once asked for Kevin to try harder. I once saw KG badly turn an ankle at Target Center, hobble on one foot to the locker room, and play the entire game the next night in Denver.
Kevin Garnett played with a fury and desire that took an awful franchise from embarrassing (50-65 losses a year) to a lengthy playoff run and 45-57 wins per year. Then the Timberwolves traded KG. He immediately won a title in Boston, and the Wolves have not made the playoff since. That, in a nutshell is Kevin Garnett. He busted his ass every single night for the fans. He brought us wins, he made us a respectable team; he brought us to the Western Conference Finals. Then we jettisoned him and gave him to Boston for Al Jefferson. He immediately turned around Paul Pierce's attitude and won the Celts their first title in 22 years. Every casual fan in the East suddenly learned how great KG was, without the slightest understanding that they were seeing a guy who was 20% past his prime and not anywhere near the player who left his guts on the floor while playing 1,000 games of basketball for the Wolves.
Kevin Garnett was a smart player. He would save his fouls until the 4th quarter and then start playing with a frenzy where fouls 2-3-4 might come in 3 minutes. In a close game against a good opponent, he'd often end up with 4 or 5 fouls.
A typical "good" KG game in his prime would be 22 points, 12 rebounds, 8 assists, and 1 block. Only Charles Barkley has more of these types of games since 1984. http://bkref.com/tiny/jYMBW The other names on that list? LeBron, Bird....
Kevin Garnett was my favorite ever NBA player until 2003 when I saw LeBron James play. Now they are very close on my list of beloved players. James is obviously the better player, and far more of an entertainer than KG. KG has done more for me as an NBA fan than anyone ever, by a long, long way. James is an entertainer. He understands that he is putting on a show and that is what he loves most about the game - giving the fans a good show. KG is a gladiator. He wants to win. He will leave every drop of his blood on the floor to win. The fact that he does not or cannot does not ever enter his mind. He doesn't care how he acts on the floor or how he pursues his goal of winning. When he is out there, is it a gang war (as he said in his famous speech in the 2004 playoffs). As an opposing fan, you can begrudgingly respect KG. As a home fan, you have to love him deeply.
Some things the NBA will always have from KG:
1) Guys blocking shots taken during a dead ball. That was KG's deal and what everyone does today (including LeBron on Curry in the 2016 Finals).
2) The maximum salary for individual players. KG's $126M salary broke the bank and stunned NBA executives. Tim Duncan (one year behind KG) made roughly $100M less than KG due to the Collective Bargaining Agreement being revised for fear of other guys getting KG's money.
3) The moving high ball screen. As a young man, Garnett was so quick in setting a screen right and then quickly making it a screen left that it made defending a high ball screen virtually impossible, As he grew older, he kept doing the same thing and was moving pretty badly when he reversed the screen. The refs looked the other way, and now we have a whole generation of NBA big men who set wildly illegal ball screens of this type.
4) Evaluating big men on the quality "rebounds outside of his area." Kevin Garnett is the #1 defensive rebounder of the past 40 years. He never boxed out. Garnett would simply plant his feet in the middle of the lane, follow the flight of the ball, and outjump everyone. That is now called "rebounding out of your area." When I was growing up, it was called doing a poor job boxing out. But when you are 7', fast as a deer, can touch 12 feet and have great hands, it is a good strategy. This is particularly so when you are playing for a pretty mediocre set of temmates who expect you to get every rebound.
KG was also famous for the defensive hedge by the big man 35 feet from the hoop on a pick and roll. Hedge, turn you back on the dribbler, run back to your man. It is a great defensive tactic, but very difficult to do, so most teams don't use it anymore -- they just switch.
EVALUATION ON AN OBJECTIVE BASIS
I rank Kevin Garnett as the #22 best NBA/ABA player of all-time -- just behind Barkley and Baylor, just ahead of Stockton and Dirk.
ADVANCED STATS
He has two of the top 50 Win Shares Per 48 seasons of all-time (2003-04 with Minnesota, 2007-08 with Boston). Kevin led the league in Win Shares twice; in VOPR 3X, He is 9th in career WS, 7th in career DWS. He has more career Win Shares than Oscar, Shaq, Bill Russell, Kobe, Hakeem, Moses, Magic or Bird.
Kevin Garnett had 10.7 or more Win Shares in a season 9 times, tied for 14th all-time with Barkley, Bird, Magic and West. He had a season-long Defensive Rating of under 100 12 times; that ties him for 3rd with Hakeem and leaves him only behind David Robinson and Tim Duncan. If you combine the two requirements -- that you have 10.6+WS and a DRtg under 100, Kevin had 7 such seasons, tied with Kareem for 3rd best. Duncan and David Robinson had 10 each.
(Note -- some of these stats did not exist for Bill Russell, so Bill is almost certainly #1 in all such stats).
Sub-Total of This Section -- KG on an Advanced Stats Basis was a top 15 all-time player.
AWARDS
KG was MVP of the league (2003-04) and Defensive Player of the Year (2007-08). Kevin is 15th all-time in MVP award shares, 9X all-NBA (4X first team), 12X all-defense (8X first team). Kevin was almost unanimous MVP, and should have been (one voter cast a vote for......Jermaine O'Neal?).
Kevin's 2007-08 Defensive Player if the Year award still really angers me. From 2000 to 2006, Kevin Garnett was the best overall defensive player in the league. He could guard every position (though he admittedly struggled against huge heavy centers). He could guard out on the floor; he could guard by getting back on the break, he could play interior help defense. In 2003-04, KG had a Defensive Rating of 92. Don't you think it was THEN (his MVP year) that he should have been Defensive Player of the Year? Nope.
And Kevin did all of his defensive wizardry playing for a coach in Flip Saunders who did not give a damn about defense. But when the Wolves declined after 2004, the powers that be took KG off the all-defense first team and by 2006-07 he was second team all-defense and third team all-NBA. Then he goes to Boston and the media picks up the whole "my God, this guy is the greatest defensive player of all-time" line. Well, guys, when KG got to Boston he was roughly 80% the defender he was in Minnesota. He just ran across Tom Thibodeau and a team concept that actually emphasized defense.
In short, when KG was in Minnesota, he was horribly underrated and underappreciated from an all-NBA and DPOY standpoint. Once he went out East, he became, if anything, overrated. But no one is going to go back and sort through the record book and say "well, should have been much higher, played in Minnesota and we didn't give a flying fuck about Minnesota players."
Sub-Total of Awards Section -- top 35 player of all-time. You'd view him in the Havlicek, Pippen range if you looked just at these stats/awards.
PLAYOFF WINNER?
Often cited as the greatest negative on KG's resume. When in his prime in Minnesota he only won any playoff series one year (2004) and the Wolves either missed the playoffs or lost in the first round.
Not a top 100 player based upon this stretch. Was always compared negatively with people like Tracy McGrady and Big Dog Robinson.
Then KG goes to Boston and immediately wins a title. He gets hurt for a year and then the Celts go on another playoff run. He led the NBA in Playoff WS in 2007-08, so he was the best player on the best team.
His one title with Boston saves him in this category, as he has a title while Ewing and Barkley and Malone and Stockton and Durant and Chris Paul do not. I will add that Boston Celtics fans are rapid fans and advocate hard on behalf of their players, so winning one title in Boston is like winning 4 somewhere else. But I think his lack of success in MN will always hurt him when all-time lists are announced.
Sub-total -- top 40 player.
SOME PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AS A TIMBERWOLVES SEASON TICKET HOLDER WHO SAW HIM PLAY IN PERSON
Kevin Garnett is not dead, so I won't treat this like a eulogy where we put to one side all of the negative aspects of someone and pretend that they were perfect in all respects. I will just try to express to you the flaws of KG and his overall greatness.
When I moved to Minnesota for good in the summer of 1989, I got season tickets for the Timberwolves. I had been a Buffalo Braves fan until they moved to San Diego (then L.A.). I had picked the 80's Celtics over the 80's Lakers, and I had been a huge Ralph Sampson fan 1979-86 (how did that work out for me?).
Anyway, as a Timberwolves fan, let me just make it super clear -- when we did not have Kevin Garnett, we were the most embarrassing team in the league. We always lost 50+ games and usually 60+ games. The ownership tried to sell us to a New Orleans group that literally had no source of funding. Then KG came. Some things that you noticed right away about KG:
- 7 feet tall, legitimately
-- unbelievably long arms
-- ran like a deer
-- unbelievable passer
-- could touch the top of the backboard, but not a natural shot blocker
-- played with a level of intensity that was almost frightening
-- was so physically dominant from a speed and size standpoint that he scared other NBA players.
I recall Bobby Jackson coming down on a 1-on-1 break against KG, just exploding into the air and then seeing KG go up a foot and a half above Bobby. Jackson panicked so badly that he came down to the floor with the ball. The ref was (of course) trailing the play by 20 feet so he called KG for a foul. He never touched Jackson, but he scared him so much that they called a foul.
Shawn Marion just HATED Wally Szczerbiak (Wally had been picked before him) and he would regularly go at Wally. Often he would blow by Wally and would get met by KG in the lane. Marion on several occasions would just rocket the ball off the top of the square or throw a wild pass out of bounds so as to avoid being snuffed by KG.
One game I sat next to the Kings' bench and Rick Adelman called timeout and brought his team over. Rick (like Flip) was a great offensive coach. He looks at his team and says, "Guys, come on. Garnett is stopping our entire offense! When you have the ball, look for Garnett and pass the opposite way that he is going."
He gets extra points for being so dominant.
As a Timberwolves season ticket holder, I watched Kevin Garnett play around 300 games in person and 500 more on TV. I never once asked for Kevin to try harder. I once saw KG badly turn an ankle at Target Center, hobble on one foot to the locker room, and play the entire game the next night in Denver.
