So, for guys who met my criteria as statistically top 100 NBA players while under the age of 31.5 (basketball-reference measures player age as "how old were you on February 1 of that season") we get these stats for the regular season:
http://bkref.com/tiny/LsAUt
Where does LeBron James rank on this list (he still has January, February, March, and most of April to play this year, so his raw numbers will likely go up)?
Regular Season Win Shares -- 2nd 0.2 behind Wilt, LBJ will likely be #1
Points -- 2nd, 133 behind Kobe, LBJ will likely be #1
Games Started -- 2nd behind KG, LBJ will likely be #1
FG made -- 2nd, substantially behind Wilt
Turnovers - 2nd behind Magic (he will not catch Magic)
FG attempted - 3rd behind Kobe and Wilt - he won't catch Wilt
Games Played - 3rd behind Kobe and KG, he won't catch KG
Minutes Played - 3rd, he will catch KG most likely and be #1
Assists - 6th, over 3,400 behind Magic
PER -- 6th this is a declining stat, he won't reach higher than 6th (Jordan #1)
WS/48 -- 8th see above (Jordan #1)
Steals 8th, over 400 behind Stockton
James 29th in blocks, 32nd in rebounds
Funny one -- he is only 67th in fouls, Shawn Kemp had over 500 more fouls by age 31.5 than anyone else on the list!
PLAYOFFS
http://bkref.com/tiny/ZqExp
Playoff Win Shares - #1
Category finishes of 2nd place (before this set of playoffs, in some categories he can move up): FG, FGA, Assists, Steals, Turnovers, Points, Games Started, Minutes Played
PER -- 4th (Jordan, Mikan Shaq)
Rebounds -- 5th
WS/48 -- 5th (Mikan, Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, LeBron).
Blocks -- 9th
I find it interesting that LeBron follows (in order) Jordan, Wilt and Kareem in Playoff WS/48 since I have him ranked as the #4 overall player in NBA history, behind those three guys, in that order.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Monday, December 21, 2015
Anthony Bennett - Sent to the D League
The first ever #1 overall pick to go to the D League
When Cleveland drafted Bennett at #1 overall, I was stunned. I had never seen or read any draft preview that had him at #1. (It was a terrible draft, but still, Bennett's name was top 5 or top 3, never #1).
I then, of course, went and looked at his highlight film, including a breakdown of strengths and weaknesses. When your weaknesses are listed as "poor ball handler, selfish, overweight and undersized" then I am not sure how any team could pick you top 5, let alone #1.
Watching Bennett play in Minnesota -- he tries hard. He could be a plus rebounder if given minutes. He has good form on his jumper and can make a wide open shot. He occasionally shows bursts of athletic ability where he will flash (block a shot, dunk on the break).
The problems with Bennett as a player:
1) He has terrible shot selection. He thinks he is a scorer. He is not. Therefore, when he gets the ball he thinks he needs to shoot it. Guys can be 6 inches from him when he receives the ball and he will still shoot it. There are no players in the NBA who can be effective as catch and shoot players when their guy is right up on them. He never figured that out.
2) He has very poor agility. This means that he cannot shot fake and do anything. If he starts to shoot, just jump out on his shooting hand as hard as you can. He cannot dribble, he cannot drive, he cannot escape dribble and re-set his feet. He cannot do anything. This means that he can only be an offensive option when left wide open.
3) He needs a running start to jump well. I haven't gone through and analyzed tape, but I would guess that AB is a 2-foot jumper. He needs some space and a run up to gather his body weight and get up in the air. Look, Nique and KG are both two-foot jumpers also, but they are freakishly athletic and agile. Bennett, on the other hand, being undersized and not agile, struggles mightily to defend inside or get his own shot off in the post. So, if you are a poor interior defender and cannot score inside, exactly when can you play? I guess if you are a 50% three point shooter like Matt Bonner, you can play. But you need a great team to hide all of your weaknesses.
4) He will always have the stigma of being a #1 pick. Look, if you found a hard working 23 year old guy who was 6'8", occasionally athletic and who could hit an open shot, you'd work with him to see if he could be a contributor (Bennett is certainly no worse of a player than Adrian Payne, whom the Wolves traded a mid-one to get). But there is a stigma to trading for a sucky failed draft pick. People know his weaknesses and they see him on the court and go -- "Go right at him defensively and get up on him offensively". Most mediocre bench players can get 4-8 points a game for a stretch simply because the other team's bench players don't spend any time studying their strengths or weaknesses. Not true with failed high draft picks.
The saddest thing about Bennett is that he is not lazy. He worked to get himself into better shape. He works on his jumper. He asked to be sent to the D League. He wants to be good. I saw him play for Team Canada. Against poor athletes, his willingness to play hard and be active made him look like a better player than Andrew Wiggins (who always seems willing to float and do nothing if he can). But Bennett is undersized and not agile and lacks judgment. Wiggins is properly sized, unbelievably athletic and, if anything, does not try to do ENOUGH on the court.
Good luck, Anthony Bennett. Perhaps some day you will be a 10 point and 5 rebound guy off the bench for someone. I will root for you because you try and because it is not your fault that someone picked you #1 overall.
A personal note -- I once was in a tennis tournament at an old law firm that I worked for in the summer of 1987. I am not a good tennis player. I try, and I have played a lot with my brother, but I am not good. But in 1987, I was 23 and a very good athlete (I could get the ball back in play). As the tourney continued on, I was beating guys just because I could get the ball back and they were old and would make mistakes. I reached the finals, where I was quickly dispatched 6-0, winning maybe 4 points all match. The response? "My lord, HM sucks. How did he ever reach the final? Good lord. His presence just makes everyone look bad." On Monday, the word around the office was about how badly I sucked in the final and how everyone was embarrassed for me.
What was I supposed to have done? Lose on purpose? I had reached the final. I tried, but against truly good competition, I sucked. I think, ultimately, Anthony Bennett may look back on his career and say the same thing. ala James Ingram, "I did my best, but I guess my best wasn't good enough..."
When Cleveland drafted Bennett at #1 overall, I was stunned. I had never seen or read any draft preview that had him at #1. (It was a terrible draft, but still, Bennett's name was top 5 or top 3, never #1).
I then, of course, went and looked at his highlight film, including a breakdown of strengths and weaknesses. When your weaknesses are listed as "poor ball handler, selfish, overweight and undersized" then I am not sure how any team could pick you top 5, let alone #1.
Watching Bennett play in Minnesota -- he tries hard. He could be a plus rebounder if given minutes. He has good form on his jumper and can make a wide open shot. He occasionally shows bursts of athletic ability where he will flash (block a shot, dunk on the break).
The problems with Bennett as a player:
1) He has terrible shot selection. He thinks he is a scorer. He is not. Therefore, when he gets the ball he thinks he needs to shoot it. Guys can be 6 inches from him when he receives the ball and he will still shoot it. There are no players in the NBA who can be effective as catch and shoot players when their guy is right up on them. He never figured that out.
2) He has very poor agility. This means that he cannot shot fake and do anything. If he starts to shoot, just jump out on his shooting hand as hard as you can. He cannot dribble, he cannot drive, he cannot escape dribble and re-set his feet. He cannot do anything. This means that he can only be an offensive option when left wide open.
3) He needs a running start to jump well. I haven't gone through and analyzed tape, but I would guess that AB is a 2-foot jumper. He needs some space and a run up to gather his body weight and get up in the air. Look, Nique and KG are both two-foot jumpers also, but they are freakishly athletic and agile. Bennett, on the other hand, being undersized and not agile, struggles mightily to defend inside or get his own shot off in the post. So, if you are a poor interior defender and cannot score inside, exactly when can you play? I guess if you are a 50% three point shooter like Matt Bonner, you can play. But you need a great team to hide all of your weaknesses.
4) He will always have the stigma of being a #1 pick. Look, if you found a hard working 23 year old guy who was 6'8", occasionally athletic and who could hit an open shot, you'd work with him to see if he could be a contributor (Bennett is certainly no worse of a player than Adrian Payne, whom the Wolves traded a mid-one to get). But there is a stigma to trading for a sucky failed draft pick. People know his weaknesses and they see him on the court and go -- "Go right at him defensively and get up on him offensively". Most mediocre bench players can get 4-8 points a game for a stretch simply because the other team's bench players don't spend any time studying their strengths or weaknesses. Not true with failed high draft picks.
The saddest thing about Bennett is that he is not lazy. He worked to get himself into better shape. He works on his jumper. He asked to be sent to the D League. He wants to be good. I saw him play for Team Canada. Against poor athletes, his willingness to play hard and be active made him look like a better player than Andrew Wiggins (who always seems willing to float and do nothing if he can). But Bennett is undersized and not agile and lacks judgment. Wiggins is properly sized, unbelievably athletic and, if anything, does not try to do ENOUGH on the court.
Good luck, Anthony Bennett. Perhaps some day you will be a 10 point and 5 rebound guy off the bench for someone. I will root for you because you try and because it is not your fault that someone picked you #1 overall.
A personal note -- I once was in a tennis tournament at an old law firm that I worked for in the summer of 1987. I am not a good tennis player. I try, and I have played a lot with my brother, but I am not good. But in 1987, I was 23 and a very good athlete (I could get the ball back in play). As the tourney continued on, I was beating guys just because I could get the ball back and they were old and would make mistakes. I reached the finals, where I was quickly dispatched 6-0, winning maybe 4 points all match. The response? "My lord, HM sucks. How did he ever reach the final? Good lord. His presence just makes everyone look bad." On Monday, the word around the office was about how badly I sucked in the final and how everyone was embarrassed for me.
What was I supposed to have done? Lose on purpose? I had reached the final. I tried, but against truly good competition, I sucked. I think, ultimately, Anthony Bennett may look back on his career and say the same thing. ala James Ingram, "I did my best, but I guess my best wasn't good enough..."
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Marco Rubio aka "Mr.Amnesty Is Great!"
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/rubio-i-think-american-people-are-going-be-reasonable-11m-illegal-aliens
So THIS guy wants to be the Republican nominee? THIS is their savior? A name born to non-citizens who is pro-immigration/amnesty?
We will see if GOP voters can him rammed down their throats by their wealthy overlords, just like they did with McCain and Romney.
So THIS guy wants to be the Republican nominee? THIS is their savior? A name born to non-citizens who is pro-immigration/amnesty?
We will see if GOP voters can him rammed down their throats by their wealthy overlords, just like they did with McCain and Romney.
Chris Christie -- "I Will Be More Trusted By a Guy Dead Since 1999"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chris-christie-hell-trusted-dead-king-jordan/story?id=35785558
Well, in his defense, Chris had just been moved up from JV and was not used to people actually watching him debate.
And I think he was probably really hungry.
Well, in his defense, Chris had just been moved up from JV and was not used to people actually watching him debate.
And I think he was probably really hungry.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Trump Up 25% in Zogby Poll
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/poll-donald-trump-widens-lead/2015/12/09/id/705229/
Here is what I do not understand about all of the hand wringing regarding Trump:
1) According to THIS: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-middle-class-now-smaller-144022535.html, 20% of households make less than $42,000 a year, 49% of households make between $42K and $126K, and that leaves 31% of U.S. households making over $126,000 a year....31% seems high to me, but I guess that is how I am reading this. (If 31% is high, that makes my pro-Trump point even stronger).
2) If you look at 2012 exit polls, Obama gets about 60% of votes in the sub-$50K area, 46% in middle class and 44% above that. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/
(I should note that I have seen some exit polls broken out by state and in the northern states Obama gets like 70% of the poor and in the southern states Romney gets over 55% of the poor -- southern poor folks vote more GOP than do northern poor folks....at least in 2012).
4) So, assuming that poor or middle class GOP voters = .4X20% plus .54X49% --
about 35% of the country is poor or middle class Romney voters and the other 12% of the country that voted for Romney is rich GOP.
5) That means that there are at least 3 times as many GOP voters who will NOT benefit directly from tax breaks for the wealthy as there are GOP voters who WILL benefit from tax breaks for the wealthy. (Recall that Obama only repealed the tax cuts of GWB above $250K for singles and $400K for married filing jointly, so the number is probably 4-5-6 times more non-tax-voters, but I will use 3X since I have to assume that the wealthy vote more often than do the poor).
6) You have to assume, then, that 75% of GOP voters are people who care more about the other GOP party planks -- guns and God (including anti-abortion here) and overall hatred of minorities and immigrants.
Why would ANY of these 75% of voters prefer a candidate like Jeb Bush who is kinda weak and mealy-mouthed and talks about how tax cuts will lead to 4% compounded annual growth? Would they not be FAR more likely to vote for someone who screams about how he will kill every enemy of the state and their families? Trump should have at least 3 voters to every one for Bush....and he does.
The only real crack in Trump' political wall is the second G - God. He is a many times divorced northerner who is not a born-again evangelical. That is why his closest pursuers are usually Cruz and Carson, both of whom want the country run by their interpretation of the Bible.
Look, you may not like Trump, but he has a very solid appeal to 75% of the GOP base. Unless he is shown trucking illegal immigrants and terrorists into the country in the back of a car stolen from Ted Nugent, I don't see any reason why his poll numbers should decline. He epitomizes what 35% of the country loves the most.
Here is what I do not understand about all of the hand wringing regarding Trump:
1) According to THIS: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-middle-class-now-smaller-144022535.html, 20% of households make less than $42,000 a year, 49% of households make between $42K and $126K, and that leaves 31% of U.S. households making over $126,000 a year....31% seems high to me, but I guess that is how I am reading this. (If 31% is high, that makes my pro-Trump point even stronger).
2) If you look at 2012 exit polls, Obama gets about 60% of votes in the sub-$50K area, 46% in middle class and 44% above that. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/
(I should note that I have seen some exit polls broken out by state and in the northern states Obama gets like 70% of the poor and in the southern states Romney gets over 55% of the poor -- southern poor folks vote more GOP than do northern poor folks....at least in 2012).
4) So, assuming that poor or middle class GOP voters = .4X20% plus .54X49% --
about 35% of the country is poor or middle class Romney voters and the other 12% of the country that voted for Romney is rich GOP.
5) That means that there are at least 3 times as many GOP voters who will NOT benefit directly from tax breaks for the wealthy as there are GOP voters who WILL benefit from tax breaks for the wealthy. (Recall that Obama only repealed the tax cuts of GWB above $250K for singles and $400K for married filing jointly, so the number is probably 4-5-6 times more non-tax-voters, but I will use 3X since I have to assume that the wealthy vote more often than do the poor).
6) You have to assume, then, that 75% of GOP voters are people who care more about the other GOP party planks -- guns and God (including anti-abortion here) and overall hatred of minorities and immigrants.
Why would ANY of these 75% of voters prefer a candidate like Jeb Bush who is kinda weak and mealy-mouthed and talks about how tax cuts will lead to 4% compounded annual growth? Would they not be FAR more likely to vote for someone who screams about how he will kill every enemy of the state and their families? Trump should have at least 3 voters to every one for Bush....and he does.
The only real crack in Trump' political wall is the second G - God. He is a many times divorced northerner who is not a born-again evangelical. That is why his closest pursuers are usually Cruz and Carson, both of whom want the country run by their interpretation of the Bible.
Look, you may not like Trump, but he has a very solid appeal to 75% of the GOP base. Unless he is shown trucking illegal immigrants and terrorists into the country in the back of a car stolen from Ted Nugent, I don't see any reason why his poll numbers should decline. He epitomizes what 35% of the country loves the most.
Tuesday, December 08, 2015
Things That Concern Me About the 2015-16 Timberwolves
The Wolves continue to give me (a 26 year season ticket holder) the giant middle finger by playing so awfully at home (2-8 versus 6-3 on the road). But their apparent hatred for their home court/home fans is not what troubles me. Here are some things that trouble me:
1) The failure of Sam Mitchell to find a rotation and 5 go-to guys. Look, it is a basic element of any good NBA team that they have guys whom they can turn to at key times, including end of game, and say, "Go get em." Now, the 5 guys may vary slightly (maybe you choose 5 of 6 or 5 of 7 depending upon who plays well) but it cannot just be a horrible jumble or grab bag where you go "Well, I guess Towns won't play at all in the 4th tonight....for some reason...."