Kevin Garnett played with a fury and desire that took an awful franchise from embarrassing (50-65 losses a year) to a lengthy playoff run and 45-57 wins per year. Then the Timberwolves traded KG. He immediately won a title in Boston, and the Wolves have not made the playoff since. That, in a nutshell is Kevin Garnett. He busted his ass every single night for the fans. He brought us wins, he made us a respectable team; he brought us to the Western Conference Finals. Then we jettisoned him and gave him to Boston for Al Jefferson. He immediately turned around Paul Pierce's attitude and won the Celts their first title in 22 years. Every casual fan in the East suddenly learned how great KG was, without the slightest understanding that they were seeing a guy who was 20% past his prime and not anywhere near the player who left his guts on the floor while playing 1,000 games of basketball for the Wolves.
Kevin Garnett was a smart player. He would save his fouls until the 4th quarter and then start playing with a frenzy where fouls 2-3-4 might come in 3 minutes. In a close game against a good opponent, he'd often end up with 4 or 5 fouls.
A typical "good" KG game in his prime would be 22 points, 12 rebounds, 8 assists, and 1 block. Only Charles Barkley has more of these types of games since 1984. http://bkref.com/tiny/jYMBW The other names on that list? LeBron, Bird....
Kevin Garnett was my favorite ever NBA player until 2003 when I saw LeBron James play. Now they are very close on my list of beloved players. James is obviously the better player, and far more of an entertainer than KG. KG has done more for me as an NBA fan than anyone ever, by a long, long way. James is an entertainer. He understands that he is putting on a show and that is what he loves most about the game - giving the fans a good show. KG is a gladiator. He wants to win. He will leave every drop of his blood on the floor to win. The fact that he does not or cannot does not ever enter his mind. He doesn't care how he acts on the floor or how he pursues his goal of winning. When he is out there, is it a gang war (as he said in his famous speech in the 2004 playoffs). As an opposing fan, you can begrudgingly respect KG. As a home fan, you have to love him deeply.
Some things the NBA will always have from KG:
1) Guys blocking shots taken during a dead ball. That was KG's deal and what everyone does today (including LeBron on Curry in the 2016 Finals).
2) The maximum salary for individual players. KG's $126M salary broke the bank and stunned NBA executives. Tim Duncan (one year behind KG) made roughly $100M less than KG due to the Collective Bargaining Agreement being revised for fear of other guys getting KG's money.
3) The moving high ball screen. As a young man, Garnett was so quick in setting a screen right and then quickly making it a screen left that it made defending a high ball screen virtually impossible, As he grew older, he kept doing the same thing and was moving pretty badly when he reversed the screen. The refs looked the other way, and now we have a whole generation of NBA big men who set wildly illegal ball screens of this type.
4) Evaluating big men on the quality "rebounds outside of his area." Kevin Garnett is the #1 defensive rebounder of the past 40 years. He never boxed out. Garnett would simply plant his feet in the middle of the lane, follow the flight of the ball, and outjump everyone. That is now called "rebounding out of your area." When I was growing up, it was called doing a poor job boxing out. But when you are 7', fast as a deer, can touch 12 feet and have great hands, it is a good strategy. This is particularly so when you are playing for a pretty mediocre set of temmates who expect you to get every rebound.
KG was also famous for the defensive hedge by the big man 35 feet from the hoop on a pick and roll. Hedge, turn you back on the dribbler, run back to your man. It is a great defensive tactic, but very difficult to do, so most teams don't use it anymore -- they just switch.
EVALUATION ON AN OBJECTIVE BASIS
I rank Kevin Garnett as the #22 best NBA/ABA player of all-time -- just behind Barkley and Baylor, just ahead of Stockton and Dirk.
ADVANCED STATS
He has two of the top 50 Win Shares Per 48 seasons of all-time (2003-04 with Minnesota, 2007-08 with Boston). Kevin led the league in Win Shares twice; in VOPR 3X, He is 9th in career WS, 7th in career DWS. He has more career Win Shares than Oscar, Shaq, Bill Russell, Kobe, Hakeem, Moses, Magic or Bird.
Kevin Garnett had 10.7 or more Win Shares in a season 9 times, tied for 14th all-time with Barkley, Bird, Magic and West. He had a season-long Defensive Rating of under 100 12 times; that ties him for 3rd with Hakeem and leaves him only behind David Robinson and Tim Duncan. If you combine the two requirements -- that you have 10.6+WS and a DRtg under 100, Kevin had 7 such seasons, tied with Kareem for 3rd best. Duncan and David Robinson had 10 each.
(Note -- some of these stats did not exist for Bill Russell, so Bill is almost certainly #1 in all such stats).
Sub-Total of This Section -- KG on an Advanced Stats Basis was a top 15 all-time player.
AWARDS
KG was MVP of the league (2003-04) and Defensive Player of the Year (2007-08). Kevin is 15th all-time in MVP award shares, 9X all-NBA (4X first team), 12X all-defense (8X first team). Kevin was almost unanimous MVP, and should have been (one voter cast a vote for......Jermaine O'Neal?).
Kevin's 2007-08 Defensive Player if the Year award still really angers me. From 2000 to 2006, Kevin Garnett was the best overall defensive player in the league. He could guard every position (though he admittedly struggled against huge heavy centers). He could guard out on the floor; he could guard by getting back on the break, he could play interior help defense. In 2003-04, KG had a Defensive Rating of 92. Don't you think it was THEN (his MVP year) that he should have been Defensive Player of the Year? Nope.
And Kevin did all of his defensive wizardry playing for a coach in Flip Saunders who did not give a damn about defense. But when the Wolves declined after 2004, the powers that be took KG off the all-defense first team and by 2006-07 he was second team all-defense and third team all-NBA. Then he goes to Boston and the media picks up the whole "my God, this guy is the greatest defensive player of all-time" line. Well, guys, when KG got to Boston he was roughly 80% the defender he was in Minnesota. He just ran across Tom Thibodeau and a team concept that actually emphasized defense.
In short, when KG was in Minnesota, he was horribly underrated and underappreciated from an all-NBA and DPOY standpoint. Once he went out East, he became, if anything, overrated. But no one is going to go back and sort through the record book and say "well, should have been much higher, played in Minnesota and we didn't give a flying fuck about Minnesota players."
Sub-Total of Awards Section -- top 35 player of all-time. You'd view him in the Havlicek, Pippen range if you looked just at these stats/awards.
PLAYOFF WINNER?
Often cited as the greatest negative on KG's resume. When in his prime in Minnesota he only won any playoff series one year (2004) and the Wolves either missed the playoffs or lost in the first round.
Not a top 100 player based upon this stretch. Was always compared negatively with people like Tracy McGrady and Big Dog Robinson.
Then KG goes to Boston and immediately wins a title. He gets hurt for a year and then the Celts go on another playoff run. He led the NBA in Playoff WS in 2007-08, so he was the best player on the best team.
His one title with Boston saves him in this category, as he has a title while Ewing and Barkley and Malone and Stockton and Durant and Chris Paul do not. I will add that Boston Celtics fans are rapid fans and advocate hard on behalf of their players, so winning one title in Boston is like winning 4 somewhere else. But I think his lack of success in MN will always hurt him when all-time lists are announced.
Sub-total -- top 40 player.
SOME PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AS A TIMBERWOLVES SEASON TICKET HOLDER WHO SAW HIM PLAY IN PERSON
Kevin Garnett is not dead, so I won't treat this like a eulogy where we put to one side all of the negative aspects of someone and pretend that they were perfect in all respects. I will just try to express to you the flaws of KG and his overall greatness.
When I moved to Minnesota for good in the summer of 1989, I got season tickets for the Timberwolves. I had been a Buffalo Braves fan until they moved to San Diego (then L.A.). I had picked the 80's Celtics over the 80's Lakers, and I had been a huge Ralph Sampson fan 1979-86 (how did that work out for me?).
Anyway, as a Timberwolves fan, let me just make it super clear -- when we did not have Kevin Garnett, we were the most embarrassing team in the league. We always lost 50+ games and usually 60+ games. The ownership tried to sell us to a New Orleans group that literally had no source of funding. Then KG came. Some things that you noticed right away about KG:
- 7 feet tall, legitimately
-- unbelievably long arms
-- ran like a deer
-- unbelievable passer
-- could touch the top of the backboard, but not a natural shot blocker
-- played with a level of intensity that was almost frightening
-- was so physically dominant from a speed and size standpoint that he scared other NBA players.
I recall Bobby Jackson coming down on a 1-on-1 break against KG, just exploding into the air and then seeing KG go up a foot and a half above Bobby. Jackson panicked so badly that he came down to the floor with the ball. The ref was (of course) trailing the play by 20 feet so he called KG for a foul. He never touched Jackson, but he scared him so much that they called a foul.
Shawn Marion just HATED Wally Szczerbiak (Wally had been picked before him) and he would regularly go at Wally. Often he would blow by Wally and would get met by KG in the lane. Marion on several occasions would just rocket the ball off the top of the square or throw a wild pass out of bounds so as to avoid being snuffed by KG.
One game I sat next to the Kings' bench and Rick Adelman called timeout and brought his team over. Rick (like Flip) was a great offensive coach. He looks at his team and says, "Guys, come on. Garnett is stopping our entire offense! When you have the ball, look for Garnett and pass the opposite way that he is going."
He gets extra points for being so dominant.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Trump Ad -- Racist, Sexist, People -- You Know, "People Like You, and You and You."
Um, not exactly the most compelling ad. She is calling you and you and you racist and sexist -- you know, my most loyal supporters. Yep, that is what she is saying.
The focus of the ad should be "look, man, none of my supporters are racist or sexist" (of course that is a lie) or "there are a ton of reasons not to vote for her and she doesn't realize it."
Showing pics of your most loyal supporters and saying "you and you and you are racist and sexist" is kind of self-defeating. And wouldn't someone who supports Trump want to say "hey! I am in the other half of people! She isn't talking about ME!"
"Half of HM readers are SUPER ugly." Hey, Jim, she is calling you ugly. Response -- "No. I am not ugly."