As George Karl once screamed at Marcus Camby as he sulked off the floor at Target Center, "It is called a player rotation. Get used to it." The Wolves' players never have to worry about hearing that from Sam, as he appears to pick names out of hat throughout the game.
2) Andrew Wiggins' Game Is Less Efficient and Overall Less Productive -- His shooting has actually gotten worse. He percentage is down across the board, but he is taking more 3s. His jumper is all kinds of crazy looking and he is squeezing off shots with absolutely no rhythm. As a rookie he had a beautiful release and perfect rotation. He now shoots the ball as if it were aflame when he receives it, often resulting in wild side spin efforts that clank harshly.
Add to this the fact that Wiggins (already sort of a Jeb Bush-ian "low energy" player away from the ball) has had his numbers in assists, rebounds, steals+blocks ALL go down this year. How is that possible? The guy to whom I most often compare Wiggy's upside is Paul George. Paul George's rebounds and assists numbers are DOUBLE those of Wiggins. It isn't like the Wolves are so awesome that there are just not enough stats to go around. If Shabazz Muhammed can play 20 minutes and get 9 rebounds, certainly Wiggins could get his overall rebounding up to 6 a game.
3) The Tyus Jones Fiasco -- Look, the Wolves traded to get Tyus. They obviously felt they had a player who could play in the NBA. Now I realize that Flip (who loved Tyus) died, but the the situation in Minnesota just seems to scream out for Tyus to play the backup point guard. LaVine is far more productive and happy playing off guard. One of Rubio's best attributes is he can play 36-44 minutes a game. So you play Rubio and you play Jones 4 to 12 minutes off the bench.
The rap on Jones is that he is small and cannot defend. The Wolves last year played Zach LaVine almost 2,000 minutes, often at starting PG. He had negative Win Shares for the year. His Offensive Rating was 19 points worse than his Defensive Rating, for the year. Now, you take Tyus and you actually play him and you don't make him play out of position and you play him 6 minutes when he is awful and 15 when he is good. How much worse could he be than LaVine was last year?
Instead, what the Wolves have done is use LaVine at PG, a position where he will never be happy or particularly great, and send Tyus to the D League to languish in Boise. All for.....what? So they can solidify LaVine as Rubio's backup? So they can get time for Tayshaun Prince?
4) Kevin Martin May Have Just Straight Out "Lost It." Not including his rookie year, when he played only 455 minutes, Kevin Martin's worst PER has been 14.8. His PER this year is 10.8. If Kevin Martin is a sub-par offensive player, you may as well release him, because he is a poor defender, he won't rebound, and he never gets an assist. If you play him with Wiggins, you have two guys who may very well combine for fewer than 5 rebounds and 5 assists in 70 minutes of combined play. That sucks.
If Martin has "lost it" then you need to move him and get what you can. But if you came into the season (as I did) thinking you have an above average off guard and now you have a terrible off guard, that is a huge problem.
5) End of Game Substitutions -- as a general rule, Kevin Garnett and Tayshaun Prince cannot score. They should NEVER be in the game at the end when you need a basket to catch up or go ahead. Yet Sam Mitchell, oddly, doesn't go offense-defense in late game situations and the ball will end up with one of these oldsters, who is often (wisely) left all alone by opponents. Similarly confusing is Sam's insistence that Tayshaun Prince can still stop good offensive players. If you look at his "Per 100" stats, Tayshaun Prince stopped being a good defensive player around 2008: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/princta01.html which was the last full season where he posted a Defensive Rating of 106 or lower.
Prince will be 36 this coming year, so it really isn't his fault. But why Sam consistently refers to him as "our best defender" is a mystery, as he ranks 10th on the Wolves in Defensive Rating, one spot behind Zach LaVine.
6) History If I know anything from watching sports for probably 47 of my 51 years it is that it is very easy to be a loser, and very hard to change a losing atmosphere/history. When you are 8-11, it is far easier to drop to 8-15 than it is to rise to 12-11.
1) The failure of Sam Mitchell to find a rotation and 5 go-to guys. Look, it is a basic element of any good NBA team that they have guys whom they can turn to at key times, including end of game, and say, "Go get em." Now, the 5 guys may vary slightly (maybe you choose 5 of 6 or 5 of 7 depending upon who plays well) but it cannot just be a horrible jumble or grab bag where you go "Well, I guess Towns won't play at all in the 4th tonight....for some reason...."
As George Karl once screamed at Marcus Camby as he sulked off the floor at Target Center, "It is called a player rotation. Get used to it." The Wolves' players never have to worry about hearing that from Sam, as he appears to pick names out of hat throughout the game.
2) Andrew Wiggins' Game Is Less Efficient and Overall Less Productive -- His shooting has actually gotten worse. He percentage is down across the board, but he is taking more 3s. His jumper is all kinds of crazy looking and he is squeezing off shots with absolutely no rhythm. As a rookie he had a beautiful release and perfect rotation. He now shoots the ball as if it were aflame when he receives it, often resulting in wild side spin efforts that clank harshly.
Add to this the fact that Wiggins (already sort of a Jeb Bush-ian "low energy" player away from the ball) has had his numbers in assists, rebounds, steals+blocks ALL go down this year. How is that possible? The guy to whom I most often compare Wiggy's upside is Paul George. Paul George's rebounds and assists numbers are DOUBLE those of Wiggins. It isn't like the Wolves are so awesome that there are just not enough stats to go around. If Shabazz Muhammed can play 20 minutes and get 9 rebounds, certainly Wiggins could get his overall rebounding up to 6 a game.
3) The Tyus Jones Fiasco -- Look, the Wolves traded to get Tyus. They obviously felt they had a player who could play in the NBA. Now I realize that Flip (who loved Tyus) died, but the the situation in Minnesota just seems to scream out for Tyus to play the backup point guard. LaVine is far more productive and happy playing off guard. One of Rubio's best attributes is he can play 36-44 minutes a game. So you play Rubio and you play Jones 4 to 12 minutes off the bench.
The rap on Jones is that he is small and cannot defend. The Wolves last year played Zach LaVine almost 2,000 minutes, often at starting PG. He had negative Win Shares for the year. His Offensive Rating was 19 points worse than his Defensive Rating, for the year. Now, you take Tyus and you actually play him and you don't make him play out of position and you play him 6 minutes when he is awful and 15 when he is good. How much worse could he be than LaVine was last year?
Instead, what the Wolves have done is use LaVine at PG, a position where he will never be happy or particularly great, and send Tyus to the D League to languish in Boise. All for.....what? So they can solidify LaVine as Rubio's backup? So they can get time for Tayshaun Prince?
4) Kevin Martin May Have Just Straight Out "Lost It." Not including his rookie year, when he played only 455 minutes, Kevin Martin's worst PER has been 14.8. His PER this year is 10.8. If Kevin Martin is a sub-par offensive player, you may as well release him, because he is a poor defender, he won't rebound, and he never gets an assist. If you play him with Wiggins, you have two guys who may very well combine for fewer than 5 rebounds and 5 assists in 70 minutes of combined play. That sucks.
If Martin has "lost it" then you need to move him and get what you can. But if you came into the season (as I did) thinking you have an above average off guard and now you have a terrible off guard, that is a huge problem.
5) End of Game Substitutions -- as a general rule, Kevin Garnett and Tayshaun Prince cannot score. They should NEVER be in the game at the end when you need a basket to catch up or go ahead. Yet Sam Mitchell, oddly, doesn't go offense-defense in late game situations and the ball will end up with one of these oldsters, who is often (wisely) left all alone by opponents. Similarly confusing is Sam's insistence that Tayshaun Prince can still stop good offensive players. If you look at his "Per 100" stats, Tayshaun Prince stopped being a good defensive player around 2008: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/princta01.html which was the last full season where he posted a Defensive Rating of 106 or lower.
Prince will be 36 this coming year, so it really isn't his fault. But why Sam consistently refers to him as "our best defender" is a mystery, as he ranks 10th on the Wolves in Defensive Rating, one spot behind Zach LaVine.
6) History If I know anything from watching sports for probably 47 of my 51 years it is that it is very easy to be a loser, and very hard to change a losing atmosphere/history. When you are 8-11, it is far easier to drop to 8-15 than it is to rise to 12-11.
Saturday, December 05, 2015
Kobe's Historically Terrible 2015-16 Season Thus Far
Currently in the middle of the list of all-time shittiest Trash Heap seasons.
http://bkref.com/tiny/ifZMo
How to explain the historical crappiness of this Kobe season? Well, Kobe is on pace to shoot the ball between 800 and 1200 times this year (depending upon injury and whether he ever develops a conscience) If he reaches 1200 shot attempts and shoots his current 30%, or so, he will be performing at a level of inefficiency not seen since the late 1940s or early 1950s. In fact, only Joe Fulks has seasons where he shot the ball so many times and had such a low percentage. Of course. When Fulks shot 30-33%, that was far closer to league average.
Kobe has negative 0.8 Win Shares and falling. Assuming he can manage to keep up this level of terrible play for the rest of the year (doubtful, but possible) he could register around 3 NEGATIVE Win Shares. No player in NBA ABA or BAA history has ever registered negative 3 win shares. Woody Sauldsberry had a year where he shot .299 and .560 from the line and registered negative 2.8 WS. It is conceivable that Kobe (4-19 last night) could do worse in FG% and WS. Woody played during the Kennedy Administration.
The names that start to come up when you start to estimate a Kobe season continuing on are frightening - Flynn, Beasley, Tskita, Donte Greene, DeShawn Stevenson, Marc Macon. And a whole bunch of guys who played before the Korean War.
But even put to one side the shocking awfulness of Kobe's stats. Let's consider what is going on in L.A. A future Hall of Fame player is playing 33+ mpg a night, taking minutes from highly drafted younger players and also drawing $25m per year. He is shooting a historically low percentage and yet he continues to shoot and the coach continues to play him and he is helping the Lakers draft lottery chances. Yet there is no chance he gets traded and, at least it appears, no chance of having his minutes cut going forward.
There are two HOF players in the Hall at least partially for their pro play (Ralph Sampson and Joe Fulks) who have registered at least 2 seasons with negative win shares. Kobe has one such season already and he is headed for #2. Fulks was an early pioneer of the game, and, if reports on line are accurate, probably a top 100 all-time player. Sampson is not close to a too 100 all-time player. Kobe, however, is my #18 and his fans suggest a top 10 or even top 5 status.
In light of Kobe's place in the history of the game, it is astounding that no one will step forward and say "you should not be doing this - get out" or "I am not playing you anymore" or even "I am going to stop passing you the ball". But no one has, and it appears no one will. So we are about to see the weirdest (and perhaps worst) season ever played
http://bkref.com/tiny/ifZMo
How to explain the historical crappiness of this Kobe season? Well, Kobe is on pace to shoot the ball between 800 and 1200 times this year (depending upon injury and whether he ever develops a conscience) If he reaches 1200 shot attempts and shoots his current 30%, or so, he will be performing at a level of inefficiency not seen since the late 1940s or early 1950s. In fact, only Joe Fulks has seasons where he shot the ball so many times and had such a low percentage. Of course. When Fulks shot 30-33%, that was far closer to league average.
Kobe has negative 0.8 Win Shares and falling. Assuming he can manage to keep up this level of terrible play for the rest of the year (doubtful, but possible) he could register around 3 NEGATIVE Win Shares. No player in NBA ABA or BAA history has ever registered negative 3 win shares. Woody Sauldsberry had a year where he shot .299 and .560 from the line and registered negative 2.8 WS. It is conceivable that Kobe (4-19 last night) could do worse in FG% and WS. Woody played during the Kennedy Administration.
The names that start to come up when you start to estimate a Kobe season continuing on are frightening - Flynn, Beasley, Tskita, Donte Greene, DeShawn Stevenson, Marc Macon. And a whole bunch of guys who played before the Korean War.
But even put to one side the shocking awfulness of Kobe's stats. Let's consider what is going on in L.A. A future Hall of Fame player is playing 33+ mpg a night, taking minutes from highly drafted younger players and also drawing $25m per year. He is shooting a historically low percentage and yet he continues to shoot and the coach continues to play him and he is helping the Lakers draft lottery chances. Yet there is no chance he gets traded and, at least it appears, no chance of having his minutes cut going forward.
There are two HOF players in the Hall at least partially for their pro play (Ralph Sampson and Joe Fulks) who have registered at least 2 seasons with negative win shares. Kobe has one such season already and he is headed for #2. Fulks was an early pioneer of the game, and, if reports on line are accurate, probably a top 100 all-time player. Sampson is not close to a too 100 all-time player. Kobe, however, is my #18 and his fans suggest a top 10 or even top 5 status.
In light of Kobe's place in the history of the game, it is astounding that no one will step forward and say "you should not be doing this - get out" or "I am not playing you anymore" or even "I am going to stop passing you the ball". But no one has, and it appears no one will. So we are about to see the weirdest (and perhaps worst) season ever played
Friday, December 04, 2015
My Favorite Mitt Romney Exit Poll Answer
Most important quality in a leader:
(3 different ones listed -- Romney narrowly defeats Obama in all 3)
# 4. "Cares about People Like Me" -- of people who felt this was the most important quality --
Obama 81%, Romney 18%.
What does this tell you? Perhaps the GOP has to come up with SOME platform piece other than cutting taxes for millionaires and taking rights away from women?
We shall see.
(3 different ones listed -- Romney narrowly defeats Obama in all 3)
# 4. "Cares about People Like Me" -- of people who felt this was the most important quality --
Obama 81%, Romney 18%.
What does this tell you? Perhaps the GOP has to come up with SOME platform piece other than cutting taxes for millionaires and taking rights away from women?
We shall see.
Tuesday, December 01, 2015
Presidential Candidate Blasts Typical Republican Party Foreign Policy Plank
I do not believe that our foreign policy needs to be that "we've got to be these crazy neo-con invade-every-country-on-earth and send our kids to die in the Middle East.”
Pretty aggressive words by Bernie Sanders....er, I mean, TED CRUZ!!!!!!
Wow.
Pretty aggressive words by Bernie Sanders....er, I mean, TED CRUZ!!!!!!
Wow.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Kobe Announces Retirement
In the midst of one of the worst statistical seasons ever put up by any player, Kobe finally decides to call it quits -- but he will keep chucking up shots until year end.
Look, this is certainly no great surprise. I know I have a Blog entry about Kobe - Pre-Quitter somewhere. What he SHOULD have done is just quit and get out of the way. But then he wouldn't be Kobe. Instead he played 33 minutes last night, went 4 for 20 and was a negative 12 in a game the Lakers lost by 4.
I have rated Kobe the 18th best player of all-time: http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/03/best-12-next-12-trash-12-part-iii.html Nick Young says Kobe is #1 and Jordan is #2. This demonstrates what an idiot Nick Young is.
If you allow a really broad filter (so as to insure that you get 95% of the players who were consistently good for a long time as an NBA or ABA player) you get this: http://bkref.com/tiny/mXeFq
Then if you start clicking through for various rankings for Kobe, you get:
3rd in points
6th in turnovers
7th in steals
8th in assists
11th in games played
18th in Win Shares
21st in fouls
26th in Defensive Win Shares
30th in WS/48 and blocks
39th in TS%
46th in eFG%
Let's be blunt here. These are not the sort of rankings you would expect from a top 5 or top 10 all-time player. Certainly being 18th in WS and 30th in WS/48 is disqualifying. If you cut off at a WS/48 ranking of #30 and then look below, only Moses Malone would be considered a top 20 all-time player. But if you look at a ranking of #15 and above, probably only Barkley should be excluded as a top 15 player.
Playoffs? Nothing in his playoff stats indicates that Kobe should move up many spots. http://bkref.com/tiny/qb6hK 3rd in Games, 8th in WS, 17th in WS/48. Shooting percentages 15th and 16th place.