Friday, September 02, 2016
Going for 2 Late in the 4th Quarter Up 7 -- It Is Basically a "Push" Mathematically
Gophers up 7 on Oregon State Beavers with under 2 minutes left at home; Gophers went for 2. Missed. Twitter Gopherites went crazy saying the Gophs were insane to try it. I said it had to be the far better play mathematically. Then I sat down at the kitchen table at 12:30 a.m. and realized we were both wrong.
If you assume that there is a 50-50% chance that a 2-point conversion will be made, we can do the math.
GOING FOR 2 -- You Will Win 75 times out of 100
If you go for two 100 times and make it 50% of the time, you will win the game 50 times on offense. (Up 9 under 2 minutes is virtually a certain win). You will miss 50 times. Since we are assuming that the opponent always scores exactly one TD, in those 50 times you miss we will 100% of the time be headed to OT. (There is a chance the Gophers kick and miss their PAT and there is a chance the Beavers score and kick and miss their PAT. But we will assume those wash out from a math standpoint).
You win 75% of the time (50 times you make the 2 and 25 of the 50 times you go to OT).
KICKING AND GOING UP 8 -- You will Win 75% of the time
If you kick, we will assume that is a 100% proposition (it isn't, but see above re the other team might miss a kick too), You are up 8.
When the Beavers score a TD, they now have a 50% chance of missing the 2. You will win 50 times out of 100 in regulation. On the 50 times that the Beavers make the 2, you will go to OT and win half the time. So, 25 more times.
You win 0 times on offense, 50 times by stopping the two and 25 times in OT -- you win 75 times out of 100.
VARIABLES -- OFFENSE AND DEFENSE
Now, suppose your offense just blows and will make a 2 20% of the time. And assume your defense is awesome and will allow a 2 only 20% of the time.
Going for 2 -- win 20 times out of 100 on offense, of the other 80 that you miss you are going to OT and win 40 times. 20+40 = 60 wins.
Kicking to go up 8 -- you win 0 times on offense, 80 times by stopping the 2 and 10 in OT. You should kick because you will win 90% of the time.
OFFENSE IS GREAT, DEFENSE BLOWS
Flip the scenario -- offense scores 80% on 2s and defense allows 80% on 2s.
Going for 2 -- win 80 times on offense and of the other 20 you go to OT and win 10. 90 wins.
Kicking to go up 8 -- win 0 times on offense, win 20 on stopping the two, 80 games go to OT and you win 40 of those. 20+40 = 60 wins.
CONCLUSION
If your chances of making and stopping the two are roughly the same, it will make no difference whether you go for two or kick. You will win roughly the same amount of times. If your offense is way better than your defense in that particular game, you should always go for 2. If your defense is way better than your offense in that particular game, you should kick and go up 8.
WILD CARD -- OPPOSING COACH DOWN 7 SCORES AND GOES FOR 2
Will a team down 7 after a failed 2 pointer by its opponent ever drive the length of the field and go for 2 and the win? I agree with Tracy Claeys that 99% of coaches are not doing this. But while you could lose to the Beavers in this scenario, this also permits you a backdoor way to win in regulation. You are up 7, they score and go for 2. You now have a chance to win in regulation and to lose in regulation. If your defense stops the 2 50% of the time, the chance of a bad beat or a lucky win is the same. Again - if you have a great D, you want them to go for 2 and if you have a wretched D, you want them not to go for 2.
AND KEEP IN MIND
The Win Probability calculators say there is a 97% chance you win up 8 and a 93% chance you win up 7 in under 2 minute scenarios. The biggest blame will be not in kicking or going for 2, but rather in allowing a late TD up a TD with under 2 minutes left at home. The odds say that should not happen.
If you assume that there is a 50-50% chance that a 2-point conversion will be made, we can do the math.
GOING FOR 2 -- You Will Win 75 times out of 100
If you go for two 100 times and make it 50% of the time, you will win the game 50 times on offense. (Up 9 under 2 minutes is virtually a certain win). You will miss 50 times. Since we are assuming that the opponent always scores exactly one TD, in those 50 times you miss we will 100% of the time be headed to OT. (There is a chance the Gophers kick and miss their PAT and there is a chance the Beavers score and kick and miss their PAT. But we will assume those wash out from a math standpoint).
You win 75% of the time (50 times you make the 2 and 25 of the 50 times you go to OT).
KICKING AND GOING UP 8 -- You will Win 75% of the time
If you kick, we will assume that is a 100% proposition (it isn't, but see above re the other team might miss a kick too), You are up 8.
When the Beavers score a TD, they now have a 50% chance of missing the 2. You will win 50 times out of 100 in regulation. On the 50 times that the Beavers make the 2, you will go to OT and win half the time. So, 25 more times.
You win 0 times on offense, 50 times by stopping the two and 25 times in OT -- you win 75 times out of 100.
VARIABLES -- OFFENSE AND DEFENSE
Now, suppose your offense just blows and will make a 2 20% of the time. And assume your defense is awesome and will allow a 2 only 20% of the time.
Going for 2 -- win 20 times out of 100 on offense, of the other 80 that you miss you are going to OT and win 40 times. 20+40 = 60 wins.
Kicking to go up 8 -- you win 0 times on offense, 80 times by stopping the 2 and 10 in OT. You should kick because you will win 90% of the time.
OFFENSE IS GREAT, DEFENSE BLOWS
Flip the scenario -- offense scores 80% on 2s and defense allows 80% on 2s.
Going for 2 -- win 80 times on offense and of the other 20 you go to OT and win 10. 90 wins.
Kicking to go up 8 -- win 0 times on offense, win 20 on stopping the two, 80 games go to OT and you win 40 of those. 20+40 = 60 wins.
CONCLUSION
If your chances of making and stopping the two are roughly the same, it will make no difference whether you go for two or kick. You will win roughly the same amount of times. If your offense is way better than your defense in that particular game, you should always go for 2. If your defense is way better than your offense in that particular game, you should kick and go up 8.
WILD CARD -- OPPOSING COACH DOWN 7 SCORES AND GOES FOR 2
Will a team down 7 after a failed 2 pointer by its opponent ever drive the length of the field and go for 2 and the win? I agree with Tracy Claeys that 99% of coaches are not doing this. But while you could lose to the Beavers in this scenario, this also permits you a backdoor way to win in regulation. You are up 7, they score and go for 2. You now have a chance to win in regulation and to lose in regulation. If your defense stops the 2 50% of the time, the chance of a bad beat or a lucky win is the same. Again - if you have a great D, you want them to go for 2 and if you have a wretched D, you want them not to go for 2.
AND KEEP IN MIND
The Win Probability calculators say there is a 97% chance you win up 8 and a 93% chance you win up 7 in under 2 minute scenarios. The biggest blame will be not in kicking or going for 2, but rather in allowing a late TD up a TD with under 2 minutes left at home. The odds say that should not happen.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Springsteen August 23. 2016
Bruce, obviously in a good mood, pulled out NYC Serenade, Jungleland and Rosalita and allows the crowd to request Santa Claus and Growin' Up.
I'd expect Thunder Road tonight
I'd expect Thunder Road tonight
- New York City Serenade
- Badlands
-
-
-
-
-
(Harry Reser and His Orchestra cover) (sign request)
-
-
-
-
(sign request)
-
-
-
(solo acoustic with Patti Scialfa on vocals)
-
(with string section; tour debut)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(Patti Smith Group cover)
-
-
-
-
(with “People Get Ready” outro)
- Encore:
-
-
Dancing in the Dark
-
-
-
(The Isley Brothers cover)
-
-
(Tom Waits cover) (sign request)
Note: Clocking in at 3:52:01 from the start of the first song to the end of the encores, this is widely being considered Bruce's longest concert ever performed in the United States and his third longest show ever.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Players With 40,000 or more "Points + Rebounds + Assists"
21 guys (3 get in because of their ABA stats)
21. Robert Parish -- 40,229 total points plus rebounds plus assists in his career.
20. Bill Russell -- 40,242 (the only guy not a top 50 all-time scorer to get over 40,000)
19. John Havlicek -- 40,516
18. Charles Barkley -- 40,568
17. LeBron James -- 40,715
16. Dan Issel - 41,522 (ABA guy - could have given you 100 guesses and you would not have guessed Dan Issel)
15. Dirk Nowitzki - 43,445
14. Hakeem Olajuwon -- 43,752
13. Artis Gilmore -- 44,321 (ABA guy)
12. Oscar Robertson - 44,401
11. Michael Jordan -- 44,597
10. Shaq -- 44,721
9. Dr. J -- 45, 727 (ABA guy)
8. Tim Duncan -- 45,812
7. Elvin Hayes -- 45,990
6. Kevin Garnett -- 46,178
5. Kobe Bryant -- 46,996
4. Moses Malone -- 49,350 (has ABA stats, but does not need them to qualify)
3. Karl Malone -- 57,144
2. Wilt Chamberlain -- 59,986
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar -- 61,487 (only guy on list in top 50 in career points, rebounds and assists)
Guys like Clyde, Gary Payton and Paul Pierce have come close. Pierce, in fact, only needs less than 1,600 total in the 3 categories to join the list.
Small guys really need not apply. The list includes
6'4" and under -- none.
6'5" to 6'8" -- 7 guys
6'9 and above -- 14 guys.
21. Robert Parish -- 40,229 total points plus rebounds plus assists in his career.
20. Bill Russell -- 40,242 (the only guy not a top 50 all-time scorer to get over 40,000)
19. John Havlicek -- 40,516
18. Charles Barkley -- 40,568
17. LeBron James -- 40,715
16. Dan Issel - 41,522 (ABA guy - could have given you 100 guesses and you would not have guessed Dan Issel)
15. Dirk Nowitzki - 43,445
14. Hakeem Olajuwon -- 43,752
13. Artis Gilmore -- 44,321 (ABA guy)
12. Oscar Robertson - 44,401
11. Michael Jordan -- 44,597
10. Shaq -- 44,721
9. Dr. J -- 45, 727 (ABA guy)
8. Tim Duncan -- 45,812
7. Elvin Hayes -- 45,990
6. Kevin Garnett -- 46,178
5. Kobe Bryant -- 46,996
4. Moses Malone -- 49,350 (has ABA stats, but does not need them to qualify)
3. Karl Malone -- 57,144
2. Wilt Chamberlain -- 59,986
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar -- 61,487 (only guy on list in top 50 in career points, rebounds and assists)
Guys like Clyde, Gary Payton and Paul Pierce have come close. Pierce, in fact, only needs less than 1,600 total in the 3 categories to join the list.