Kobe played a lot and took and made a lot of shots, but not at a really high level of efficiency. He has only 1 MVP. What his stats tell you is that he was and is an overrated player. He was, in my opinion, the 18th best player who ever played in the NBA or ABA, but he is rated far higher in many people's eyes. I see two primary reasons for this -- he played in L.A. and he was an off guard. There simply are not that many great off guards (make a list of all-time off guards, then make a list of all-time great centers - after Jordan v. Wilt and Kareem v. Kobe, you will get matchups like Shaq against Dwyane Wade and Bill Russell against Clyde Drexler and George Mikan against Ray Allen).
Good bye, Kobe. I will not miss you. But at least I did not just rip Kobe without any regard for his accomplishments, like this guy did: http://deadspin.com/fuck-off-kobe-1745231527?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+deadspin%2Ffull+%28Deadspin%29
Look, this is certainly no great surprise. I know I have a Blog entry about Kobe - Pre-Quitter somewhere. What he SHOULD have done is just quit and get out of the way. But then he wouldn't be Kobe. Instead he played 33 minutes last night, went 4 for 20 and was a negative 12 in a game the Lakers lost by 4.
I have rated Kobe the 18th best player of all-time: http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/03/best-12-next-12-trash-12-part-iii.html Nick Young says Kobe is #1 and Jordan is #2. This demonstrates what an idiot Nick Young is.
If you allow a really broad filter (so as to insure that you get 95% of the players who were consistently good for a long time as an NBA or ABA player) you get this: http://bkref.com/tiny/mXeFq
Then if you start clicking through for various rankings for Kobe, you get:
3rd in points
6th in turnovers
7th in steals
8th in assists
11th in games played
18th in Win Shares
21st in fouls
26th in Defensive Win Shares
30th in WS/48 and blocks
39th in TS%
46th in eFG%
Let's be blunt here. These are not the sort of rankings you would expect from a top 5 or top 10 all-time player. Certainly being 18th in WS and 30th in WS/48 is disqualifying. If you cut off at a WS/48 ranking of #30 and then look below, only Moses Malone would be considered a top 20 all-time player. But if you look at a ranking of #15 and above, probably only Barkley should be excluded as a top 15 player.
Playoffs? Nothing in his playoff stats indicates that Kobe should move up many spots. http://bkref.com/tiny/qb6hK 3rd in Games, 8th in WS, 17th in WS/48. Shooting percentages 15th and 16th place.
Kobe played a lot and took and made a lot of shots, but not at a really high level of efficiency. He has only 1 MVP. What his stats tell you is that he was and is an overrated player. He was, in my opinion, the 18th best player who ever played in the NBA or ABA, but he is rated far higher in many people's eyes. I see two primary reasons for this -- he played in L.A. and he was an off guard. There simply are not that many great off guards (make a list of all-time off guards, then make a list of all-time great centers - after Jordan v. Wilt and Kareem v. Kobe, you will get matchups like Shaq against Dwyane Wade and Bill Russell against Clyde Drexler and George Mikan against Ray Allen).
Good bye, Kobe. I will not miss you. But at least I did not just rip Kobe without any regard for his accomplishments, like this guy did: http://deadspin.com/fuck-off-kobe-1745231527?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+deadspin%2Ffull+%28Deadspin%29
Monday, November 23, 2015
Active Career Leaders in Win Shares - October 29, 2013 Versus End of 2015
October 29, 2013 - active WS leaders.
KG 187.2
Duncan 184.2
Dirk 173.9
Kobe 173.3
James 152.6
Ray Allen 141
Paul Pierce 138.4
Nash 129.6
Chauncey 121.1
Marion 118.9
November 23, 2015 - active WS leaders.
Duncan 202.7 (plus 17.5 since 10-29-13)
Dirk 193.8 (plus 19.9)
KG 190.7 (plus 3.5)
LeBron 181.3 (plus 28.7)
Kobe 172.9 (NEGATIVE 0.4)
Pierce 149.3 (plus 10.9)
CP3 132.3 (plus 29.3)
P. Gasol 124.5 (plus 14.4)
Vince 116.6 (plus 5.3)
Wade 109.9 (plus 10.1)
Allen, Nash, Chauncey and Marion have retired, so the bottom 4 guys have moved up. Vince and Wade have still not recorded as many career WS as Shawn Marion.
Belated congrats to LeBron for moving ahead of Dr. J's ABA/NBA total WS amount and into 12th place on the combined list. With 2 good games, LeBron will move ahead of Shaq on the all-time WS list and be 11th in ABA/NBA combined and 10th in only-NBA.
KG 187.2
Duncan 184.2
Dirk 173.9
Kobe 173.3
James 152.6
Ray Allen 141
Paul Pierce 138.4
Nash 129.6
Chauncey 121.1
Marion 118.9
November 23, 2015 - active WS leaders.
Duncan 202.7 (plus 17.5 since 10-29-13)
Dirk 193.8 (plus 19.9)
KG 190.7 (plus 3.5)
LeBron 181.3 (plus 28.7)
Kobe 172.9 (NEGATIVE 0.4)
Pierce 149.3 (plus 10.9)
CP3 132.3 (plus 29.3)
P. Gasol 124.5 (plus 14.4)
Vince 116.6 (plus 5.3)
Wade 109.9 (plus 10.1)
Allen, Nash, Chauncey and Marion have retired, so the bottom 4 guys have moved up. Vince and Wade have still not recorded as many career WS as Shawn Marion.
Belated congrats to LeBron for moving ahead of Dr. J's ABA/NBA total WS amount and into 12th place on the combined list. With 2 good games, LeBron will move ahead of Shaq on the all-time WS list and be 11th in ABA/NBA combined and 10th in only-NBA.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Ben Carson's Campaign Shows What It Thinks the U.S. Looks Like
Albany, NY just became a lot closer to the ocean.
Monday, November 09, 2015
Thursday, November 05, 2015
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Tough Stretch for Minnesota Sports Fans -- Torii Hunter, Flip Saunders and Jerry Kill Say Goodbye
Torii Hunter and Flip Saunders are related in my mind because they took moribund franchises who had sucked for the better part of 10 years and turned them around into consistent playoff teams. Jerry Kill was attempting to do the same thing at the University of Minnesota, and I guess the next 20 Gopher games will tell us whether he succeeded in doing so, or simply just couldn't quite get over the hump.
I will take the three guys in the reverse order of my fondness for them:
3. Flip Saunders -- Philip Daniel Saunders was (I am told, I was 9 and living in western NY) an excellent point guard at the University of Minnesota. He became a coach and was a successful coach on every level (college, CBA, NBA). He was particularly good at offensive basketball. The Wolves during Flip's first run were able to run sets that simply baffled opponents and resulted in good shots virtually every time down the floor.
Flip is regarded as a great guy by those who knew him well. Oddly, despite the fact that I have been a Timberwolves season ticket holder for 26 years, I never met or talked to Flip. Never once. I saw him speak. I know people who know him. But I never shook his hand or had a conversation with him. Even in my times around him or in listening to him speak to the media, his charm as an individual never really shined through to me.
As a coach, Flip was a huge upgrade from what we had with the Timberwolves (Jimmy Rodgers, Sidney Lowe, Bill Blair) but I cannot help but wonder why Kevin Garnett could go to Boston at roughly 75% of his Wolves Ability and win a title immediately and (but for injury) would have won two in a row. Flip had Garnett at a point in time where he was a top 4 NBA player (Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Garnett were the best 4) and certainly the most versatile player in the NBA. However, KG in Minnesota won only 2 playoff series (both in 2003-04). You can blame the organization or you can blame Flip, but I think there is enough blame to go around.
Flip in Detroit had great veteran teams -- never won anything. In Washington, the Wiz actually got BETTER when they fired Flip and went to Randy Wittman. Yikes. I never felt Flip's teams were very tough - physically or mentally.
Anyway, you may wonder why there was not an immediate Flip tribute on the Blog. I have always had really mixed feelings about Flip. And I never was able to experience the greatness of his personality that everyone else described. But it is safe to say that many, many people loved him and he reached a high level of success in everything he ever did. So he will be greatly missed by Minnesota sports fans.
2. Torii Hunter -- what I am most upset by regarding Torii's retirement is the number of people saying we should not honor Torii because he is anti-gay rights and make other comments that stated he was uncomfortable around gay people. Look, he was a black kid who grew up in Arkansas and then spent his later formative years around professional baseball players. Do you think with that upbringing and history that he will be a liberal? I hate to tell everyone, but for people who are 40+ years old and from the South, being against gay marriage and generally anti-gay does not make you an outlier.
Here is what I do know about Torii Hunter - 1) he was a terrible hitter who made himself a very good hitter who amassed almost 2,500 hits along with decent power; 2) he was a multiple Gold Glove winner; 3) he was good in the clubhouse and cared for younger players; 4) he wasn't constantly in the training room or on the disabled list, his ass was available to play; 5) his teams generally won more than they lost; and 6) he cared a LOT about the Twins and the State of Minnesota and worked his ass off to promote the team and the state.
Democrats (and I am one) who promote "diversity" and "tolerance" are willing to go on Twitter and say that a man who reached the top 5-10% of his chosen field should not be honored AT ALL upon his retirement because he doesn't believe gay people should be married and has made anti-gay statements. That sucks. I am glad that everyone is so perfect and has never said or done anything that would call into question their own character. I have a number of Republican friends who believe stuff that I deem to be ridiculous. They are still my friends because I recognize good things in them that I feel make them, on the whole, a good person. We all have flaws. But as Del Griffith once said, "It must be nice to be so perfect AND odor-free."
Again, I never met Torii, but his personality did come across to me as someone who cared a great deal for people (OK, at least most people) and his profession and who worked hard and wanted to win. I will miss Torii.
1) Jerry Kill -- when I heard that Jerry Kill retired, I cried. The primary reason for that is my daughter has epilepsy, and I had always held Jerry Kill up to her as an example of someone who could be a public figure and an important person and do his very difficult job despite epilepsy. But the epilepsy and the job just could not co-exist.
A major side effect of epilepsy medication is drowsiness. My daughter struggles to make it through a day without 10 hours of sleep. If you don't want to be drowsy all of the time, you can take less medication. Of course, taking less medication puts you at risk of seizures. How do you know the level of medication you can take and not have a seizure? "Trial and Error." Great. Imagine walking a tight rope and being told you can use a shorter balance pole. OK, great, how much shorter? Eh, get up there and we will see.
Now imagine that you have a job where working 12-18 hours a day is not unusual. But you need 10 hours of sleep to feel good. So you go to your doctor - "Well, you could take 20% less medication." And then I will feel better? Maybe, but you also may have a seizure. And if you have a seizure, for example, while driving, you could die and/or kill someone else. If you have a seizure at home while lying in bed with a doctor and a nurse there to monitor you, you will be OK, but you are not supposed to drive until you are 6 months seizure free. OK, great.
Kill has basically stated that when his team started to struggle in 2015 that he cut back on his exercise, dropped his dosage of medication, and began to work ridiculous hours. People reported seeing him leaving the facility at 2AM and returning at 6AM. He started to have seizures. He was basically killing himself.
Listening to Jerry Kill's press conference, even setting to one side my personal experience with my daughter's epilepsy, my heart was breaking. Imagine a man who came from little or nothing, chose a career in which he started out making little or nothing, excelled at that career for 30 years despite suffering from cancer and epilepsy....and then what he knows is all taken away at age 54. He literally has never held any other job. Truly sad.
The positive note with Jerry Kill is that he is still alive. And he can be productive working (most likely) in a 9-5 job where he raises funds for the University. He can find a way to get sleep and exercise and see his family. He has the same opportunity you used to see portrayed in old films like "Baby Boom" and "Regarding Henry." He has the opportunity to change his life and find a way forward that is far different from what he imagined, but. perhaps, far better in certain ways.
I am rooting for Jerry Kill. but I will miss him as a symbol for Minnesota and, more importantly, for my daughter.
Tough week.
I will take the three guys in the reverse order of my fondness for them:
3. Flip Saunders -- Philip Daniel Saunders was (I am told, I was 9 and living in western NY) an excellent point guard at the University of Minnesota. He became a coach and was a successful coach on every level (college, CBA, NBA). He was particularly good at offensive basketball. The Wolves during Flip's first run were able to run sets that simply baffled opponents and resulted in good shots virtually every time down the floor.
Flip is regarded as a great guy by those who knew him well. Oddly, despite the fact that I have been a Timberwolves season ticket holder for 26 years, I never met or talked to Flip. Never once. I saw him speak. I know people who know him. But I never shook his hand or had a conversation with him. Even in my times around him or in listening to him speak to the media, his charm as an individual never really shined through to me.
As a coach, Flip was a huge upgrade from what we had with the Timberwolves (Jimmy Rodgers, Sidney Lowe, Bill Blair) but I cannot help but wonder why Kevin Garnett could go to Boston at roughly 75% of his Wolves Ability and win a title immediately and (but for injury) would have won two in a row. Flip had Garnett at a point in time where he was a top 4 NBA player (Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Garnett were the best 4) and certainly the most versatile player in the NBA. However, KG in Minnesota won only 2 playoff series (both in 2003-04). You can blame the organization or you can blame Flip, but I think there is enough blame to go around.
Flip in Detroit had great veteran teams -- never won anything. In Washington, the Wiz actually got BETTER when they fired Flip and went to Randy Wittman. Yikes. I never felt Flip's teams were very tough - physically or mentally.
Anyway, you may wonder why there was not an immediate Flip tribute on the Blog. I have always had really mixed feelings about Flip. And I never was able to experience the greatness of his personality that everyone else described. But it is safe to say that many, many people loved him and he reached a high level of success in everything he ever did. So he will be greatly missed by Minnesota sports fans.
2. Torii Hunter -- what I am most upset by regarding Torii's retirement is the number of people saying we should not honor Torii because he is anti-gay rights and make other comments that stated he was uncomfortable around gay people. Look, he was a black kid who grew up in Arkansas and then spent his later formative years around professional baseball players. Do you think with that upbringing and history that he will be a liberal? I hate to tell everyone, but for people who are 40+ years old and from the South, being against gay marriage and generally anti-gay does not make you an outlier.
Here is what I do know about Torii Hunter - 1) he was a terrible hitter who made himself a very good hitter who amassed almost 2,500 hits along with decent power; 2) he was a multiple Gold Glove winner; 3) he was good in the clubhouse and cared for younger players; 4) he wasn't constantly in the training room or on the disabled list, his ass was available to play; 5) his teams generally won more than they lost; and 6) he cared a LOT about the Twins and the State of Minnesota and worked his ass off to promote the team and the state.
Democrats (and I am one) who promote "diversity" and "tolerance" are willing to go on Twitter and say that a man who reached the top 5-10% of his chosen field should not be honored AT ALL upon his retirement because he doesn't believe gay people should be married and has made anti-gay statements. That sucks. I am glad that everyone is so perfect and has never said or done anything that would call into question their own character. I have a number of Republican friends who believe stuff that I deem to be ridiculous. They are still my friends because I recognize good things in them that I feel make them, on the whole, a good person. We all have flaws. But as Del Griffith once said, "It must be nice to be so perfect AND odor-free."
Again, I never met Torii, but his personality did come across to me as someone who cared a great deal for people (OK, at least most people) and his profession and who worked hard and wanted to win. I will miss Torii.
1) Jerry Kill -- when I heard that Jerry Kill retired, I cried. The primary reason for that is my daughter has epilepsy, and I had always held Jerry Kill up to her as an example of someone who could be a public figure and an important person and do his very difficult job despite epilepsy. But the epilepsy and the job just could not co-exist.
A major side effect of epilepsy medication is drowsiness. My daughter struggles to make it through a day without 10 hours of sleep. If you don't want to be drowsy all of the time, you can take less medication. Of course, taking less medication puts you at risk of seizures. How do you know the level of medication you can take and not have a seizure? "Trial and Error." Great. Imagine walking a tight rope and being told you can use a shorter balance pole. OK, great, how much shorter? Eh, get up there and we will see.