Small guys really need not apply. The list includes
6'4" and under -- none.
6'5" to 6'8" -- 7 guys
6'9 and above -- 14 guys.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Trump's Bogus Medical Letter
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-gunter/im-a-doctor-heres-concerning-trumps-medical-letter_b_11565838.html
Honest to God? Trump et al just basically drafts up a bullshit letter and puts it on some doctor's letterhead and signs it for him?
This is the same crew who managed to steal verbatim from a Michelle Obama speech and their fall woman said, "Melania told me to use parts of Michelle's speech, but I had no idea it was Michelle's speech." Huh?
Trump is a guy who wants to be President. What has he established about his ability to do (or delegate people to do) very basic tasks? Can't write a doctor's letter, can't write a speech, doesn't understand that "get out the vote" is necessary, etc.
Imagine how horrific his tax returns must be! I mean, let's take Trump at his word and say that this doctor's letter actually came from a licensed medical doctor. If this is who he selects as his personal physician, imagine who he selects as his accountant. I guess we see now why his returns are said to be audited every year. I mean, I envision a tax return with handwritten notes and attached statements about how something is "all positive" or "the best" and the IRS people just saying, "WTF is this? OK, audit the guy every year."
And yet, Marco Rubio and John McCain -- "We fully support the guy." Republicans must be SUPER proud of the fact that 75% of all Republicans say this guy is qualified to be President.
Honest to God? Trump et al just basically drafts up a bullshit letter and puts it on some doctor's letterhead and signs it for him?
This is the same crew who managed to steal verbatim from a Michelle Obama speech and their fall woman said, "Melania told me to use parts of Michelle's speech, but I had no idea it was Michelle's speech." Huh?
Trump is a guy who wants to be President. What has he established about his ability to do (or delegate people to do) very basic tasks? Can't write a doctor's letter, can't write a speech, doesn't understand that "get out the vote" is necessary, etc.
Imagine how horrific his tax returns must be! I mean, let's take Trump at his word and say that this doctor's letter actually came from a licensed medical doctor. If this is who he selects as his personal physician, imagine who he selects as his accountant. I guess we see now why his returns are said to be audited every year. I mean, I envision a tax return with handwritten notes and attached statements about how something is "all positive" or "the best" and the IRS people just saying, "WTF is this? OK, audit the guy every year."
And yet, Marco Rubio and John McCain -- "We fully support the guy." Republicans must be SUPER proud of the fact that 75% of all Republicans say this guy is qualified to be President.
Tuesday, August 09, 2016
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Democrats Are Now the Party That Loves America
This is an excellent description of what has happened in 2016: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/28/12306780/democratic-convention-speeches-patriotism-rhetoric
The Republican party (largely because it is an older and whiter party) has traditionally laid claim to........well.......tradition. That America is great and (as Reagan said) a shining city on the hill where people want to come and we are the best and the brightest and the greatest.
That the GOP can claim this message has stuck in the craw of most Democrats. The party has (at least since 1968) appealed to many who have been underserved by "tradition" (women, minorities, gays, the poor) and don't enjoy the idea that America is great, but no so great to them.
Enter Donald Trump.
The message from the 2016 GOP Convention in Cleveland was well summed up by Trump -- trust me, I am great, America sucks, we are stupid, we always lose, be afraid, be very afraid. Everything about America sucks and you should be terrified to step out your door any day of the week. Only I, Donald Trump, can make America great again (cuz it sucks right now).
By going with this message, Trump has ceded the more traditional GOP message of love of country to the Dems. And who do the Dems have to ram that message home? Bill Clinton -- raised very poor by a mom who abandoned him for years. Joe Biden - raised lower middle class in Scranton, PA. Barack Obama - raised as a mixed race child by his white grandparents and white single mom.
These gentlemen can tell a very compelling story of loving America and loving the people at the lower end of the economic spectrum, because they grew up there.
The Republicans? Well, they can still hang tight to the hope that they will get enormous tax cuts for the rich (most of whom personally hate Trump, but they still want his proposed ridiculous $34 trillion giveaway) and enjoy the fact that maybe they can get every scared, disaffected, poor and uneducated white person in the nation to vote Trump and that will be good enough for now. The coalition of the frightened, uneducated, racist and poor may be enough to win. But winning to what end? Once this coalition is in power, what will they hope to achieve? Will dirty jokes become legal again? Will white people get more power? Will all fanatics just stop being fanatics?
Congrats, Republican Party, you have lost the one thing you were really good at -- being optimistic and patriotic. Your new pitch? "We will keep Timofey Mozgov's taxes low!" or "David Duke seems to like us!"??
The Republican party (largely because it is an older and whiter party) has traditionally laid claim to........well.......tradition. That America is great and (as Reagan said) a shining city on the hill where people want to come and we are the best and the brightest and the greatest.
That the GOP can claim this message has stuck in the craw of most Democrats. The party has (at least since 1968) appealed to many who have been underserved by "tradition" (women, minorities, gays, the poor) and don't enjoy the idea that America is great, but no so great to them.
Enter Donald Trump.
The message from the 2016 GOP Convention in Cleveland was well summed up by Trump -- trust me, I am great, America sucks, we are stupid, we always lose, be afraid, be very afraid. Everything about America sucks and you should be terrified to step out your door any day of the week. Only I, Donald Trump, can make America great again (cuz it sucks right now).
By going with this message, Trump has ceded the more traditional GOP message of love of country to the Dems. And who do the Dems have to ram that message home? Bill Clinton -- raised very poor by a mom who abandoned him for years. Joe Biden - raised lower middle class in Scranton, PA. Barack Obama - raised as a mixed race child by his white grandparents and white single mom.
These gentlemen can tell a very compelling story of loving America and loving the people at the lower end of the economic spectrum, because they grew up there.
The Republicans? Well, they can still hang tight to the hope that they will get enormous tax cuts for the rich (most of whom personally hate Trump, but they still want his proposed ridiculous $34 trillion giveaway) and enjoy the fact that maybe they can get every scared, disaffected, poor and uneducated white person in the nation to vote Trump and that will be good enough for now. The coalition of the frightened, uneducated, racist and poor may be enough to win. But winning to what end? Once this coalition is in power, what will they hope to achieve? Will dirty jokes become legal again? Will white people get more power? Will all fanatics just stop being fanatics?
Congrats, Republican Party, you have lost the one thing you were really good at -- being optimistic and patriotic. Your new pitch? "We will keep Timofey Mozgov's taxes low!" or "David Duke seems to like us!"??
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
A Personal Note - The Value of Education
I was sitting in my office today looking at my passport and the two types of foreign money I picked up today for the European trip I will be on next week. What went through my head was the old Talking Heads song, and the line, "My God, How did I get here!?!?"
My grandfather on one side worked the factory line for Westinghouse. His wife never worked for pay. They had like 6 kids. A 20 year old sibling missed graduation ceremonies for an 18 year old to babysit the 1 year old baby. When the 18 year old became 20, it happened again.
My grandfather on the other side was a dairy farmer with a farm wife who also did not work outside the home. They also had like 6 kids. The floor of the main room of my grandma's house was so slanted that if you dropped a marble from one inch off the floor, it would roll to the far, far corner, very quickly. They were not wealthy, to say the least.
My father did well in high school, though not that well (top 20%) and went to the Ag School at Cornell to study animal science. He always notes that he went to the STATE school at Cornell, not the fancy private school. Eventually got a teaching certificate, eventually went and got an advanced degree in guidance counseling. He met my mom, who was working as a secretary at Cornell.
They had 5 kids. We regarded ourselves as "middle class." I mean, we drove old cars and we shared a lot of hand me down clothes with our many cousins and my dad cut my hair (very badly) until I was 17. And we never really had much money. But we were not "poor". I remember when I was 16 or 17 my dad showed me he had a net worth of $80,000. We are 27 years apart, so my dad would have been mid-40s. He was really happy and proud to show me how well he was doing.
Anyway, I got to go to college, and I did well, so I got to go to law school, and I did well, so I got a job. Today, 27 years out of school, being my father's son, I always complain about how much things cost, and I always complain that I have no money or that someone is taking all of my money for frivolous stuff like college tuition. But, in my head, I know I have money and when things go poorly and the kids wreck a car for the 9th time or get their 4th speeding ticket, I know I can afford to pay. I don't like to, and I bitch about it pretty loudly, but I have the money, I can pay. I am doing OK.
As I stared at my passport and my funny looking money, I felt pretty grateful that my dad and mom, both of whom came from very, very little, both valued education so much and funded me all they could and gave me the chance to get to the point where I have opportunities that they never had at my age and that their parents could only dream of. Anyway, just a personal note. We will get back to more advanced statistics basketball and hot celebrity women sightings as soon as possible.
P.S. -- things haven't been so stable in Europe lately, so think kind thoughts for me July 30-August 5.
My grandfather on one side worked the factory line for Westinghouse. His wife never worked for pay. They had like 6 kids. A 20 year old sibling missed graduation ceremonies for an 18 year old to babysit the 1 year old baby. When the 18 year old became 20, it happened again.
My grandfather on the other side was a dairy farmer with a farm wife who also did not work outside the home. They also had like 6 kids. The floor of the main room of my grandma's house was so slanted that if you dropped a marble from one inch off the floor, it would roll to the far, far corner, very quickly. They were not wealthy, to say the least.