Now imagine that you have a job where working 12-18 hours a day is not unusual. But you need 10 hours of sleep to feel good. So you go to your doctor - "Well, you could take 20% less medication." And then I will feel better? Maybe, but you also may have a seizure. And if you have a seizure, for example, while driving, you could die and/or kill someone else. If you have a seizure at home while lying in bed with a doctor and a nurse there to monitor you, you will be OK, but you are not supposed to drive until you are 6 months seizure free. OK, great.
Kill has basically stated that when his team started to struggle in 2015 that he cut back on his exercise, dropped his dosage of medication, and began to work ridiculous hours. People reported seeing him leaving the facility at 2AM and returning at 6AM. He started to have seizures. He was basically killing himself.
Listening to Jerry Kill's press conference, even setting to one side my personal experience with my daughter's epilepsy, my heart was breaking. Imagine a man who came from little or nothing, chose a career in which he started out making little or nothing, excelled at that career for 30 years despite suffering from cancer and epilepsy....and then what he knows is all taken away at age 54. He literally has never held any other job. Truly sad.
The positive note with Jerry Kill is that he is still alive. And he can be productive working (most likely) in a 9-5 job where he raises funds for the University. He can find a way to get sleep and exercise and see his family. He has the same opportunity you used to see portrayed in old films like "Baby Boom" and "Regarding Henry." He has the opportunity to change his life and find a way forward that is far different from what he imagined, but. perhaps, far better in certain ways.
I am rooting for Jerry Kill. but I will miss him as a symbol for Minnesota and, more importantly, for my daughter.
Tough week.
Ben Carson -- For a Company Who He Had No Idea Was Using His Image
Look, the answer is "Yeah, I thought they were a good company. I enjoyed their products. I had no idea what was going on with them deceiving the public." Don't lie and say, "If they used my image on their Web site I had no idea!"
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
My Early Goodbye to Lamar Odom
What I read tells me that Lamar Odom will not survive, and if by some miracle he happens to survive he will never be close to the same person again. So, an early goodbye and tribute to Lamar Odom.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/odomla01.html
Lamar Odom was a great high school player who went to Rhode Island and was very good, but really never was the player there that most expected. He then was drafted #4 overall in the NBA and, well, again, wasn't quite the star player that everyone expected him to be. That said, the primary deficiency in Odom's game was that he was never a 20+ ppg scorer. He was an excellent all-around player and he has a lifetime Defensive Rating of 104, which is excellent.
Lamar Odom had 8 seasons were he accounted for at least 3.0 Defensive WS, tied for 20th best all-time among non-centers. In addition, his 41 career DWS ranks him 36th among non-centers.
In the 6 seasons 2005-06 through 2010-11, Odom rolled up roughly 48 of his career 77 Win Shares. It is believed by most in today's game that 7.0 WS in a season is a border line all-star level of play. Odom averaged 8 over his 6 best years. Remarkably, however, he never played in an all-star game. His only NBA award, other than 6th Man of the Year, was being all-rookie 1st team,
Lamar was a very key cog in the Lakers teams who went to the finals 3 times and won twice during that period. As stated above, he won 6th Man of the Year in 2010-11.
Odom was a perfect player to play with Kobe and Pau Gasol - he didn't need, or necessarily even want, to be a star. His skills were sharpest as a passer, ball handler and defender. In fact, if you review Odom's versatility by looking for seasons of 14-7-3 and 3 DWS, you see that Odom had 5 such seasons, the same as Magic Johnson and Scottie Pippen. http://bkref.com/tiny/oEfR1 In the 3 Laker title appearance seasons, Odom contributed 6.4 playoff WS, which, if you follow this blog, you know is rare for a supporting player. (Any team would be very happy to have its 3rd best guy getting 2+ WS over a playoff season.)
Once his nearly $9,000,000 contract was unloaded to Dallas for a #1 pick, Odom's career and life fell apart. Fans of "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" heard all sorts of reports of Odom's drug taking and late night partying. I have no idea what Lamar did or what caused it, but from a distance it almost appeared as if his heart was broken. He was a key cog on a world championship team and once they stopped being world champions (being swept by Dallas in 2011) the Lakers dumped Lamar. Again, this is pure speculation, but I think the decision by the Lakers to abandon him resulted in a downward spiral from which he never recovered.
Similar players from a statistical standpoint include Larry Johnson and Chris Webber and Terry Cummings. So Lamar Odom was a very, very good player, a cog on two title teams, and most people seemed to think he was a good guy, before his trade to Dallas and ultimate downfall.
Goodbye, Lamar.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/odomla01.html
Lamar Odom was a great high school player who went to Rhode Island and was very good, but really never was the player there that most expected. He then was drafted #4 overall in the NBA and, well, again, wasn't quite the star player that everyone expected him to be. That said, the primary deficiency in Odom's game was that he was never a 20+ ppg scorer. He was an excellent all-around player and he has a lifetime Defensive Rating of 104, which is excellent.
Lamar Odom had 8 seasons were he accounted for at least 3.0 Defensive WS, tied for 20th best all-time among non-centers. In addition, his 41 career DWS ranks him 36th among non-centers.
In the 6 seasons 2005-06 through 2010-11, Odom rolled up roughly 48 of his career 77 Win Shares. It is believed by most in today's game that 7.0 WS in a season is a border line all-star level of play. Odom averaged 8 over his 6 best years. Remarkably, however, he never played in an all-star game. His only NBA award, other than 6th Man of the Year, was being all-rookie 1st team,
Lamar was a very key cog in the Lakers teams who went to the finals 3 times and won twice during that period. As stated above, he won 6th Man of the Year in 2010-11.
Odom was a perfect player to play with Kobe and Pau Gasol - he didn't need, or necessarily even want, to be a star. His skills were sharpest as a passer, ball handler and defender. In fact, if you review Odom's versatility by looking for seasons of 14-7-3 and 3 DWS, you see that Odom had 5 such seasons, the same as Magic Johnson and Scottie Pippen. http://bkref.com/tiny/oEfR1 In the 3 Laker title appearance seasons, Odom contributed 6.4 playoff WS, which, if you follow this blog, you know is rare for a supporting player. (Any team would be very happy to have its 3rd best guy getting 2+ WS over a playoff season.)
Once his nearly $9,000,000 contract was unloaded to Dallas for a #1 pick, Odom's career and life fell apart. Fans of "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" heard all sorts of reports of Odom's drug taking and late night partying. I have no idea what Lamar did or what caused it, but from a distance it almost appeared as if his heart was broken. He was a key cog on a world championship team and once they stopped being world champions (being swept by Dallas in 2011) the Lakers dumped Lamar. Again, this is pure speculation, but I think the decision by the Lakers to abandon him resulted in a downward spiral from which he never recovered.
Similar players from a statistical standpoint include Larry Johnson and Chris Webber and Terry Cummings. So Lamar Odom was a very, very good player, a cog on two title teams, and most people seemed to think he was a good guy, before his trade to Dallas and ultimate downfall.
Goodbye, Lamar.
Tuesday, October 06, 2015
Ten Least Productive Players 2010-11 to 2014-15 Seasons (Min. 8000 MP)
http://bkref.com/tiny/dZ6EP
These are guys who have actually played a lot the past 5 years combined (minimum 8000 minutes) and have contributed the least (based upon being bottom 10 in WS, poor WS/48 and PER).
I give 10 points for being the worst in a category (WS. PER, WS/48) down to 1 point for being the 10th worst.
Here goes:
10th worst -- Vasquez (8 points)
9th Worst -- O.J. Mayo (10 points, wins tiebreaker due to more WS than....)
8th Worst -- Luke Ridnour (10)
7th worst Kirk Hinrich (15)
6th worst -- Al-Farooq Aminu (15, fewer WS than Hinrich, but more WS than....)
5th Worst -- Mo Williams (15 points, loses the tiebreaker due to fewer WS than the guys in 7th and 6th)
4th worst -- Brandon Knight (16 points)
3rd Worst -- Evan Turner (22 points)
2nd Worst -- John Salmons (25 points)
And, the least productive guy to play 8,000 minutes or more the past 5 years.....
#1 -- Wes Johnson (28 points, the fewest WS, the worst WS/48, and the 3rd worst PER of the group).
Congrats!
These are guys who have actually played a lot the past 5 years combined (minimum 8000 minutes) and have contributed the least (based upon being bottom 10 in WS, poor WS/48 and PER).
I give 10 points for being the worst in a category (WS. PER, WS/48) down to 1 point for being the 10th worst.
Here goes:
10th worst -- Vasquez (8 points)
9th Worst -- O.J. Mayo (10 points, wins tiebreaker due to more WS than....)
8th Worst -- Luke Ridnour (10)
7th worst Kirk Hinrich (15)
6th worst -- Al-Farooq Aminu (15, fewer WS than Hinrich, but more WS than....)
5th Worst -- Mo Williams (15 points, loses the tiebreaker due to fewer WS than the guys in 7th and 6th)
4th worst -- Brandon Knight (16 points)
3rd Worst -- Evan Turner (22 points)
2nd Worst -- John Salmons (25 points)
And, the least productive guy to play 8,000 minutes or more the past 5 years.....
#1 -- Wes Johnson (28 points, the fewest WS, the worst WS/48, and the 3rd worst PER of the group).
Congrats!
10 Statistically Best NBA Players 2000-01 to 2009-10 seasons
http://bkref.com/tiny/OmTZg
Cut off the list at top 10 Win Share performers so long as they did at least 15 PER and .15 WS/48.
Your answer:
10th best -- Ray Allen (5.5 points)
9 - Shawn Marion (7.5)
8 - Paul Pierce (9)
7 - Steve Nash (13)
6th best -- Chauncey Billups (13, beats Nash on total Win Shares)
5 -- Kobe (18)
4 -- KG (23)
3 -- LeBron James (24)
2 -- Tim Duncan (26, 2nd in WS, 3rd in WS/48, 2nd in PER)
1st -- Dirk Nowitzki (27 points, 1st in WS, 1st in WS/48, 4th in PER).
What we learned -- there are some REALLY good players 6-10, but they don't match up at all to the top 5.
Also, Kobe does not match up to the top 4 guys statistically during this period.
Dirk has had an amazing career.
Cut off the list at top 10 Win Share performers so long as they did at least 15 PER and .15 WS/48.
Your answer:
10th best -- Ray Allen (5.5 points)
9 - Shawn Marion (7.5)
8 - Paul Pierce (9)
7 - Steve Nash (13)
6th best -- Chauncey Billups (13, beats Nash on total Win Shares)
5 -- Kobe (18)
4 -- KG (23)
3 -- LeBron James (24)
2 -- Tim Duncan (26, 2nd in WS, 3rd in WS/48, 2nd in PER)
1st -- Dirk Nowitzki (27 points, 1st in WS, 1st in WS/48, 4th in PER).
What we learned -- there are some REALLY good players 6-10, but they don't match up at all to the top 5.
Also, Kobe does not match up to the top 4 guys statistically during this period.
Dirk has had an amazing career.
10 Statistically Best NBA Players of the 2010s
I sorted the stats so that exactly the top 10 Win Shares guys appear if they have a PER of at least 15 (league average) and a WS/48 of over .15 (a very good player on a per minute basis).
I wonder why Dwight Howard is not spit out as a result, but I can look that up.
Then I gave one point for a 10th place finish in a category, up to 10 points for winning each category (WS, PER, WS/48).
Ten Best Guys
#10th best guy -- Marc Gasol (4 points)
#9 - Tyson Chandler (8.5 points)
#8 - Russell Westbrook (12.5 points, loses tie on total WS to....)
#7 Blake Griffin (12.5 points, wins tie over Russ)
#6 Stephon Curry (14 points)
#5 Kevin Love (15.5 points)
#4 James Harden (18 points)
#3 Kevin Durant (25 points)
#2 Chris Paul (26.5 points)
#1 LeBron James (29.5 points)
OKC had the ##3, 4, and 8 guys on the same team!
http://bkref.com/tiny/yj8Fq
I wonder why Dwight Howard is not spit out as a result, but I can look that up.
Then I gave one point for a 10th place finish in a category, up to 10 points for winning each category (WS, PER, WS/48).
Ten Best Guys
#10th best guy -- Marc Gasol (4 points)
#9 - Tyson Chandler (8.5 points)
#8 - Russell Westbrook (12.5 points, loses tie on total WS to....)
#7 Blake Griffin (12.5 points, wins tie over Russ)
#6 Stephon Curry (14 points)
#5 Kevin Love (15.5 points)
#4 James Harden (18 points)
#3 Kevin Durant (25 points)
#2 Chris Paul (26.5 points)
#1 LeBron James (29.5 points)
OKC had the ##3, 4, and 8 guys on the same team!
http://bkref.com/tiny/yj8Fq
What Can We Reasonably Expect From a 19 Year Old Tyus Jones? History Says Not Much.
I am not sure why I am getting so few results, but of smaller rookie guards in their teens, the Basketball reference search engine spits out only 6 guys: http://bkref.com/tiny/FalHS
3.7 Win Shares by Stephon Marbury is BY FAR the best output of a rookie 19 year old guard under 6'3" tall. Dajuan Wagner and (I had forgotten him) Eric Money registered positive Win Shares as 19 year olds, but just barely.
I suppose I should expand the search to 20 year olds - maybe guys graduate high school closer to 19? So, we do that and............http://bkref.com/tiny/12wNS Yep, that is the ticket. Guys generally are 20 years old in their first NBA season. Tyus will not be 20 until May 10, so he will play the entire season at age 19.
The five best young small point guards 20 and under have been Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Brandon Jennings, Stephon Marbury, and Gilbert Arenas. Three of the five have been all-NBA in their career.
For Tyus - assuming that he is not Chris Paul (interesting note - the lovers of Tyus always compare him to Chris Paul) -- what is a fair expectation? Maybe the 20th best season of all-time, so, 0.4 Win Shares? That is pretty awful for a team that is trying to win games. So as a Wolves fan I hope Tyus is top 10, but that would mean he would have a better rookie campaign than Russell Westbrook. Hardly a "reasonable expectation."
Best wishes to Tyus, but history teaches us that a 19 year old small PG contributing a fair level of wins has not been done since Stephon Marbury -- maybe it is time to make it a Timberwolves tradition?
3.7 Win Shares by Stephon Marbury is BY FAR the best output of a rookie 19 year old guard under 6'3" tall. Dajuan Wagner and (I had forgotten him) Eric Money registered positive Win Shares as 19 year olds, but just barely.
I suppose I should expand the search to 20 year olds - maybe guys graduate high school closer to 19? So, we do that and............http://bkref.com/tiny/12wNS Yep, that is the ticket. Guys generally are 20 years old in their first NBA season. Tyus will not be 20 until May 10, so he will play the entire season at age 19.
The five best young small point guards 20 and under have been Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Brandon Jennings, Stephon Marbury, and Gilbert Arenas. Three of the five have been all-NBA in their career.
For Tyus - assuming that he is not Chris Paul (interesting note - the lovers of Tyus always compare him to Chris Paul) -- what is a fair expectation? Maybe the 20th best season of all-time, so, 0.4 Win Shares? That is pretty awful for a team that is trying to win games. So as a Wolves fan I hope Tyus is top 10, but that would mean he would have a better rookie campaign than Russell Westbrook. Hardly a "reasonable expectation."
Best wishes to Tyus, but history teaches us that a 19 year old small PG contributing a fair level of wins has not been done since Stephon Marbury -- maybe it is time to make it a Timberwolves tradition?
Jeb Bush -- My Brother Was a Liberal
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/06/jebs_take_on_george_w_conservative_lite.html
Jeb (oh, I am sorry, he wants to be referred to as "Jeb!" complete with exclamation point) is trying desperately to locate himself on the scale somewhere near the "severely conservative" Mitt Romney (whom everyone knew was just a flimflam man trying to get elected -- witness his 1st and 3rd debate with Obama where he basically espoused Democratic Party policies and often would just say "I agree with the President.")
But the bigger concern that I have with this story is the statement that a recent poll found that 73% of people who identify as conservative have a favorable view of George W. Bush!!!
In my lifetime, George W. Bush is the worst President, probably 10% worse than Jimmy Carter, who was second worst by a mile. GWB did almost nothing well and almost everything extremely poorly. Keeping us safe? More dead of terrorism in the U.S. than any President.
Foreign policy? Spent a trillion dollars on unnecessary Iraq War despite warnings that the war would destabilize the region (which it did).
Economics - led us into a stock market collapse and almost a second Great Depression. This is true even though he took a balanced budget from Clinton and immediately ballooned it by huge tax cuts coupled with spending on programs like the military, wars and Medicare Part D,
Foreign relations - everyone hated us.
Rule of Law -- no respect for the rule of law, set up torture sites, tortured, set up Guantanamo Bay detention area.
The guy was the absolute worst President of at least the past 70 years, and probably back to Harding (1920). Clearly among the 10 worst Presidents in U.S. history, and battling hard for the bottom 5. (I would imagine that guys like Zachary Taylor, Pierce, Buchanan, Harding, were worse, but I don't think you could locate 6 other guys who even are arguable worse. Maybe Coolidge, maybe Hoover, maybe Andrew Johnson. But I would not put those guys below GWB - I think he is probably 5th worst.
But honest to God, if conservative Republicans are so stupid that they cannot concede that GWB was a terrible President (and only 27% of them appear to have seriously qualms about him) then where does that leave us as a country? We have basically reached a point where people live in their own private reality as defined by whether they watch Fox News or not.
As a Democrat, I recognize that Jimmy Carter was an awful President (great guy, smart guy, has done very well later in life, but an awful President). I also recognize that Reagan was a good President and Nixon, while a criminal, did a good job in most of his Presidential duties. It really , really bothers me that 73% of conservatives feel GWB was a good President. It is as if 73% of Vikings fans felt Spergon Wynn was a good quarterback or if 73% of Bears fans felt having Jimmy Clausen as a backup was good insurance in case Cutler got injured. I mean, that would be a form of mental illness.
But anyway -- I am glad that Jeb! Bush is now able to identify that his brother sucked. Sadly, it appears that he is fighting uphill against a GOP primary voter who saw absolutely nothing wrong with GWB's performance and who will probably be a little hurt that Jeb! is going after him.
Jeb (oh, I am sorry, he wants to be referred to as "Jeb!" complete with exclamation point) is trying desperately to locate himself on the scale somewhere near the "severely conservative" Mitt Romney (whom everyone knew was just a flimflam man trying to get elected -- witness his 1st and 3rd debate with Obama where he basically espoused Democratic Party policies and often would just say "I agree with the President.")
But the bigger concern that I have with this story is the statement that a recent poll found that 73% of people who identify as conservative have a favorable view of George W. Bush!!!
In my lifetime, George W. Bush is the worst President, probably 10% worse than Jimmy Carter, who was second worst by a mile. GWB did almost nothing well and almost everything extremely poorly. Keeping us safe? More dead of terrorism in the U.S. than any President.
Foreign policy? Spent a trillion dollars on unnecessary Iraq War despite warnings that the war would destabilize the region (which it did).
Economics - led us into a stock market collapse and almost a second Great Depression. This is true even though he took a balanced budget from Clinton and immediately ballooned it by huge tax cuts coupled with spending on programs like the military, wars and Medicare Part D,
Foreign relations - everyone hated us.
Rule of Law -- no respect for the rule of law, set up torture sites, tortured, set up Guantanamo Bay detention area.
The guy was the absolute worst President of at least the past 70 years, and probably back to Harding (1920). Clearly among the 10 worst Presidents in U.S. history, and battling hard for the bottom 5. (I would imagine that guys like Zachary Taylor, Pierce, Buchanan, Harding, were worse, but I don't think you could locate 6 other guys who even are arguable worse. Maybe Coolidge, maybe Hoover, maybe Andrew Johnson. But I would not put those guys below GWB - I think he is probably 5th worst.
But honest to God, if conservative Republicans are so stupid that they cannot concede that GWB was a terrible President (and only 27% of them appear to have seriously qualms about him) then where does that leave us as a country? We have basically reached a point where people live in their own private reality as defined by whether they watch Fox News or not.
As a Democrat, I recognize that Jimmy Carter was an awful President (great guy, smart guy, has done very well later in life, but an awful President). I also recognize that Reagan was a good President and Nixon, while a criminal, did a good job in most of his Presidential duties. It really , really bothers me that 73% of conservatives feel GWB was a good President. It is as if 73% of Vikings fans felt Spergon Wynn was a good quarterback or if 73% of Bears fans felt having Jimmy Clausen as a backup was good insurance in case Cutler got injured. I mean, that would be a form of mental illness.
But anyway -- I am glad that Jeb! Bush is now able to identify that his brother sucked. Sadly, it appears that he is fighting uphill against a GOP primary voter who saw absolutely nothing wrong with GWB's performance and who will probably be a little hurt that Jeb! is going after him.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Friday, September 25, 2015
John Boehner -- Quitter
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/john-boehner-to-resign-as-speaker-leave-house-129845772731.html
He will not be missed. He was SUPER ineffectual and allowed Ted Cruz to become the de facto Speaker of the House. Probably the worst decision made by Boehner was to effectively remove earmarks for money to individual districts, thus allowing Congressmen to thumb their noses at him with no threat of reprisal.
He will not be missed. He was SUPER ineffectual and allowed Ted Cruz to become the de facto Speaker of the House. Probably the worst decision made by Boehner was to effectively remove earmarks for money to individual districts, thus allowing Congressmen to thumb their noses at him with no threat of reprisal.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Ted Cruz - Natural Born Citizen?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/the-ted-cruz-problem-is-t_b_8167272.html
The most hilarious thing about the whole deal is the Republicans were TRYING to claim Obama was born outside the U.S. to one U.S. citizen - his mom. We KNOW that Ted Cruz was born outside of the U.S. to one citizen - him mom. That is his official statement of his citizenship!
So, summary, Obama = black skinned = non-citizen. Cruz = lighter skinned = citizen.
The most hilarious thing about the whole deal is the Republicans were TRYING to claim Obama was born outside the U.S. to one U.S. citizen - his mom. We KNOW that Ted Cruz was born outside of the U.S. to one citizen - him mom. That is his official statement of his citizenship!
So, summary, Obama = black skinned = non-citizen. Cruz = lighter skinned = citizen.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
George W. Bush v. Hillary Clinton
1) Intelligence failure and refusal to act upon threat of airplane-based terrorist actions results in the death of 2,600 people on 9/11/01.
GOP Reaction -- "George W. Bush, he kept us safe". http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/17/1422216/-Jeb-Bush-My-brother-kept-us-safe
2) Intelligence failure and failure to see warning signs causes 4 deaths at Benghazi.
GOP Reaction -- "Criminal act by Clinton. Disqualifies her from office; their blood is on her hands."
That is all you need to know.
GOP Reaction -- "George W. Bush, he kept us safe". http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/17/1422216/-Jeb-Bush-My-brother-kept-us-safe
2) Intelligence failure and failure to see warning signs causes 4 deaths at Benghazi.
GOP Reaction -- "Criminal act by Clinton. Disqualifies her from office; their blood is on her hands."
That is all you need to know.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
RIP Moses Malone
As stated elsewhere in the Blog:
1) My #16 best player of all-time.
2) One of 8 guys to win 3+ regular season MVPs and a title.
(The 8 are, in order, based upon my rankings: Jordan(1), Wilt(2), Kareem(3), LeBron(4), Magic(6), Russell(8), Bird (13) and Moses (16).
-- Was once tossed out of a high school all-star camp for being too good (no one could compete against him).
-- First player in modern era to go from high school to pros (ABA Utah Stars).
-- 13 time all-star selection
-- 4X first-team all-NBA, 4X second team all-NBA as a center, 2X first-team all-defense
NBA/ABA Combined List top 10s
2nd in made and total free throws, 1st in offensive rebounds, 5th in defensive rebounds, 3rd in total rebounds, 7th in points, #2 in offensive rebound percentage, 5th in total rebound percentage.
Despite having only one title, is one of 25 players listed at basketball-reference.com as having a 100% Hall of Fame likelihood.
Caused of Death -- high blood pressure and being big, old and overweight -- died in his sleep at age 60.
RIP big fella.
1) My #16 best player of all-time.
2) One of 8 guys to win 3+ regular season MVPs and a title.
(The 8 are, in order, based upon my rankings: Jordan(1), Wilt(2), Kareem(3), LeBron(4), Magic(6), Russell(8), Bird (13) and Moses (16).
-- Was once tossed out of a high school all-star camp for being too good (no one could compete against him).
-- First player in modern era to go from high school to pros (ABA Utah Stars).
-- 13 time all-star selection
-- 4X first-team all-NBA, 4X second team all-NBA as a center, 2X first-team all-defense
NBA/ABA Combined List top 10s
2nd in made and total free throws, 1st in offensive rebounds, 5th in defensive rebounds, 3rd in total rebounds, 7th in points, #2 in offensive rebound percentage, 5th in total rebound percentage.
Despite having only one title, is one of 25 players listed at basketball-reference.com as having a 100% Hall of Fame likelihood.
Caused of Death -- high blood pressure and being big, old and overweight -- died in his sleep at age 60.
RIP big fella.
Wednesday, September 09, 2015
Why I Believe Tom Brady Will Eventually Lose On Appeal
The recent victory for Tom Brady provided by Judge Richard M. Berman, begins its legal analysis with this quotation:
It is rather clear that the good judge stated how he wanted the result to turn out and then instructed his clerk to find ANY case law (even 20-25 years old) that supported that ruling. As recently as 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in Oxford Health v. Sutter explained that an arbitrator's ruling should almost never be overturned:
So long as an arbitrator "makes a good faith attempt" to interpret a contract, "even serious errors of law or fact will not subject his award to vacatur."
Under the FAA, courts may vacate an arbitrator’s decision "only in very unusual circumstances." That limited judicial review, we have explained, "maintain[s] arbitration’s essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway." If parties could take"full-bore legal and evidentiary appeals," arbitration would become "merely a prelude to a more cumbersome and time consuming judicial review process." Here, Oxford invokes §10(a)(4) of the Act, which authorizes a federal court to set aside an arbitral award "where the arbitrator[] exceeded [his] powers." A party seeking relief under that provision bears a heavy burden. "It is not enough . . . to show that the [arbitrator] committed an error—or even a serious error." Because the parties "bargained for the arbitrator’s construction of their agreement," an arbitral decision "even arguably construing or applying the contract" must stand, regardless of a court’s view of its (de)merits.
So, the real question for the Second Circuit on appeal is whether there are two sets of standards for arbitration -- one for football arbitration and one for every other type of arbitration. All arbitrators will get the benefit of the doubt, even if clearly wrong.....unless that arbitrator is Roger Goodell.
The fact of the matter is that the NFLPA bargained for arbitration. Arbitration, by its very nature, allows a lot of terrible decisions to stand. That is the entire theory of arbitration -- you agree on someone or some panel of people to tell you what your legal rights are. They may be wildly wrong, but a court isn't going to overturn that result so long as the arbitrator tried to be fair. As the Supreme Court added, arbitrator decisions generally get upheld whether "good, bad, or ugly." If this isn't the rule for NFL players, then the courts should simply say that is the case - when they agree to allow The Commissioner to be an arbitrator they can still say he decided wrong.
I would imagine that if the NFL just simply argues the proper legal standard to the Second Circuit that the NFL will prevail.
"Although judicial scrutiny of arbitration awards necessarily is limited, such review is
sufficient to ensure that arbitrators comply with the requirements of the statute at issue." Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Com., Ill S. Ct. 1647, 1655 (1991) (quoting Shearson/Am. Express Inc. v. McMahon, 107 S. Ct. 2332, 2340 (1987)). "The deference due an arbitrator does not extend so far as to require a district court to countenance, much less confirm, an award obtained without the requisites of fairness or due process." Kaplan v. Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 259 (JFK), 1996 WL 640901, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 1996)."It is rather clear that the good judge stated how he wanted the result to turn out and then instructed his clerk to find ANY case law (even 20-25 years old) that supported that ruling. As recently as 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in Oxford Health v. Sutter explained that an arbitrator's ruling should almost never be overturned:
So long as an arbitrator "makes a good faith attempt" to interpret a contract, "even serious errors of law or fact will not subject his award to vacatur."
Under the FAA, courts may vacate an arbitrator’s decision "only in very unusual circumstances." That limited judicial review, we have explained, "maintain[s] arbitration’s essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway." If parties could take"full-bore legal and evidentiary appeals," arbitration would become "merely a prelude to a more cumbersome and time consuming judicial review process." Here, Oxford invokes §10(a)(4) of the Act, which authorizes a federal court to set aside an arbitral award "where the arbitrator[] exceeded [his] powers." A party seeking relief under that provision bears a heavy burden. "It is not enough . . . to show that the [arbitrator] committed an error—or even a serious error." Because the parties "bargained for the arbitrator’s construction of their agreement," an arbitral decision "even arguably construing or applying the contract" must stand, regardless of a court’s view of its (de)merits.
So, the real question for the Second Circuit on appeal is whether there are two sets of standards for arbitration -- one for football arbitration and one for every other type of arbitration. All arbitrators will get the benefit of the doubt, even if clearly wrong.....unless that arbitrator is Roger Goodell.
The fact of the matter is that the NFLPA bargained for arbitration. Arbitration, by its very nature, allows a lot of terrible decisions to stand. That is the entire theory of arbitration -- you agree on someone or some panel of people to tell you what your legal rights are. They may be wildly wrong, but a court isn't going to overturn that result so long as the arbitrator tried to be fair. As the Supreme Court added, arbitrator decisions generally get upheld whether "good, bad, or ugly." If this isn't the rule for NFL players, then the courts should simply say that is the case - when they agree to allow The Commissioner to be an arbitrator they can still say he decided wrong.
I would imagine that if the NFL just simply argues the proper legal standard to the Second Circuit that the NFL will prevail.
Friday, September 04, 2015
Friday, August 28, 2015
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Interesting TV Comment Regarding Republican Politics
I saw a guy on TV the other day (I do not recall his name, sorry) who was a big GOP operative and he stated that for the GOP to grow the party that they have to NOT try to reach out to women and minorities, but, rather, they need to be less about the rich and more about the working man.
The theory went as follows -- when there is something that will help the American working man, be for it, whether it is increased minimum wage or unionization or supporting Obama Care. If you truly want the middle class to be Republicans, then your platform should be that you will help the middle class.
As I have said before, it USED to be that a thinking man who was making $35,000 a year in a union job could look 5-10-20 years down the road and say, "Well, some day I will be making $100,000 a year. I ought to vote Republican because they won't tax me as much." And when we had labor unions and basically lifetime employment, we had a lot of happy people who just wanted to live in a law and order society where they could safely raise their kids (key American values which have always been a big pitch of the GOP -- anticrime, protect the kids from strange liberal thinkers).
"Reagan Democrats" were a lot of union folks; blue collar workers who felt that Reagan would be a strong leader who would let them live their lives while Carter was a weak-need leader who insisted that everyone turn down the heat to 65 degrees and drive 55.
The problem with being a Republican nowadays is that they stand for 3 things: 1) tax cuts for the wealthy; 2) going to war with everyone; and 3) hating minorities. If you are some guy getting out of high school and you have a couple gay friends, know a bunch of Hispanic guys and really don't want to go to war with everyone, the Republican Party offers you nothing. It used to be that a guy in Dundee, New York who graduated in 1955 could leave high school, get a union job, work for 40 years, retire at 58 and live on a pension. He never had to worry about money and he never will. How do I know this? Because my father attended his 40 year HS reunion and learned this, "These guys were not even good high school students - they all have very good lives.". That same graduating student in 2015 won't make $75,000 a year some day. He won't have a pension. He won't ever make enough that he ever pays federal income tax. When he retires, he needs Social Security and Medicare. He will probably be a Democrat.