My father did well in high school, though not that well (top 20%) and went to the Ag School at Cornell to study animal science. He always notes that he went to the STATE school at Cornell, not the fancy private school. Eventually got a teaching certificate, eventually went and got an advanced degree in guidance counseling. He met my mom, who was working as a secretary at Cornell.
They had 5 kids. We regarded ourselves as "middle class." I mean, we drove old cars and we shared a lot of hand me down clothes with our many cousins and my dad cut my hair (very badly) until I was 17. And we never really had much money. But we were not "poor". I remember when I was 16 or 17 my dad showed me he had a net worth of $80,000. We are 27 years apart, so my dad would have been mid-40s. He was really happy and proud to show me how well he was doing.
Anyway, I got to go to college, and I did well, so I got to go to law school, and I did well, so I got a job. Today, 27 years out of school, being my father's son, I always complain about how much things cost, and I always complain that I have no money or that someone is taking all of my money for frivolous stuff like college tuition. But, in my head, I know I have money and when things go poorly and the kids wreck a car for the 9th time or get their 4th speeding ticket, I know I can afford to pay. I don't like to, and I bitch about it pretty loudly, but I have the money, I can pay. I am doing OK.
As I stared at my passport and my funny looking money, I felt pretty grateful that my dad and mom, both of whom came from very, very little, both valued education so much and funded me all they could and gave me the chance to get to the point where I have opportunities that they never had at my age and that their parents could only dream of. Anyway, just a personal note. We will get back to more advanced statistics basketball and hot celebrity women sightings as soon as possible.
P.S. -- things haven't been so stable in Europe lately, so think kind thoughts for me July 30-August 5.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Trump, Cruz, Hillary and Bernie -- Choosing a Bus Driver
As I was contemplating Trump's speech last night (summary -- the fucking world is ENDING people, ENDING! No one has a job, everyone is poor, people are dying everywhere!!!!), I asked myself -- this guys is so incompetent and unstable, so why do I prefer him to Ted Cruz?
I arrived at this analogy.
Suppose that in early November I want to attend a Gophers football game and the only way for me to get there is to take one of four buses. The potential drivers are Trump, Cruz, Hillary and Bernie.
Trump -- If I choose Trump, I will get on his bus and I literally have no idea what will happen. It may never get started. He may walk off the bus and leave us in the parking lot. We may end up in Des Moines or Madison. Hell, who knows what will happen? He clearly doesn't know how to drive a bus. He doesn't seem particularly concerned about it and keeps shouting "we will get there and quickly!!!" Terrifying experience, but maybe by some miracle we will get to, say, downtown Minneapolis and we can walk or train it from there, or we may end up right by the stadium. Or we end up at the bottom of Lake Minnetonka.
Ted Cruz -- the bus will be spotless, we will be forced to pray every 5 minutes, and Ted will have a full tank of gas and freshly changed oil and a full tune up. He will know everything there is to know about a bus and how to drive it. He will also close the door and announce, "We are driving straight to Hell." When informed that I really do not want to go to Hell, he will advise me that the Constitution and his general concept of "Freedom" demands that everyone be taken directly to Hell. We will end up in Hell. Everyone there will say, "You selected Ted Cruz's bus, what did you expect?"
Hillary Clinton -- the Clinton bus will be like the Cruz bus, clean, well maintained, she has her license. She won't be quite the driver Cruz is, and she will be insufferable over the P.A. system. "Guys, did you see that right turn! I am so great!" When she gets lost she will call someone at the bus company and fire them, remarking, "Guys, I am so sorry that my greatness was diminished briefly by that idiot. Oh well, back to more stories of me and how great I am." The bus will end up six to ten blocks from the stadium and Hillary will say, "Get out. My time for you idiots is over. I have to recall/make-up more stories about myself and how awesome I am."
Bernie Sanders -- he obtained his knowledge of bus driving by watching videos of others driving and remarking how driving a bus must suck and how it would be way, way better if robot chauffeurs would just take us to the game in flying cars. But now he is driving the bus. He really doesn't want to drive the bus, he just wants the robots to exist. As the bus meanders wildly through the Interstate Highway System, Bernie complains about why the roads are not paved with gold, since it is everyone's right to expect gold-paved roads. As we approach, say, Duluth, Bernie stops the bus and says, "OK, each one of you, how much did you make last year?" I end up handing over 85% of my money, some of which is given to other riders and some of which goes toward Bernie's goal of the robot chauffeurs. He ends up with like $300 and says, "Robot chauffeurs, here we come!" Eventually at a stoplight in downtown Duluth someone knocks him out and drops him in the back seat and we just ignore him and one of us drives the bus back to the game. Of course we are now 3 hours away, having started only 30 minutes away. None of the other passengers will give me my money back and they want all of Bernie's robot money as well.
So, as hard as it is to stomach, I will take the Hillary bus. The Trump bus actually might be less painful and there is a small chance he will get us closer to the game, but we could all die. The Bernie bus would just be a bizarre experience and I don't really want to give away 85% of my money. In a way, I would feel better about choosing Cruz as a driver because at least he is competent and I would be driven by someone intelligent and willing to work effectively toward his goal. But I really don't want to be driven to Hell, even if it is effectively and efficiently. Sorry, Ted, you finish last.
1) Hillary
2) (tie) Bernie and Trump
4) Cruz.
I arrived at this analogy.
Suppose that in early November I want to attend a Gophers football game and the only way for me to get there is to take one of four buses. The potential drivers are Trump, Cruz, Hillary and Bernie.
Trump -- If I choose Trump, I will get on his bus and I literally have no idea what will happen. It may never get started. He may walk off the bus and leave us in the parking lot. We may end up in Des Moines or Madison. Hell, who knows what will happen? He clearly doesn't know how to drive a bus. He doesn't seem particularly concerned about it and keeps shouting "we will get there and quickly!!!" Terrifying experience, but maybe by some miracle we will get to, say, downtown Minneapolis and we can walk or train it from there, or we may end up right by the stadium. Or we end up at the bottom of Lake Minnetonka.
Ted Cruz -- the bus will be spotless, we will be forced to pray every 5 minutes, and Ted will have a full tank of gas and freshly changed oil and a full tune up. He will know everything there is to know about a bus and how to drive it. He will also close the door and announce, "We are driving straight to Hell." When informed that I really do not want to go to Hell, he will advise me that the Constitution and his general concept of "Freedom" demands that everyone be taken directly to Hell. We will end up in Hell. Everyone there will say, "You selected Ted Cruz's bus, what did you expect?"
Hillary Clinton -- the Clinton bus will be like the Cruz bus, clean, well maintained, she has her license. She won't be quite the driver Cruz is, and she will be insufferable over the P.A. system. "Guys, did you see that right turn! I am so great!" When she gets lost she will call someone at the bus company and fire them, remarking, "Guys, I am so sorry that my greatness was diminished briefly by that idiot. Oh well, back to more stories of me and how great I am." The bus will end up six to ten blocks from the stadium and Hillary will say, "Get out. My time for you idiots is over. I have to recall/make-up more stories about myself and how awesome I am."
Bernie Sanders -- he obtained his knowledge of bus driving by watching videos of others driving and remarking how driving a bus must suck and how it would be way, way better if robot chauffeurs would just take us to the game in flying cars. But now he is driving the bus. He really doesn't want to drive the bus, he just wants the robots to exist. As the bus meanders wildly through the Interstate Highway System, Bernie complains about why the roads are not paved with gold, since it is everyone's right to expect gold-paved roads. As we approach, say, Duluth, Bernie stops the bus and says, "OK, each one of you, how much did you make last year?" I end up handing over 85% of my money, some of which is given to other riders and some of which goes toward Bernie's goal of the robot chauffeurs. He ends up with like $300 and says, "Robot chauffeurs, here we come!" Eventually at a stoplight in downtown Duluth someone knocks him out and drops him in the back seat and we just ignore him and one of us drives the bus back to the game. Of course we are now 3 hours away, having started only 30 minutes away. None of the other passengers will give me my money back and they want all of Bernie's robot money as well.
So, as hard as it is to stomach, I will take the Hillary bus. The Trump bus actually might be less painful and there is a small chance he will get us closer to the game, but we could all die. The Bernie bus would just be a bizarre experience and I don't really want to give away 85% of my money. In a way, I would feel better about choosing Cruz as a driver because at least he is competent and I would be driven by someone intelligent and willing to work effectively toward his goal. But I really don't want to be driven to Hell, even if it is effectively and efficiently. Sorry, Ted, you finish last.
1) Hillary
2) (tie) Bernie and Trump
4) Cruz.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Melania Trump -- Loves Her Some Michelle Obama
https://www.yahoo.com/news/melania-trump-speech-writer-mciver-000000807.html
So, after two days we get an official explanation that says the following:
1) When asked who she most admires, Melania Trump turns to..........Michelle Obama. The Devil Incarnate for the GOP base. The person they spent 7+ years saying hates "whitey" and who forces kids to try to eat healthy food -- which is basically the end of the world.
The person who, along with her Kenyan, Muslim, Gay-Loving, Police-Hating, non-citizen, fake-school-going, not-that-bright husband, have ruined America and all that is great about America. The family that causes her own husband to stand up with a goofy hat on and say "Make American Great Again." That Michelle Obama. She admires her.
She wants to quote her. She wishes she was just like her (or possibly she thinks she is just like Michelle Obama).
Wow. Question one for the Trump Campaign -- does your wife admire Michelle Obama?
2) Melania tells the writer lady -- "Hey, in her speech, Michelle Obama said these things (fills in what MO said). I want to say that too."
So the explanation is that the speech writer thought that the exact things stated by Michelle Obama, that Melania was providing to the speech writer, were not actually in Michelle Obama's speech? That they were a paraphrase?
Imagine I told someone, "Hey, you know what Tom Thibodeau said the other day in the huddle? He said, "Don't give up corner threes and shrink the floor defensively. Rebound up and through the ball."". Does the person I am speaking to think that these words are somehow my interpretation of what was said? That Thibs didn't use these exact words? I mean, come on.