Interestingly, this same guy will probably be very happy if illegal immigration slows. He will have fewer competitors for his job. His employer might actually have to pay him more to work.
Just a thought.
The theory went as follows -- when there is something that will help the American working man, be for it, whether it is increased minimum wage or unionization or supporting Obama Care. If you truly want the middle class to be Republicans, then your platform should be that you will help the middle class.
As I have said before, it USED to be that a thinking man who was making $35,000 a year in a union job could look 5-10-20 years down the road and say, "Well, some day I will be making $100,000 a year. I ought to vote Republican because they won't tax me as much." And when we had labor unions and basically lifetime employment, we had a lot of happy people who just wanted to live in a law and order society where they could safely raise their kids (key American values which have always been a big pitch of the GOP -- anticrime, protect the kids from strange liberal thinkers).
"Reagan Democrats" were a lot of union folks; blue collar workers who felt that Reagan would be a strong leader who would let them live their lives while Carter was a weak-need leader who insisted that everyone turn down the heat to 65 degrees and drive 55.
The problem with being a Republican nowadays is that they stand for 3 things: 1) tax cuts for the wealthy; 2) going to war with everyone; and 3) hating minorities. If you are some guy getting out of high school and you have a couple gay friends, know a bunch of Hispanic guys and really don't want to go to war with everyone, the Republican Party offers you nothing. It used to be that a guy in Dundee, New York who graduated in 1955 could leave high school, get a union job, work for 40 years, retire at 58 and live on a pension. He never had to worry about money and he never will. How do I know this? Because my father attended his 40 year HS reunion and learned this, "These guys were not even good high school students - they all have very good lives.". That same graduating student in 2015 won't make $75,000 a year some day. He won't have a pension. He won't ever make enough that he ever pays federal income tax. When he retires, he needs Social Security and Medicare. He will probably be a Democrat.
Interestingly, this same guy will probably be very happy if illegal immigration slows. He will have fewer competitors for his job. His employer might actually have to pay him more to work.
Just a thought.
Monday, August 24, 2015
Trump Comes Out In Favor of Taxing Rich Hedge Fund Managers
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-tax-code-letting-hedge-funds-away-155930927--sector.html#
Trump, of course, is right. People who make $300,000 a year should NOT get taxed at 39.6% while hedge fund managers make $300,000,000 and get taxed at 23.8%.
That said, Trump better HOPE to God that one of three things happens: 1) he starts to decline in the polls; 2) he "evolves" on this position; or 3) he decides that he was misunderstood. Because if none of these three things happens, I honestly fear for Donald Trump's life. There is nothing more that Republican power brokers hate than a guy who will raise taxes on the wealthy. If Trump is on his way to getting the GOP nomination and he is serious about increasing taxes on the wealthy.....desperate times call for desperate measures.... GOP power brokers do not give a fuck about social issues - they use the issues for votes. Their daughters get abortions. Their gay kids and relatives get married and they attend. They love the cheap labor created by illegal immigrants. But you start asking them to pay taxes? Oh boy.
I am, in no way, advocating violence toward Mr. Trump -- as I have said, I agree with him. But Jack Kennedy took on the mob and tried to cut off their sources of untaxed income. Didn't end well for him.
Trump, of course, is right. People who make $300,000 a year should NOT get taxed at 39.6% while hedge fund managers make $300,000,000 and get taxed at 23.8%.
That said, Trump better HOPE to God that one of three things happens: 1) he starts to decline in the polls; 2) he "evolves" on this position; or 3) he decides that he was misunderstood. Because if none of these three things happens, I honestly fear for Donald Trump's life. There is nothing more that Republican power brokers hate than a guy who will raise taxes on the wealthy. If Trump is on his way to getting the GOP nomination and he is serious about increasing taxes on the wealthy.....desperate times call for desperate measures.... GOP power brokers do not give a fuck about social issues - they use the issues for votes. Their daughters get abortions. Their gay kids and relatives get married and they attend. They love the cheap labor created by illegal immigrants. But you start asking them to pay taxes? Oh boy.
I am, in no way, advocating violence toward Mr. Trump -- as I have said, I agree with him. But Jack Kennedy took on the mob and tried to cut off their sources of untaxed income. Didn't end well for him.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
NFL's Tom Brady Brief
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/08/14/tom-brady-legal-team-goes-after-roger-goodell-nfl/BBeEwwq8fINaU4oIvNrKPI/story.html
Go toward the bottom.
Summary -- 1) arbitrator is entitled to great deference; 2) court cannot reevaluate the findings of fact; 3) there is no such thing as "law of the shop"; 4) Brady did it, or at least there was enough evidence for Goodell to find that Brady did it.
The most interesting thing about the brief:
-- Brady's destruction of his cell phone was not known to the Wells Report folks, but instead the Union presented that piece of information in pursuing the appeal. (Ooops).
-- Brady was asked for all texts or emails about the deflation of footballs at any time to anyone. That is why he didn't want to produce the phone -- he was texting someone ELSE about football deflation.
-- Brady could not produce his phone since it was his standard practice to destroy his phones -- except he still had the phone from BEFORE the destroyed one. Again, oops. "Well, it is my standard practice.....this one time."
The union has argued "evident partiality" by Goodell. Yeah, sure.
Go toward the bottom.
Summary -- 1) arbitrator is entitled to great deference; 2) court cannot reevaluate the findings of fact; 3) there is no such thing as "law of the shop"; 4) Brady did it, or at least there was enough evidence for Goodell to find that Brady did it.
The most interesting thing about the brief:
-- Brady's destruction of his cell phone was not known to the Wells Report folks, but instead the Union presented that piece of information in pursuing the appeal. (Ooops).
-- Brady was asked for all texts or emails about the deflation of footballs at any time to anyone. That is why he didn't want to produce the phone -- he was texting someone ELSE about football deflation.
-- Brady could not produce his phone since it was his standard practice to destroy his phones -- except he still had the phone from BEFORE the destroyed one. Again, oops. "Well, it is my standard practice.....this one time."
The union has argued "evident partiality" by Goodell. Yeah, sure.
Jared Fogle -- My Lord
http://news.yahoo.com/tv-report-ex-subway-pitchman-admit-child-porn-054612244--finance.html#
For those of you so outraged with Adrian Peterson's whipping of his child -- those of you who wanted him basically banned from ever working again and thrown in prison -- how do you feel about the fact that Fogle will only see 5-14 1/2 years in prison?
Isn't this the sort of behavior (systematic child porn, violations of privacy for personal and pecuniary benefit actually soliciting and engaging in sex with minors) that should result in life in prison? Just because Fogle has $1.4M to give victims, does this mean he shouldn't be put away forever?
Disgusting. Al S. - I know you have thoughts.
For those of you so outraged with Adrian Peterson's whipping of his child -- those of you who wanted him basically banned from ever working again and thrown in prison -- how do you feel about the fact that Fogle will only see 5-14 1/2 years in prison?
Isn't this the sort of behavior (systematic child porn, violations of privacy for personal and pecuniary benefit actually soliciting and engaging in sex with minors) that should result in life in prison? Just because Fogle has $1.4M to give victims, does this mean he shouldn't be put away forever?
Disgusting. Al S. - I know you have thoughts.
Monday, August 17, 2015
Good article on the latest Fox News Poll
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/17/9164547/fox-poll-trump-carson
I would summarize it as this -- 56% of the GOP electorate is not currently following directions. They are supposed to vote for Bush and let Walker and Rubio do well enough that they can be a good VP candidate.
Instead, 56% say they will be voting for clearly unelectable options (Trump, Carson, Cruz, Huackbee, Paul). Bush is plummeting, Walker has lost 1/3 of his support. Rubio could not have done much better in the debate.....he dropped a point. Rubio's debate performance was like when Corey BRewer scored 51 points in a game -- a reporter that night asked LeBron, "So, your thoughts on CBrew scoring 51 points tonight." LeBron, "well, good for him......wait, WHAT!?!?!?!?" Rubio is never going to be that good ever again - yet, rather than reward him for his effort (and his willingness to move even FURTHER right on abortion than FoxNews thought he was), the voters actually ran away from him.
Anyway -- go Trump! And have you ever seen a guy who is around 65 years old who looks anywhere near as good as Ben Carson? Whatever secret medical knowledge he has should be ferreted out and provided at no charge to short, portly 51 year old bloggers.
I would summarize it as this -- 56% of the GOP electorate is not currently following directions. They are supposed to vote for Bush and let Walker and Rubio do well enough that they can be a good VP candidate.
Instead, 56% say they will be voting for clearly unelectable options (Trump, Carson, Cruz, Huackbee, Paul). Bush is plummeting, Walker has lost 1/3 of his support. Rubio could not have done much better in the debate.....he dropped a point. Rubio's debate performance was like when Corey BRewer scored 51 points in a game -- a reporter that night asked LeBron, "So, your thoughts on CBrew scoring 51 points tonight." LeBron, "well, good for him......wait, WHAT!?!?!?!?" Rubio is never going to be that good ever again - yet, rather than reward him for his effort (and his willingness to move even FURTHER right on abortion than FoxNews thought he was), the voters actually ran away from him.
Anyway -- go Trump! And have you ever seen a guy who is around 65 years old who looks anywhere near as good as Ben Carson? Whatever secret medical knowledge he has should be ferreted out and provided at no charge to short, portly 51 year old bloggers.
Jordan Spieth Goes 1-1-2-4 in Majors.
With Spieth winning 2 majors and adding a second and a 4th, if you add that up, he had a total score of 8 (1+1+2+4) and two wins.
The two greatest golfers of all-time are 2) Tiger Woods and 1) Jack Nicklaus. Tiger is the only guy since WWII to have a better year in majors than Spieth:
Tiger in 2000 -- 3 firsts and a 5th (8 total points, beats Spieth on wins)
Tiger in 2005 also posted an 8 with 1-1-2-4,
Jack's best ever single year was 1975 where he went 1-1-3-7.
Why is Jack the greatest ever? Look at the period 1971-1977.
Jack's total scores for those years:
1971 -- 10 (1 win)
1972 -- 16 (2 wins)
1973 -- 12 (1 win)
1974 -- 19 (0 wins)
1975 -- 12 (2 wins)
1976 -- 20 (0 wins)
1977 -- 17 (0 wins)
Did Tiger ever have a stretch of 7 years like that? No. Here is his stretch 2000-07
8, 67, 32, 78, 72, 8, (was cut at US Open, so his score would be above 80), 17.
Tiger in his best 8 years (2000-07) did have 12 major wins to Jack's 8 major wins in his best 8 year stretch (1970-77). But Jack had a stretch 1962-67 in which he also had 7 majors. Tiger will be 40 this year. By age 39, Jack had 15 majors. Tiger has 14. At ages 37-38-39 Jack had 6 top-4 finishes in majors, including one win. Tiger at ages 37-39 has had 1 top-4 finish (2013 Masters where he tied for 4th with Marc Leishman, losing to Adam Scott by 4 strokes) one top 6, and a ton of injuries and awful results.
Jack won 2 majors at age 40 and 1 at age 46. So we shall see whether Tiger can step up and get it done, or whether it is time for him to fade away and allow Spieth, Day, McIlroy, etc. to take over.
The two greatest golfers of all-time are 2) Tiger Woods and 1) Jack Nicklaus. Tiger is the only guy since WWII to have a better year in majors than Spieth:
Tiger in 2000 -- 3 firsts and a 5th (8 total points, beats Spieth on wins)
Tiger in 2005 also posted an 8 with 1-1-2-4,
Jack's best ever single year was 1975 where he went 1-1-3-7.
Why is Jack the greatest ever? Look at the period 1971-1977.
Jack's total scores for those years:
1971 -- 10 (1 win)
1972 -- 16 (2 wins)
1973 -- 12 (1 win)
1974 -- 19 (0 wins)
1975 -- 12 (2 wins)
1976 -- 20 (0 wins)
1977 -- 17 (0 wins)
Did Tiger ever have a stretch of 7 years like that? No. Here is his stretch 2000-07
8, 67, 32, 78, 72, 8, (was cut at US Open, so his score would be above 80), 17.
Tiger in his best 8 years (2000-07) did have 12 major wins to Jack's 8 major wins in his best 8 year stretch (1970-77). But Jack had a stretch 1962-67 in which he also had 7 majors. Tiger will be 40 this year. By age 39, Jack had 15 majors. Tiger has 14. At ages 37-38-39 Jack had 6 top-4 finishes in majors, including one win. Tiger at ages 37-39 has had 1 top-4 finish (2013 Masters where he tied for 4th with Marc Leishman, losing to Adam Scott by 4 strokes) one top 6, and a ton of injuries and awful results.
Jack won 2 majors at age 40 and 1 at age 46. So we shall see whether Tiger can step up and get it done, or whether it is time for him to fade away and allow Spieth, Day, McIlroy, etc. to take over.
Friday, August 14, 2015
I Love LeBron, But Folks, He ISN'T Paying for 1,000 Kids to Go to College.....
The LeBron James Family Foundation has announced that if the 1,100 kids currently in 3rd to 7th grade fulfill the elements of the "I Promise" program that the Foundation will pay their way through college.
This has led to claims that LeBron is paying to put 1,100 kids through college at a cost of $41 million. I love LeBron, but people, this isn't "Scott's Tots" - he isn't going to be standing with his schlong in this hand 5 years from now hoping he still has enough money to write checks.
First -- the money is available only to kids who finish the Program. Part of the Program is getting acceptable grades and adequate standardized score results and getting through school in Akron. If you assume that 30% of the kids will not complete the program, I think you are giving the kids a lot of credit.
Second -- the money only goes to the kids if they go to the University of Akron. Assume you are a poor kid from inner city Akron and you stay in school, stay out of trouble, and have, say, a 27 on your ACT. You probably can go to most colleges for free or close to free, either on a need based scholarship or a merit based scholarship. If you can go to Ohio State or Michigan, do you want to go to Akron? Harvard or Akron? Stanford or Akron? You get the point. Assume that the kids who can go to a better school will. Let's say that is 10% of the remaining 750 kids. So drop 750 to 675.
Third -- the Foundation is partnering with the University of Akron. Do you believe that a poor inner city kid from Akron would be charged full freight for attending the U of A if he or she had stayed out of trouble, did well in school and had a decent ACT score? I do not believe that to be the case, and the U of A web site states that it awards both merit and need based scholarships up to $10,000 (tuition is currently $9,500). If LeBron approached the U of A, do you think that they screwed him and said, "Yeah, LeBron, a lot of these kids would actually go here for nothing or next to nothing, but if YOU will pay for them, we are going to charge YOUR FOUNDATION $10K/kid." I really, really doubt it. Therefore, LeBron probably said, "What would you charge a kid who was in this situation?" Around $3,500 on the average. "OK, that is what I will pay."
$3,500 X 675 kids = $9,450,000.
Fourth -- LeBron isn't paying the $9,450,000. It is the Foundation that is paying it. I seriously doubt that every dollar in the coffers of the LBJ Foundation is contributed by LeBron James. If it is, great, but generally Foundations do fundraiser and get donations, etc. Maybe not the case here, but, again, someone should at least look at the source of the funds at issue. If Dan Gilbert gives $10,000,000 a year to LeBron's foundation it is one thing. If Gilbert gives $0 it is another.
Fifth -- I doubt that anyone would be so stupid as to Michael Scott it and promise payment in the future without some clear source of payment. It is possible that the Foundation gave U of A, for example, $6,000,000 today and said, "That is it. That is all I will pay. You invest it and you agree that these kids all go for free if they want." Or you get someone like a bank or insurance company involved and buy some investment product today that they will guaranty will amount to the possible tuition payment in 4-5-6 years.
LeBron ain't paying $41M.
This has led to claims that LeBron is paying to put 1,100 kids through college at a cost of $41 million. I love LeBron, but people, this isn't "Scott's Tots" - he isn't going to be standing with his schlong in this hand 5 years from now hoping he still has enough money to write checks.
First -- the money is available only to kids who finish the Program. Part of the Program is getting acceptable grades and adequate standardized score results and getting through school in Akron. If you assume that 30% of the kids will not complete the program, I think you are giving the kids a lot of credit.