What happened here is either that 1) the speech writer lady was asked to look at an old Michelle Obama speech and take the parts Melania liked. She did so, verbatim. She thought no one would ever know; or 2) the speech writer changed the words around some and gave it to Melania, who said, "uh, no. I want to say exactly what my hero Michelle Obama said." and she changed the words. .
So, after two days we get an official explanation that says the following:
1) When asked who she most admires, Melania Trump turns to..........Michelle Obama. The Devil Incarnate for the GOP base. The person they spent 7+ years saying hates "whitey" and who forces kids to try to eat healthy food -- which is basically the end of the world.
The person who, along with her Kenyan, Muslim, Gay-Loving, Police-Hating, non-citizen, fake-school-going, not-that-bright husband, have ruined America and all that is great about America. The family that causes her own husband to stand up with a goofy hat on and say "Make American Great Again." That Michelle Obama. She admires her.
She wants to quote her. She wishes she was just like her (or possibly she thinks she is just like Michelle Obama).
Wow. Question one for the Trump Campaign -- does your wife admire Michelle Obama?
2) Melania tells the writer lady -- "Hey, in her speech, Michelle Obama said these things (fills in what MO said). I want to say that too."
So the explanation is that the speech writer thought that the exact things stated by Michelle Obama, that Melania was providing to the speech writer, were not actually in Michelle Obama's speech? That they were a paraphrase?
Imagine I told someone, "Hey, you know what Tom Thibodeau said the other day in the huddle? He said, "Don't give up corner threes and shrink the floor defensively. Rebound up and through the ball."". Does the person I am speaking to think that these words are somehow my interpretation of what was said? That Thibs didn't use these exact words? I mean, come on.
What happened here is either that 1) the speech writer lady was asked to look at an old Michelle Obama speech and take the parts Melania liked. She did so, verbatim. She thought no one would ever know; or 2) the speech writer changed the words around some and gave it to Melania, who said, "uh, no. I want to say exactly what my hero Michelle Obama said." and she changed the words. .
Monday, July 18, 2016
Why I Like Tyus Jones, And You Should As Well
Obviously I am pre-disposed to like Tyus Jones. I am a Minnesota resident, went to Duke Law School, and am a long-term season ticket holder of the Timberwolves. But that, of course, does not mean that I have to like the guy. I have been very negative on many Wolves players and Duke players through the years, and certainly there are many, many Minnesota players who aren't the answer as basketball greats, so why do I like Tyus Jones?
1) Tyus Jones is a winner -- high school state champion, national champion and MOP in the Final 4 in his one year as a Duke player. When games get important, Tyus Jones plays better.
2) Tyus Jones makes his teammates better -- you will note that in the Summer League the Wolves were struggling mightily when Kris Dunn was playing, despite Dunn's constant forays to the hoop (some of which were rather impressive) and his ability to get steals, rebound, block shots, etc. Then when Dunn got a concussion the Wolves were basically forced to give Tyus the ball and let him run the offense. When Tyus is in charge of the offense, guys get open shots. It is as simple as that. He wants to run the offense, and if your offense gets guys open, he will hit them. Why do you think Jahlil Okafor so badly wanted to play with Tyus at Duke? If you are open on the post, Tyus will look for you and get you the ball. Reid Travis went from a top 120 player to a top 40 player in one AAU season with Tyus. Brock Bertram played at Apple Valley with Tyus - his stock was never higher. Then he had to play AAU without Tyus; stock not so great.
3) Any Coach Who Has Relied Upon Tyus Has Done Well -- Apple Valley, champions, Duke, champions, USA Basketball, champions. Sam Mitchell plays him almost not at all -- 29 wins.
My Response to Detractors
The general statements of detractors regarding Tyus Jones are that 1) he is too small; 2) he is not very athletic; 3) he is a mediocre shooter; and 4) he is a terrible defender.
Too Small
Tyus is roughly the same size as Chris Paul and slightly bigger than Mike Conley. Tyus, at 6'2" and 195 pounds, certainly isn't appreciable smaller than Steph Curry or Damian Lillard or Kyrie Irving.
Not Very Athletic
Tyus can dunk. Ricky Rubio has a very hard time dunking. My son was a very good athlete and always one of the top 2-3 fastest guys on any team he played on. He played against Tyus in baseball -- Tyus is way, way faster. Tyus was a great youth league pitcher. To say he is a poor athlete is ridiculous. Tyus played at Duke against Louisville's guards and Carolina's guards and Virginia's guards and Michigan State's guards. The higher the level of competition, the better Tyus played. Duke was the national champion.
Is Tyus as athletic as Russell Westbrook? John Wall? Of course not. That means he is not one of the top 8 most athletic guards in the league.
Mediocre Shooter
Guys who are 17-18-19 years old are generally nowhere near complete as shooters. I can name you dozens of guys who could not make a mid-range shot as a young player and who improved greatly as they went along in the NBA. Magic. LeBron. Jordan. Karl Malone. I mean, I am not talking about just schlubs who struggle to make a roster here. Anyone willing to work on their shot and gets consistent playing time generally becomes a significantly better shooter (Ricky Rubio perhaps being the exception that proves the rule).
Terrible Defender
NBA Basketball is not an "individual defense" game for most players. If you are Kawhi Leonard or Draymond Green or LeBron, or if you are a center, you may be able to make a positive difference defensively. The other guys? They just need to know where they are supposed to be defensively, get in the way, and do their best to occasionally get a steal or dive for a loose ball.
Tyus's defensive rating last year was 111. That is bad. The Wolves' overall defensive rating last year? 110.8; almost exactly as bad. Among the guys who had worse DRtg than Tyus last year? Andrew Wiggins (113), Shabazz Muhammed (114).
Haters of Tyus Jones are acting as if playing for only spot minutes as a 19 year old PG on one of the worst defensive teams in the league means Tyus's best defensive effort is a 111 DRtg. If he plays at all under Thibs, that rating will go down 4 points immediately, just because his teammates are trying to play defense. And even if it doesn't, since 1979 there are 27 small guards with at least two All-Star selections and a career DRtg of 108 or worse, including Derrick Rose, Kyrie Irving, Steve Nash and Deron Williams. Nash's career DRtg is 111. Mark Price (named a top 100 player of all-time by ESPN) is also on the list.
And a Final Note: the negative reviews of Tyus Jones' ability confuse me. For example, what do we hear about Tyler Ulis's selection by the Suns? "Great pick, steal of the draft, really can run a team, good offensively." The Suns, despite not having to do so for a second round pick, signed him to a guaranteed 2-year deal. Consensus -- He is AWESOME! But he played against Tyus Jones yesterday. Tyus destroyed Ulis. Had it been a fight, they would have stopped it. Jones was bigger, stronger, faster, better shooter. Yet, while Ulis is something akin to Nate Archibald, Tyus sucks?
Then you look at guys around the league -- Mike Conley is signed for $150M. Delly (6'4", 198 pounds) gets $37M. Tyler Johnson (6'4" 186) gets $50M. The Hawks won 60 games with Jeff Teague at the point, and they basically abandoned him shortly thereafter for Dennis Schroder, now both Teague (6'2" 186 lbs.) and Schroder (6'1" 172) will be making big money and starting.
If this is the market for NBA PGs, then why do local media seem to have so much glee that "Tyus will never play"? Why are you happy about that? Cuz he is a local? Cuz he played at Duke? Any objective review of the kid's ability will show you that he is a good solid backup PG, and he should, in the right situation, be a good starting PG. This is a guy who you want to jettison?
I like Tyus Jones, and you should as well.
1) Tyus Jones is a winner -- high school state champion, national champion and MOP in the Final 4 in his one year as a Duke player. When games get important, Tyus Jones plays better.
2) Tyus Jones makes his teammates better -- you will note that in the Summer League the Wolves were struggling mightily when Kris Dunn was playing, despite Dunn's constant forays to the hoop (some of which were rather impressive) and his ability to get steals, rebound, block shots, etc. Then when Dunn got a concussion the Wolves were basically forced to give Tyus the ball and let him run the offense. When Tyus is in charge of the offense, guys get open shots. It is as simple as that. He wants to run the offense, and if your offense gets guys open, he will hit them. Why do you think Jahlil Okafor so badly wanted to play with Tyus at Duke? If you are open on the post, Tyus will look for you and get you the ball. Reid Travis went from a top 120 player to a top 40 player in one AAU season with Tyus. Brock Bertram played at Apple Valley with Tyus - his stock was never higher. Then he had to play AAU without Tyus; stock not so great.
3) Any Coach Who Has Relied Upon Tyus Has Done Well -- Apple Valley, champions, Duke, champions, USA Basketball, champions. Sam Mitchell plays him almost not at all -- 29 wins.
My Response to Detractors
The general statements of detractors regarding Tyus Jones are that 1) he is too small; 2) he is not very athletic; 3) he is a mediocre shooter; and 4) he is a terrible defender.
Too Small
Tyus is roughly the same size as Chris Paul and slightly bigger than Mike Conley. Tyus, at 6'2" and 195 pounds, certainly isn't appreciable smaller than Steph Curry or Damian Lillard or Kyrie Irving.
Not Very Athletic
Tyus can dunk. Ricky Rubio has a very hard time dunking. My son was a very good athlete and always one of the top 2-3 fastest guys on any team he played on. He played against Tyus in baseball -- Tyus is way, way faster. Tyus was a great youth league pitcher. To say he is a poor athlete is ridiculous. Tyus played at Duke against Louisville's guards and Carolina's guards and Virginia's guards and Michigan State's guards. The higher the level of competition, the better Tyus played. Duke was the national champion.
Is Tyus as athletic as Russell Westbrook? John Wall? Of course not. That means he is not one of the top 8 most athletic guards in the league.