Second -- the money only goes to the kids if they go to the University of Akron. Assume you are a poor kid from inner city Akron and you stay in school, stay out of trouble, and have, say, a 27 on your ACT. You probably can go to most colleges for free or close to free, either on a need based scholarship or a merit based scholarship. If you can go to Ohio State or Michigan, do you want to go to Akron? Harvard or Akron? Stanford or Akron? You get the point. Assume that the kids who can go to a better school will. Let's say that is 10% of the remaining 750 kids. So drop 750 to 675.
Third -- the Foundation is partnering with the University of Akron. Do you believe that a poor inner city kid from Akron would be charged full freight for attending the U of A if he or she had stayed out of trouble, did well in school and had a decent ACT score? I do not believe that to be the case, and the U of A web site states that it awards both merit and need based scholarships up to $10,000 (tuition is currently $9,500). If LeBron approached the U of A, do you think that they screwed him and said, "Yeah, LeBron, a lot of these kids would actually go here for nothing or next to nothing, but if YOU will pay for them, we are going to charge YOUR FOUNDATION $10K/kid." I really, really doubt it. Therefore, LeBron probably said, "What would you charge a kid who was in this situation?" Around $3,500 on the average. "OK, that is what I will pay."
$3,500 X 675 kids = $9,450,000.
Fourth -- LeBron isn't paying the $9,450,000. It is the Foundation that is paying it. I seriously doubt that every dollar in the coffers of the LBJ Foundation is contributed by LeBron James. If it is, great, but generally Foundations do fundraiser and get donations, etc. Maybe not the case here, but, again, someone should at least look at the source of the funds at issue. If Dan Gilbert gives $10,000,000 a year to LeBron's foundation it is one thing. If Gilbert gives $0 it is another.
Fifth -- I doubt that anyone would be so stupid as to Michael Scott it and promise payment in the future without some clear source of payment. It is possible that the Foundation gave U of A, for example, $6,000,000 today and said, "That is it. That is all I will pay. You invest it and you agree that these kids all go for free if they want." Or you get someone like a bank or insurance company involved and buy some investment product today that they will guaranty will amount to the possible tuition payment in 4-5-6 years.
LeBron ain't paying $41M.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Tom Brady courtroom sketch
In her defense, the sketch artist had been hypnotized, ala "Shallow Hal," and drew what was inside of Brady.....
Monday, August 10, 2015
Why Fox News Cannot Touch Trump's Popularity - And Why They Should Try a Different Strategy
Fox News and its ilk are trying desperately to derail the runaway train that is Donald Trump running as a purported born-again Republican. Post-debate, the Fox News folks were saying just about anyone not named Trump won. End result -- Trump wins in the polls like 40-12 or 50-13.
Then Fox News is just OUTRAGED that Trump went after Megyn Kelly and suggested that she might be on her period while questioning him. Again - no discernible decline for Trump.
Fox News for 20 years has fought against intelligent dialogue. It has fought for candidates like GW Bush and Sarah Palin, each of whom did not have enough brain power to light a 30 watt bulb. "It doesn't matter, you vote for a fighter, someone who cares about you and who will try to get things done.....not some egghead. Eggheads cannot be trusted, they are too liberal."
So Trump is a fake Republican and a flip-flopper???? Hahahahahahahahaha. Who did Fox News support so hard in 2012 that Karl Rove on election night refused to believe he had lost?? Willard "Mitt" Romney. Mitt once campaigned for Senator on the basis that he was to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion rights! To the left of Ted Kennedy. He was running, literally, against Ted Kennedy, and telling people that they should vote for Mitt if they were truly liberal! By 2012, Mitt needed to get nominated, so he called himself "severely conservative" and decided that he hated everyone, and the 47% were killing America (never mind that the 47% included retirees on Social Security and the disabled, including disabled veterans). Fox News supported him.
So I guess that Fox News doesn't have much basis for going after flip floppers.
Trump is rude? Dick Cheney, in the Senate chamber, once told a U.S. Senator to "go fuck himself." The media was outraged. Not Fox News - "politics is a tough game, not for the faint of heart."
Trump is rude to women? What have we heard on Fox News for the past 5 years as state legislatures try to take rights away from women? "It is all make believe. We LOVE women. Why would we ever try to hurt them?" Recall Rush Limbaugh's abuse of Sandra Fluke? Calling her a prostitute and saying that if she got contraceptives paid for that he demanded that she tape her sex and let him watch? Here are the top two GOP Presidential candidates' responses --
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said "it’s not the language I would have used."[43][44] Fellow Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum dismissed the comments stating that "an entertainer can be absurd."
A woman went to Capitol Hill to argue that birth control is medicine and was called a whore? The response of the Fox News-led establishment? Meh.
So, Trump suggesting that an ugly woman is a dog or that a fat woman is fat is clearly way, way more defensible than actions that Fox News has swept under the rug in the past. Do they really expect their viewers to suddenly become 'overly sensitive pansy liberals" and demand that Trump go away? Come on.
Look, Fox News, Trump has beaten you at your own game. You know all of those years that Fox News has spent scaring the shit out of people and telling them to be outraged when they are asked politely not to spout hate? It worked. There are millions of Republican voters out there who do not give a fuck whether you call someone fat, ugly, on the rag, or use a racial slur. They don't care. And they believe that the greatest strength anyone can show is to stick it to all of the politically correct libs out there and speak like we used to speak in the 1970s. I.e., what the viewers call "telling the truth."
Therefore, every step Fox News takes in this direction against Trump is counterproductive. They have told viewers for years that the media is biased and that if the media tells you a candidate is dumb or rude or hates women or is called a flip flopper that this means the exact opposite -- you should vote for them.
What Fox News needs to do is simply not follow Trump. Pick three guys to feature and just hammer the crap out of featuring them. In the early 1990s, sports radio got tired of fellating Michael Jordan, and they decided that the true star of the Bulls was Scottie Pippen I heard hundreds of times, "Pippen is really the key. Pippen is really the better player." This was, of course, ridiculous, and not borne out by any review of statistics, but certain people clung to it just because they wanted to do so. It became a ceaseless drumbeat. Only Pippen's eventual failures post-Jordan ruined the meme.
Fox News should just pump the hell out of Christie, Cruz and Bush. Just follow every tiny little thing they do. Talk constantly about how awesome they are and do 1-3 hour specials on "this is Ted Cruz" or "this is Jeb Bush". Do nothing on Trump. People will eventually say, "Geez, saw a great story on Cruz yesterday. Might have to vote for him." Make Christie into the great bombastic leader of the party and replay things he has said and do a one hour item on "Speaking truth to power -- the Chris Christie Story."
Now, one might suggest that this isn't proper behavior for a news organization -- ignoring a guy who is doubling his next closest opponent in the polls. Fox News is not now, nor has it ever been, an independent news organization. Why pretend? Just promote the hell out of some of the other guys. When Trump does something outrageous, just ignore him. When one of the other guys does something outrageous, praise the hell out of him. "See, THAT is what we need!"
Provide Trump with debate questions about Uzbekistan and Sri Lanka -- no one can possibly make anything good out of those. Then ask him some questions about the other candidates -- "Of these 16 others, who are the three you most admire?" Stuff like that. No one can win a debate if you give them just deathly questions where you are just seeking useless info or info no one cares about.
Now, during debates, you are going to have to identify at least two other people to treat exactly like Trump. So, Walker is a good choice. And Fiorina or Kasich. Just ask them the exact same topics you ask Trump. Then when he complains the next day you can say, "Hey, we asked Walker the same things and he is supposed to be our darling..."
So there you go Fox News. (Stewie Griffin voice) "You're wel-come."
Then Fox News is just OUTRAGED that Trump went after Megyn Kelly and suggested that she might be on her period while questioning him. Again - no discernible decline for Trump.
Fox News for 20 years has fought against intelligent dialogue. It has fought for candidates like GW Bush and Sarah Palin, each of whom did not have enough brain power to light a 30 watt bulb. "It doesn't matter, you vote for a fighter, someone who cares about you and who will try to get things done.....not some egghead. Eggheads cannot be trusted, they are too liberal."
So Trump is a fake Republican and a flip-flopper???? Hahahahahahahahaha. Who did Fox News support so hard in 2012 that Karl Rove on election night refused to believe he had lost?? Willard "Mitt" Romney. Mitt once campaigned for Senator on the basis that he was to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion rights! To the left of Ted Kennedy. He was running, literally, against Ted Kennedy, and telling people that they should vote for Mitt if they were truly liberal! By 2012, Mitt needed to get nominated, so he called himself "severely conservative" and decided that he hated everyone, and the 47% were killing America (never mind that the 47% included retirees on Social Security and the disabled, including disabled veterans). Fox News supported him.
So I guess that Fox News doesn't have much basis for going after flip floppers.
Trump is rude? Dick Cheney, in the Senate chamber, once told a U.S. Senator to "go fuck himself." The media was outraged. Not Fox News - "politics is a tough game, not for the faint of heart."
Trump is rude to women? What have we heard on Fox News for the past 5 years as state legislatures try to take rights away from women? "It is all make believe. We LOVE women. Why would we ever try to hurt them?" Recall Rush Limbaugh's abuse of Sandra Fluke? Calling her a prostitute and saying that if she got contraceptives paid for that he demanded that she tape her sex and let him watch? Here are the top two GOP Presidential candidates' responses --
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said "it’s not the language I would have used."[43][44] Fellow Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum dismissed the comments stating that "an entertainer can be absurd."
A woman went to Capitol Hill to argue that birth control is medicine and was called a whore? The response of the Fox News-led establishment? Meh.
So, Trump suggesting that an ugly woman is a dog or that a fat woman is fat is clearly way, way more defensible than actions that Fox News has swept under the rug in the past. Do they really expect their viewers to suddenly become 'overly sensitive pansy liberals" and demand that Trump go away? Come on.
Look, Fox News, Trump has beaten you at your own game. You know all of those years that Fox News has spent scaring the shit out of people and telling them to be outraged when they are asked politely not to spout hate? It worked. There are millions of Republican voters out there who do not give a fuck whether you call someone fat, ugly, on the rag, or use a racial slur. They don't care. And they believe that the greatest strength anyone can show is to stick it to all of the politically correct libs out there and speak like we used to speak in the 1970s. I.e., what the viewers call "telling the truth."
Therefore, every step Fox News takes in this direction against Trump is counterproductive. They have told viewers for years that the media is biased and that if the media tells you a candidate is dumb or rude or hates women or is called a flip flopper that this means the exact opposite -- you should vote for them.
What Fox News needs to do is simply not follow Trump. Pick three guys to feature and just hammer the crap out of featuring them. In the early 1990s, sports radio got tired of fellating Michael Jordan, and they decided that the true star of the Bulls was Scottie Pippen I heard hundreds of times, "Pippen is really the key. Pippen is really the better player." This was, of course, ridiculous, and not borne out by any review of statistics, but certain people clung to it just because they wanted to do so. It became a ceaseless drumbeat. Only Pippen's eventual failures post-Jordan ruined the meme.
Fox News should just pump the hell out of Christie, Cruz and Bush. Just follow every tiny little thing they do. Talk constantly about how awesome they are and do 1-3 hour specials on "this is Ted Cruz" or "this is Jeb Bush". Do nothing on Trump. People will eventually say, "Geez, saw a great story on Cruz yesterday. Might have to vote for him." Make Christie into the great bombastic leader of the party and replay things he has said and do a one hour item on "Speaking truth to power -- the Chris Christie Story."
Now, one might suggest that this isn't proper behavior for a news organization -- ignoring a guy who is doubling his next closest opponent in the polls. Fox News is not now, nor has it ever been, an independent news organization. Why pretend? Just promote the hell out of some of the other guys. When Trump does something outrageous, just ignore him. When one of the other guys does something outrageous, praise the hell out of him. "See, THAT is what we need!"
Provide Trump with debate questions about Uzbekistan and Sri Lanka -- no one can possibly make anything good out of those. Then ask him some questions about the other candidates -- "Of these 16 others, who are the three you most admire?" Stuff like that. No one can win a debate if you give them just deathly questions where you are just seeking useless info or info no one cares about.
Now, during debates, you are going to have to identify at least two other people to treat exactly like Trump. So, Walker is a good choice. And Fiorina or Kasich. Just ask them the exact same topics you ask Trump. Then when he complains the next day you can say, "Hey, we asked Walker the same things and he is supposed to be our darling..."
So there you go Fox News. (Stewie Griffin voice) "You're wel-come."
Friday, August 07, 2015
Norwood Teague Loses His Mind....and His Job
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Thursday, August 06, 2015
Questions for the GOP Debate Tonight (Real and Sarcastic)
Real Questions:
1) Is there any position taken by the religious right in this country that you believe is incorrect?
2) Would there ever be a reason (for examine, war, national health emergency) where it would be permissible to raise taxes on those with incomes above $1,000,000 a year -- even temporarily? If so, what would that be?
3) Assuming you are unwilling to raise taxes, and assuming that growth cannot exceed 3% per year, identify $600 billion a year in spending that you would cut immediately to balance the budget.
4) Do you support trade with China, a country with a terrible human rights record and nuclear capability?
5) In light of your answer to #4, why is China a more acceptable trading partner than Iran?
6) Is the world roughly 6,000 to 7,000 years old?
7) Do you recognize that the Christians, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same God?
8) If a man in Minnesota is 51 years old and has paid into Social Security and Medicare for 28 years, do you believe that you should cut his future benefits under either program?
9 - several subparts through follow ups)
Do you believe that the Confederate Flag should be displayed by states if they so choose?
follow up 1 -- If yes, then how do you square that position with the "Pledge of Allegiance" which states that the United States flag represents "one nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice FOR ALL"?
follow up 2 -- Do you agree that the ideas for which the Confederate flag stands are not consistent with pledging allegiance to the United States flag?
follow up 3 -- If you continue to support the Confederate flag, do you believe that the Pledge of Allegiance should be abolished?
10) Are gas and oil prices too high or too low under President Obama's watch?
11) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that our national infrastructure needs $4.6 trillion just to bring it up to acceptable status. Can you identify any major U.S. infrastructure project that you would support?
12) How much would it cost to build a 1,000 mile 20-foot high wall across the border of Mexico and the U.S.? Would you build it if the Mexican government would not?
Sarcastic
A) If someone plays well in the JV debate, can the moderators decide to give them a chance to play half of the Varsity debate?
B) If you win 3 straight JV debates, do you get to be in the fourth Varsity debate? (Like the PGA tour does)?
C) As a white female Republican, is Carly Fiorina required to make wildly inaccurate false claims and then refuse to back them up?
D) Would it be OK with Ben Carson if Rand Paul voided the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and allowed hotels and restaurants to decide if Ben Carson could stay/eat there?
E) John Kasich -- do you really believe in helping the poor or do you want to have any chance of winning?
F) To Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio - would you support a constitutional amendment that defined "natural born citizen" to include only people born in the U.S. to two parents who were both American citizens?
G) To JV Debaters -- are you embarrassed that your own party thinks you have no chance to win and put you in this shitty debate?
H) To Chris Christie -- Barack Obama, were you hugging him or merely grabbing his ass?
I) To Scott Walker -- isn't a college education basically a bare minimum requirement to getting a good white collar job today?
J) To Jeb Bush -- rank your mom, dad, siblings (including yourself) and GWB's twin girls by intelligence starting at the bottom with GWB. Go!
K) To Trump -- can you identify one positive quality that any of the 9 other people on stage have that is superior to any quality you have? You may answer, "No, none" if you would like.
L) To Mike Huckabee - Iran is basically run by a right-wing religious organization that believes that all laws should be based upon a book of religion allegedly blessed by the God of Abraham. Is there anything wrong with that?
1) Is there any position taken by the religious right in this country that you believe is incorrect?
2) Would there ever be a reason (for examine, war, national health emergency) where it would be permissible to raise taxes on those with incomes above $1,000,000 a year -- even temporarily? If so, what would that be?