Mediocre Shooter
Guys who are 17-18-19 years old are generally nowhere near complete as shooters. I can name you dozens of guys who could not make a mid-range shot as a young player and who improved greatly as they went along in the NBA. Magic. LeBron. Jordan. Karl Malone. I mean, I am not talking about just schlubs who struggle to make a roster here. Anyone willing to work on their shot and gets consistent playing time generally becomes a significantly better shooter (Ricky Rubio perhaps being the exception that proves the rule).
Terrible Defender
NBA Basketball is not an "individual defense" game for most players. If you are Kawhi Leonard or Draymond Green or LeBron, or if you are a center, you may be able to make a positive difference defensively. The other guys? They just need to know where they are supposed to be defensively, get in the way, and do their best to occasionally get a steal or dive for a loose ball.
Tyus's defensive rating last year was 111. That is bad. The Wolves' overall defensive rating last year? 110.8; almost exactly as bad. Among the guys who had worse DRtg than Tyus last year? Andrew Wiggins (113), Shabazz Muhammed (114).
Haters of Tyus Jones are acting as if playing for only spot minutes as a 19 year old PG on one of the worst defensive teams in the league means Tyus's best defensive effort is a 111 DRtg. If he plays at all under Thibs, that rating will go down 4 points immediately, just because his teammates are trying to play defense. And even if it doesn't, since 1979 there are 27 small guards with at least two All-Star selections and a career DRtg of 108 or worse, including Derrick Rose, Kyrie Irving, Steve Nash and Deron Williams. Nash's career DRtg is 111. Mark Price (named a top 100 player of all-time by ESPN) is also on the list.
And a Final Note: the negative reviews of Tyus Jones' ability confuse me. For example, what do we hear about Tyler Ulis's selection by the Suns? "Great pick, steal of the draft, really can run a team, good offensively." The Suns, despite not having to do so for a second round pick, signed him to a guaranteed 2-year deal. Consensus -- He is AWESOME! But he played against Tyus Jones yesterday. Tyus destroyed Ulis. Had it been a fight, they would have stopped it. Jones was bigger, stronger, faster, better shooter. Yet, while Ulis is something akin to Nate Archibald, Tyus sucks?
Then you look at guys around the league -- Mike Conley is signed for $150M. Delly (6'4", 198 pounds) gets $37M. Tyler Johnson (6'4" 186) gets $50M. The Hawks won 60 games with Jeff Teague at the point, and they basically abandoned him shortly thereafter for Dennis Schroder, now both Teague (6'2" 186 lbs.) and Schroder (6'1" 172) will be making big money and starting.
If this is the market for NBA PGs, then why do local media seem to have so much glee that "Tyus will never play"? Why are you happy about that? Cuz he is a local? Cuz he played at Duke? Any objective review of the kid's ability will show you that he is a good solid backup PG, and he should, in the right situation, be a good starting PG. This is a guy who you want to jettison?
I like Tyus Jones, and you should as well.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Top 100 NBA Free Agents -- Where Did They Go? What did they Get?
Thanks to cbssports.com for the chart. I will identify my thoughts by grade.
General thoughts -- a lot of guys who get B's are good but are slightly overpaid. C's are kinda like I feel "ehhhh, Ok, fine"
D -- that is a bad idea.
F -- inexcusable, simply cannot be explained.
Rondo gets an F+ because while he was wretched last year (absolutely did not try) if you could get him to try he would be a low-level starter, so it may be worth a shot but it is pretty close to inexcusable.
Solomon Hill gets a D minus because it is a really bad idea, but he is not so clearly terrible or unworthy of the money that I could place him with an F.
General thoughts -- a lot of guys who get B's are good but are slightly overpaid. C's are kinda like I feel "ehhhh, Ok, fine"
D -- that is a bad idea.
F -- inexcusable, simply cannot be explained.
Rondo gets an F+ because while he was wretched last year (absolutely did not try) if you could get him to try he would be a low-level starter, so it may be worth a shot but it is pretty close to inexcusable.
Solomon Hill gets a D minus because it is a really bad idea, but he is not so clearly terrible or unworthy of the money that I could place him with an F.
| RANK PLAYER | '15-16 TEAM | '16-17 TEAM | CONTRACT |
| 1. Kevin Durant (SF) | Thunder | Warriors | *2 years, $54M Grade A |
| 2. LeBron James (SF) | Cavaliers | -- | -- |
| 3. Andre Drummond (C) | Pistons | Pistons | *5 years, $130M Grade B - have to do it, but a huge risk for |
| 4. Al Horford (C) | Hawks | Celtics | *4 years, $113M Grade B |
| 5. Mike Conley (PG) | Grizzlies | Grizzlies | *5 years, $153M Grade D |
| 6. DeMar DeRozan (SG) | Raptors | Raptors | *5 years, $139M Grade B |
| 7. Bradley Beal (SG) | Wizards | Wizards | *5 years, $128M Grade C |
| 8. Nicolas Batum (SF) | Hornets | Hornets | *5 years, $120M Grade D |
| 9. Hassan Whiteside (C) | Heat | Heat | *4 years, $98M Grade B |
| 10. Dwyane Wade (SG) | Heat | Bulls | *2 years, $48M Grade C |
| 11. Dwight Howard (C) | Rockets | Hawks | *3 years, $70.5M Grade C |
| 12. Tim Duncan (PF) | Spurs | Spurs | *player option Retired |
| 13. Dirk Nowitzki (PF) | Mavs | Mavs | *2 years, $40M Grade C |
| 14. Dion Waiters (SG) | Thunder | -- | -- |
| 15. J.R. Smith (SG) | Cavaliers | -- | -- |
| 16. Chandler Parsons (SF) | Mavs | Grizzlies | *4 years, $98.5M Grade C |
| 17. Pau Gasol (PF) | Bulls | Spurs | *2 years, $30M Grade A |
| 18. Kent Bazemore (SF) | Hawks | Hawks | *4 years, $70M Grade B |
| 19. Ryan Anderson (PF) | Pelicans | Rockets | * 4 years, $80M Grade C |
| 20. Bismack Biyombo (C) | Raptors | Magic | * 4 years, $72M Grade C |
| 21. Jordan Clarkson (PG) | Lakers | Lakers | *4 years, $50M Grade A |
| 22. Marvin Williams (PF) | Hornets | Hornets | *4 years, $54.5M Grade C |
| 23. Evan Turner (SG) | Celtics | Blazers | *4 years, $70M Grade D |
| 24. Festus Ezeli (C) | Warriors | Blazers | *2 years, $14.7M Grade B |
| 25. Courtney Lee (SG) | Grizzlies | Knicks | *4 years, $50M Grade B |
| 26. Harrison Barnes (SF) | Warriors | Mavs | *4 years, $94M Grade C |
| 27. Matthew Dellavedova (PG) | Cavaliers | Bucks | 4 years, $38.5M Grade C |
| 28. Evan Fournier (SG) | Magic | Magic | *5 years, $85M Grade B |
| 29. Jeremy Lin (PG) | Hornets | Nets | *3 years, $36M Grade B |
| 30. Allen Crabbe (SG) | Blazers | Blazers | *4 years, $75M Grade B |
| 31. Gerald Henderson (SG) | Blazers | Sixers | *2 years, $18M Grade C |
| 32. Ian Mahinmi (C) | Pacers | Wizards | *4 years, $64M Grade F |
| 33. Darrell Arthur (PF) | Nuggets | Nuggets | *3 years, $23M Grade D |
| 34. Arron Afflalo (SG) | Knicks | Kings | *2 years, $25M Grade C |
| 35. Boban Marjanovic (C) | Spurs | Pistons | *3 years, $21M Grade D |
| 36. Marreese Speights (PF) | Warriors | Clippers | *vet minimum Grade A |
| 37. Trevor Booker (PF) | Jazz | Nets | *2 years, $18M Grade B |
| 38. Meyers Leonard (PF) | Blazers | Blazers | *4 years, $41M Grade B |
| 39. Joakim Noah (C) | Bulls | Knicks | *4 years, $72M Grade C |
| 40. Al Jefferson (C) | Hornets | Pacers | *3 years, $30M Grade A |
| 41. Donatas Motiejunas (PF/C) | Int'l | -- | -- |
| 42. Mirza Teletovic (PF) | Suns | Bucks | *3 years, $30M Grade C |
| 43. Luol Deng (SF) | Heat | Lakers | *4 years, $72M Grade A |
| 44. Matt Barnes (SF) | Grizzlies | Kings | *2 years, $12M Grade D |
| 45. Eric Gordon (SG) | Pelicans | Rockets | *4 years, $53M Grade D |
| 46. E'Twaun Moore (SG) | Bulls | Pelicans | *4 years, $34M Grade D |
| 47. Brandon Jennings (PG) | Magic | Knicks | *1 year, $5M Grade B |
| 48. Jared Dudley (SF) | Wizards | Suns | *3 years, $30M Grade C |
| 49. Joe Johnson (SG) | Heat | Jazz | *2 years, $22M Grade D |
| 50. Ty Lawson (PG) | Pacers | -- | -- |
| 51. Tyler Johnson (SG) | Heat | Heat | *4 years, $50M Grade D |
| 52. Jerryd Bayless (PG) | Bucks | Sixers | *3 years, $27M Grade C |
| 53. Maurice Harkless (SF) | Blazers | -- | -- |
| 54. Langston Galloway (SG) | Knicks | Pelicans | *2 years, $6M Grade D |
| 55. Andrew Nicholson (PF) | Magic | Wizards | *4 years, $26M Grade C |
| 56. Leandro Barbosa (SG) | Warriors | Suns | *2 years, $8M Grade D |
| 57. Deron Williams (PG) | Mavs | Mavs | *1 year, $10M Grade A |
| 58. Lance Thomas (SF) | Knicks | Knicks | *4 years, $27M Grade B |
| 59. Austin Rivers (PG) | Clippers | Clippers | *3 years, $35M Grade C |
| 60. Manu Ginobili (SG) | Spurs | Spurs | *player option |
| 61. Jared Sullinger (C) | Celtics | Raptors | *1 year, $5.6M Grade B |
| 62. Timofey Mozgov (C) | Cavaliers | Lakers | *4 years, $65M Grade F |
| 63. Wesley Johnson (SF) | Clippers | Clippers | *3 years, $18M Grade D |
| 64. Randy Foye (PG) | Nuggets | -- | -- |
| 65. Richard Jefferson (SF) | Cavaliers | Cavaliers | *2 years, TBD Grade B |
| 66. Garrett Temple (SG) | Wizards | Kings | *3 years, $24M Grade F |
| 67. O.J. Mayo (SG) | Bucks | N/A | N/A Suspended for 2 years |
| 68. David Lee (C) | Celtics | -- | -- |
| 69. Raymond Felton (PG) | Mavericks | -- | -- |
| 70. Alan Anderson (SG) | Wizards | -- | -- |
| 71. Hollis Thompson (SG) | 76ers | -- | -- |
| 72. Marcus Thornton (SG) | Wizards | -- | -- |
| 73. Cole Aldrich (C) | Clippers | Timberwolves | *3 years, $22M Grade C |
| 74. Tyler Zeller (C) | Celtics | -- | -- |
| 75. Brandon Bass (PF) | Lakers | -- | -- |
| 76. Miles Plumlee (C) | Bucks | -- | -- |
| 77. D.J. Augustin (PG) | Thunder | Magic | *4 years, $29M Grade D |
| 78. Jamal Crawford (SG) | Clippers | Clippers | *3 years, $42M Grade F |
| 79. Rajon Rondo (PG) | Kings | Bulls | *2 years, $28M Grade F+ |
| 80. Seth Curry (SG) | Kings | Mavs | *2 years, $6M Grade A |
| 81. Solomon Hill (SF) | Pacers | Pelicans | *4 years, $52M Grade D- |
| 82. David West (PF) | Spurs | Warriors | *1 year, $1.55M Grade A |
| 83. Nene Hilario (C) | Wizards | Rockets | *1 year, $2.9M Grade A |
| 84. Kevin Seraphin (C) | Knicks | -- | -- |
| 85. Quincy Acy (SF) | Kings | -- | -- |
| 86. Dwight Powell (PF) | Mavs | Mavs | *4 years, $37M -- Grade B |
| 87. Isaiah Canaan (PG) | 76ers | -- | -- |
| 88. Lance Stephenson (SF) | Grizzlies | -- | -- |
| 89. Zaza Pachulia (C) | Mavs | Warriors | *1 year, $2.9M -- Grade A |
| 90. Markel Brown (SG) | Nets | -- | -- |
| 91. Troy Daniels (SG) | Hornets | Grizzlies | *3 years, $10M -- Grade F |
| 92. Greivis Vasquez (PG) | Bucks | -- | -- |
| 93. Luis Scola (PF) | Raptors | -- | -- |
| 94. Anthony Tolliver (PF) | Pistons | Kings | *2 years, $16M -- Grade B |
| 95. Ish Smith (PG) | 76ers | Pistons | *3 years, $18M -- Grade C |
| 96. Alonzo Gee (SF) | Pelicans | -- | -- |
| 97. Luc Mbah a Moute (SF) | Clippers | Clippers | *2 years, $4.5M -- Grade F |
| 98. Amar'e Stoudemire (PF) | Heat | -- | -- |
| 99. Jeff Green (PF) | Clippers | Magic | *1 year, $15M -- Grade B |
| 100. Jon Leuer (PF) | Suns | Pistons | *4 years, $42M -- Grade D |
Friday, July 01, 2016
NBA Free Agency Spending Run Amok -- Looking For Analogies
Not that anyone actually reads my stuff, but it is out on the Internet, so I had to scrap my "guy walks into a strip bar and is handed $600" analogy or my "there are 15 available hookers" analogy and move on to one that won't get me labeled as a less attractive and poorer Donald Trump.
So - we will go with something I know well....food.
NBA owners are flush with cash due to the new TV contract. By agreement, they must give the players roughly 50% of league revenues (revenues subject to this split are defined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement). Therefore, to simplify matters greatly, let's say that the league gets $6 billion and must give $3B of that to the players. Dividing by 30 teams - $100 million spent per team.
The league rules also require you to pay 90% of that money no matter what. If you don't, you pay it to the league who distributes it to the other players. You need to pay $90M.
If every team were 41-41 and played in the same city, and were run equally well, and every player was a free agent every year, than you'd have no issue. The talent would be roughly equally divided. But that is not the case, there are a lot of places that talent does not want to go.
Some places (Miami, Dallas, San Antonio, New York) will attract talent, others (Minnesota, Milwaukee, OKC, Sacramento) will not attract talent. Some organizations are viewed as horribly run (Philly). So, what is our analogy here for NBA owners?
NBA owners are like guys who are sitting in one of 30 restaurants. One guy might be in a Taco Bell in Sacramento or a Applebee's in Minnesota while another guy might be in a 5-star steakhouse in Miami. Each has been given $100 to spend. He can spend as little as $90. He can spend all $100, and if he reads the rules, he can actually spend $150 (but he'd have to give another $50 that will be split between the guys who don't spend $100).
If you are the guy in a 5-star steakhouse, you won't have any trouble spending $100. You will probably want to find a way to spend $150, even if it costs you an extra $50. You have great options. If you are at a Ruby Tuesday's in Charlotte, it ain't gonna be pretty to try to spend that $100. A couple steaks, salad bar, dessert, liquor. You can do it, but you won't feel good about it (Nic Batum 5 years $120M).
Now imagine the poor guys in the Taco Bell. You have $100 and you have only spent $30. $70 worth of Taco Bell food? Yikes. Well, maybe that Gordita Crunchwrap Supreme Dos Locos whatever is worth $8? (Dion Waiters demanding $28M per year) or I know Nachos Grande are good. Maybe I will just give the guy behind the counter $100 and say "keep it" (Harrison Barnes seeking $28M per year)? I mean, you have to spend $90. Do you really want to order like 80 bean burritos? 75 chips and cheese? You'd really like to order that ribeye steak and Caesar salad combo the guy in Miami is buying, but you are in a Taco Bell. WTF are you going to do?
Now, since everyone has stopped reading, let's return to the stripper analogy. You happen to have wandered into a club in some city and because it is National Customer Appreciation Day they hand you $600 and say "spend between $540 and $750 and we won't let you leave until you have." If you are in a crappy town, you are going to make some really really awful decisions with that money. If you are in an OK town, you just need to use some common sense. If you are in the best town, you will have so many options that your head will spin. You just have to be not an idiot (for example, $72M for Joakim Noah coming off a skein of injuries may not be the best idea).
Anyway -- enjoy NBA free agency. And if you feel bad for the NBA owners, don't. They have been handed their money by the new TV deal. Whatever decisions they make with it, you can be impressed or laugh heartily, but never feel sorry for billionaires handed money.
So - we will go with something I know well....food.
NBA owners are flush with cash due to the new TV contract. By agreement, they must give the players roughly 50% of league revenues (revenues subject to this split are defined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement). Therefore, to simplify matters greatly, let's say that the league gets $6 billion and must give $3B of that to the players. Dividing by 30 teams - $100 million spent per team.
The league rules also require you to pay 90% of that money no matter what. If you don't, you pay it to the league who distributes it to the other players. You need to pay $90M.
If every team were 41-41 and played in the same city, and were run equally well, and every player was a free agent every year, than you'd have no issue. The talent would be roughly equally divided. But that is not the case, there are a lot of places that talent does not want to go.
Some places (Miami, Dallas, San Antonio, New York) will attract talent, others (Minnesota, Milwaukee, OKC, Sacramento) will not attract talent. Some organizations are viewed as horribly run (Philly). So, what is our analogy here for NBA owners?
NBA owners are like guys who are sitting in one of 30 restaurants. One guy might be in a Taco Bell in Sacramento or a Applebee's in Minnesota while another guy might be in a 5-star steakhouse in Miami. Each has been given $100 to spend. He can spend as little as $90. He can spend all $100, and if he reads the rules, he can actually spend $150 (but he'd have to give another $50 that will be split between the guys who don't spend $100).
If you are the guy in a 5-star steakhouse, you won't have any trouble spending $100. You will probably want to find a way to spend $150, even if it costs you an extra $50. You have great options. If you are at a Ruby Tuesday's in Charlotte, it ain't gonna be pretty to try to spend that $100. A couple steaks, salad bar, dessert, liquor. You can do it, but you won't feel good about it (Nic Batum 5 years $120M).
Now imagine the poor guys in the Taco Bell. You have $100 and you have only spent $30. $70 worth of Taco Bell food? Yikes. Well, maybe that Gordita Crunchwrap Supreme Dos Locos whatever is worth $8? (Dion Waiters demanding $28M per year) or I know Nachos Grande are good. Maybe I will just give the guy behind the counter $100 and say "keep it" (Harrison Barnes seeking $28M per year)? I mean, you have to spend $90. Do you really want to order like 80 bean burritos? 75 chips and cheese? You'd really like to order that ribeye steak and Caesar salad combo the guy in Miami is buying, but you are in a Taco Bell. WTF are you going to do?
Now, since everyone has stopped reading, let's return to the stripper analogy. You happen to have wandered into a club in some city and because it is National Customer Appreciation Day they hand you $600 and say "spend between $540 and $750 and we won't let you leave until you have." If you are in a crappy town, you are going to make some really really awful decisions with that money. If you are in an OK town, you just need to use some common sense. If you are in the best town, you will have so many options that your head will spin. You just have to be not an idiot (for example, $72M for Joakim Noah coming off a skein of injuries may not be the best idea).
Anyway -- enjoy NBA free agency. And if you feel bad for the NBA owners, don't. They have been handed their money by the new TV deal. Whatever decisions they make with it, you can be impressed or laugh heartily, but never feel sorry for billionaires handed money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)