3) Assuming you are unwilling to raise taxes, and assuming that growth cannot exceed 3% per year, identify $600 billion a year in spending that you would cut immediately to balance the budget.
4) Do you support trade with China, a country with a terrible human rights record and nuclear capability?
5) In light of your answer to #4, why is China a more acceptable trading partner than Iran?
6) Is the world roughly 6,000 to 7,000 years old?
7) Do you recognize that the Christians, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same God?
8) If a man in Minnesota is 51 years old and has paid into Social Security and Medicare for 28 years, do you believe that you should cut his future benefits under either program?
9 - several subparts through follow ups)
Do you believe that the Confederate Flag should be displayed by states if they so choose?
follow up 1 -- If yes, then how do you square that position with the "Pledge of Allegiance" which states that the United States flag represents "one nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice FOR ALL"?
follow up 2 -- Do you agree that the ideas for which the Confederate flag stands are not consistent with pledging allegiance to the United States flag?
follow up 3 -- If you continue to support the Confederate flag, do you believe that the Pledge of Allegiance should be abolished?
10) Are gas and oil prices too high or too low under President Obama's watch?
11) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that our national infrastructure needs $4.6 trillion just to bring it up to acceptable status. Can you identify any major U.S. infrastructure project that you would support?
12) How much would it cost to build a 1,000 mile 20-foot high wall across the border of Mexico and the U.S.? Would you build it if the Mexican government would not?
Sarcastic
A) If someone plays well in the JV debate, can the moderators decide to give them a chance to play half of the Varsity debate?
B) If you win 3 straight JV debates, do you get to be in the fourth Varsity debate? (Like the PGA tour does)?
C) As a white female Republican, is Carly Fiorina required to make wildly inaccurate false claims and then refuse to back them up?
D) Would it be OK with Ben Carson if Rand Paul voided the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and allowed hotels and restaurants to decide if Ben Carson could stay/eat there?
E) John Kasich -- do you really believe in helping the poor or do you want to have any chance of winning?
F) To Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio - would you support a constitutional amendment that defined "natural born citizen" to include only people born in the U.S. to two parents who were both American citizens?
G) To JV Debaters -- are you embarrassed that your own party thinks you have no chance to win and put you in this shitty debate?
H) To Chris Christie -- Barack Obama, were you hugging him or merely grabbing his ass?
I) To Scott Walker -- isn't a college education basically a bare minimum requirement to getting a good white collar job today?
J) To Jeb Bush -- rank your mom, dad, siblings (including yourself) and GWB's twin girls by intelligence starting at the bottom with GWB. Go!
K) To Trump -- can you identify one positive quality that any of the 9 other people on stage have that is superior to any quality you have? You may answer, "No, none" if you would like.
L) To Mike Huckabee - Iran is basically run by a right-wing religious organization that believes that all laws should be based upon a book of religion allegedly blessed by the God of Abraham. Is there anything wrong with that?
Tuesday, August 04, 2015
Chris Christie -- Tough GOP Watchdog? Um, Well....
There is that little matter of all of the pics (real or imagined) of Christie hugging Obama. Kind of a big deal to rabid GOP folk.....
The dark pic is a tad fake, but the light-colored pic is real. And unless Christie is grabbing Obama's ass, he is definitely voluntarily hugging the man.
The dark pic is a tad fake, but the light-colored pic is real. And unless Christie is grabbing Obama's ass, he is definitely voluntarily hugging the man.
GOP Polling Data -- A Few of My Thoughts
| Poll | Date | Trump | Bush | Walker | Huckabee | Carson | Cruz | Rubio | Paul | Christie | Kasich | Perry | Santorum | Jindal | Fiorina | Graham | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 7/26 - 8/2 | 23.2 | 12.8 | 10.6 | 6.6 | 6.6 | 6.2 | 5.2 | 4.8 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.4 | Trump +10.4 |
| FOX News | 7/30 - 8/2 | 26 | 15 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | Trump +11 |
| Bloomberg | 7/30 - 8/2 | 21 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Trump +11 |
| CBS News | 7/29 - 8/2 | 24 | 13 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Trump +11 |
| Monmouth | 7/30 - 8/2 | 26 | 12 | 11 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | Trump +14 |
| NBC/WSJ | 7/26 - 7/30 | 19 | 14 | 15 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Trump +4 |
Thanks to realclearpolitics.com for this data.
Thoughts:
1) Trump -- I just saw an article in which the author said that Trump would fail because he has no position on the issues. Here are your seven basic GOP positions:
-- lower taxes for the wealthy
-- say you are going to punish the poor economically
-- imprison blacks and deport Hispanics
-- remind old people that old white people should rule the world, while finding a way to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits.
-- kiss the ass of the religious right
-- try to get in a war with any country you can
-- oppose anything Barack Obama is for
Which of these 7 basic policy positions do you think Trump cannot state? I mean, this isn't exactly rocket science. "What would you do if elected?" Cut taxes and repeal ObamaCare and go to war with Iran. (Wild applause from crowd).
I have always secretly wanted to be a Republican candidate because it is SOOOOO easy. You never do any thinking or analysis. You receive your 7 talking points and pound them hard.
Trump will do fine in debates. He gets 1/10 of the time for a 3 hour debate - even if there are no commercials, that is about 15 minutes (moderator questions take some time).
2) The Second Tier -- Bush and Walker -- these are the guys that the Rich Wing of the party wants. Cut taxes and eff over the poor. Pretend to be reasonable but, in reality, be as far to the right as we want you to be.
3) The Inexplicable Middle -- Huckabee, Carson, Cruz, Paul -- this is roughly 25% of the vote!!!! Huckabee wants a Biblical State, aka American Taliban. Carson is flat out insane. Cruz, according to party orthodoxy for the past 8 years, is constitutionally ineligible for the office (born outside U.S. to only 1 U.S. citizen, which were the facts they were TRYING to establish to DQ Obama!), Paul believes in repeal of the Civil Rights Act and he also believes that we should NOT get in a war at the drop of a hat, thus disqualifying him as a GOP candidate.
4) The Facially Decent Candidate With no Business Winning -- Marco Rubio -- Rubio is good looking and has some chance of attracting Hispanic voters. Sadly, now that he has abandoned his own pro-immigration legislation, Rubio's only real claim to fame is that he likes to drink water and he has a really good looking wife. He is 44. He has really never done much of anything. He went to 3 schools to get through college. He went to Miami Law School -- ranked somewhere around the 49th to 66th best U.S. law school. The GOP feel Obama is an idiot; Obama went to Harvard - a top 3 law school. Also, Rubio was born in 1971, at the time his parents were BOTH non-U.S. citizens! He is what the GOP generally calls an "anchor baby" and is of the class of people the GOP would like to declare as non-citizens, even if a constitutional amendment was needed.
On the plus side, at least Rubio (unlike Rafael Cruz and Piyush Jindal) he uses his real first name and doesn't try to fool the public as if he were a customer service phone representative for Target Corporation.
5) "I Can't Believe I Am This Far Down in the Polls" -- Christie, Kasich, Perry, Jindal
Hey, look, I don't like ANY of these guys, but at least they have done SOMETHING in their political careers. How they can be so far behind Tier 3 is evidence that the Poor Wing of the GOP is, in fact, bat-shit crazy. Just so that this item doesn't get quoted as me being pro-these-four, I will note:
Christie -- corrupt, fat, hugged Obama
Kasich -- either doesn't believe that you should f over the poor or he is a lying sack of shit, take your pick.
Perry -- by writing this Blog item, I have established that I am smarter than Rick Perry; nice glasses, Poindexter.
Jindal - terrible speaker, terrible Governor, once performed an exorcism, goes by a fake name - I mean, imagine if Obama had declared himself to be "Greg Obama" (Jindal selected "Bobby" from Bobby on "The Brady Bunch", so Obama could just as easily have gone with Greg). I mean, WTF?
6) The Dregs -- Santorum, Fiorina, Graham
I cannot imagine any scenario under which any party would allow any of these people to be its Presidential nominee. I mean, Santorum is no brighter than Perry and has an unbelievably unhealthy desire to interfere in everyone's sex life. He opposes birth control! I mean, that position is popular with Shawn Kemp, Travis Henry, Steve Garvey and.....who else? The Duggars?
Fiorina was never a good executive. She makes Trump look like he is as qualified to be President as FDR! "I will run the country like I ran.....oh, well, BETTER than I ran....OK, WAAAAAY better than I ran my company...."
Graham -- He would gain points with me if he simply came out and said, "I love John McCain so much and I want to have sex with him, so any other man isn't good enough." Take a page from Trump's book -- be honest, damn the consequences. Who knows? Maybe McCain will dump Cindy, sell a few houses and you live happily ever after? Barring such a bold move, it is tough to say why he is even involved in the race.
7) Etc. -- George Pataki and Jim Gilmore
Lindsey Graham is a polling juggernaut compared to these two failed governors (Pataki NY, Gilmore VA). I don't know if they were bored or unemployed or were told to do some publicity to get a book deal or reality TV series, but they are also running.......making them, literally, "also rans".
I cannot wait for Debate #1 in Cleveland on Thursday.
Monday, August 03, 2015
Good-Bye Roddy Piper
I was born in 1964. Around the time I was 10-12 I discovered the UHF channels on my parents' black-and-white TV and found some WWF wrestling from Allentown, Pennsylvania. I loved wrestling right away. But somehow my parents banned me from wrestling for a while (I recall it had to do with me elbow dropping my 9 year old brother and him complaining about a bump on his head).
Oh well.
By 1978 or so, the ban had still not been lifted, but I stumbled upon Mid-Atlantic wrestling one day. It was a production put on by the NWA (I was confused by the constant references to Harley Race, the great NWA champ, who never appeared on my TV). In any event, the stars of Mid-Atlantic Wrestling, in my opinion, were Ric Flair and Greg Valentine who feuded endlessly and beat the living hell out of each other. There were a lot of other wrestlers whom I would later follow out of North Carolina and Georgia. But I recall most vividly the Flair-Valentine feud.
One day Roddy Piper came into the Mid-Atlantic region. He was a terrible person, someone so villainous that you just hated him immediately. He was a great "heel."
Looking back at old clips, the shtick from 1981 or so is so tired and old that it seems like the guys are fighting over whether vanilla or French vanilla is a better ice cream flavor. Piper calls guys old and fat and they say Piper wears a dress (he always wore a kilt, thus obviously opening himself for this insult, a pretty obvious character flaw in 1981).
Piper and Flair fought against each other and fought together at times. They made a good combo, regardless of how arcane their stated differences were.
Then Piper disappeared, I know not where. Well, he turned up in the WWF where he continued his reign of being the #1 overall heel. Piper was just a guy you hated. He was loud and had a squeaky voice when he wanted to put on that affect. He liked to act crazy....but more maniacal than crazy. And he could just explode with hatred and bile, physically and verbally. His coconut to the head attack on Jimmy Snuka on "Piper's Pit" was one of the most remarkable things I have ever seen, but it was preceded with some of the most loaded racist conduct you could ever put together. Remember, this was a PG or PG-13 world, so the actual words Piper was saying weren't necessarily outrageous. It was how much he loved saying them.
I saw Piper wrestle in person in Buffalo and do a "Piper's Pit" segment live in the arena. I also saw Piper wrestle Rick Rude in 1989 at the Met Center in a "country whipping match" in which the men took leather straps to one another for 15 minutes or so (Piper defeated Rude, but both men were in awful shape by the end of the match).
Piper was a character. He really wasn't a great technical or scientific wrestler, and he really didn't have much profound to say. (The top of my blog features the sort of quotes Piper could provide -- this one from a movie, "They Live.") Yet he became so popular that I had two thumb wrestlers given to me as a gift, Hulk Hogan and Roddy Piper. No one ever asked, "Who is that other guy?" Piper for serveral years was the publicity equal of Hogan.
For those too young to remember Piper, looking back at his old highlights won't do much to show you who he was. It was a different time. We didn't inquire as to who our entertainers really were. If you acted poorly on screen, we hated you. If you acted as a nice guy on screen, we loved you. We didn't dig down any further. My mom once met a soap opera actress from the late 1970s who played the evil person on her show. She told my mom how she could not walk in a mall or go to a public beach without someone calling her a whore or spitting on her. We didn't look very hard at the "acting" part of the equation. Piper took advantage of that fact. He was a bad guy 90% of the time, and while he made some turns to the good side, he could never really be effective there. He needed to be evil and maniacal to be great. And he was. He was a great, great "wrestler" in the sense that he showed up and did his job in the way that brought him and his companies the most fans and the most money.
Losing Dusty Rhodes and Roddy Piper in one year is very hard on a wrestling fan born in 1964. At least Ric Flair survives. But when Flair dies, I may need to take a couple days off.
Oh well.
By 1978 or so, the ban had still not been lifted, but I stumbled upon Mid-Atlantic wrestling one day. It was a production put on by the NWA (I was confused by the constant references to Harley Race, the great NWA champ, who never appeared on my TV). In any event, the stars of Mid-Atlantic Wrestling, in my opinion, were Ric Flair and Greg Valentine who feuded endlessly and beat the living hell out of each other. There were a lot of other wrestlers whom I would later follow out of North Carolina and Georgia. But I recall most vividly the Flair-Valentine feud.
One day Roddy Piper came into the Mid-Atlantic region. He was a terrible person, someone so villainous that you just hated him immediately. He was a great "heel."
Looking back at old clips, the shtick from 1981 or so is so tired and old that it seems like the guys are fighting over whether vanilla or French vanilla is a better ice cream flavor. Piper calls guys old and fat and they say Piper wears a dress (he always wore a kilt, thus obviously opening himself for this insult, a pretty obvious character flaw in 1981).
Piper and Flair fought against each other and fought together at times. They made a good combo, regardless of how arcane their stated differences were.
Then Piper disappeared, I know not where. Well, he turned up in the WWF where he continued his reign of being the #1 overall heel. Piper was just a guy you hated. He was loud and had a squeaky voice when he wanted to put on that affect. He liked to act crazy....but more maniacal than crazy. And he could just explode with hatred and bile, physically and verbally. His coconut to the head attack on Jimmy Snuka on "Piper's Pit" was one of the most remarkable things I have ever seen, but it was preceded with some of the most loaded racist conduct you could ever put together. Remember, this was a PG or PG-13 world, so the actual words Piper was saying weren't necessarily outrageous. It was how much he loved saying them.
I saw Piper wrestle in person in Buffalo and do a "Piper's Pit" segment live in the arena. I also saw Piper wrestle Rick Rude in 1989 at the Met Center in a "country whipping match" in which the men took leather straps to one another for 15 minutes or so (Piper defeated Rude, but both men were in awful shape by the end of the match).
Piper was a character. He really wasn't a great technical or scientific wrestler, and he really didn't have much profound to say. (The top of my blog features the sort of quotes Piper could provide -- this one from a movie, "They Live.") Yet he became so popular that I had two thumb wrestlers given to me as a gift, Hulk Hogan and Roddy Piper. No one ever asked, "Who is that other guy?" Piper for serveral years was the publicity equal of Hogan.
For those too young to remember Piper, looking back at his old highlights won't do much to show you who he was. It was a different time. We didn't inquire as to who our entertainers really were. If you acted poorly on screen, we hated you. If you acted as a nice guy on screen, we loved you. We didn't dig down any further. My mom once met a soap opera actress from the late 1970s who played the evil person on her show. She told my mom how she could not walk in a mall or go to a public beach without someone calling her a whore or spitting on her. We didn't look very hard at the "acting" part of the equation. Piper took advantage of that fact. He was a bad guy 90% of the time, and while he made some turns to the good side, he could never really be effective there. He needed to be evil and maniacal to be great. And he was. He was a great, great "wrestler" in the sense that he showed up and did his job in the way that brought him and his companies the most fans and the most money.
Losing Dusty Rhodes and Roddy Piper in one year is very hard on a wrestling fan born in 1964. At least Ric Flair survives. But when Flair dies, I may need to take a couple days off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)