https://www.facebook.com/TheBestLookingRegularPeople
A Cat? Small children? What kind of entry is this?
Monday, February 29, 2016
Gawker "Goes There" With The Marco Rubio Infidelity Rumors
http://gawker.com/5994678/here-are-the-career-ending-marco-rubio-rumors-buzzfeed-wants-to-write-about-without-writing-about
I am shocked and disappointed in Gawker. I cannot imagine that women would want to endure that level of sweat and those ears, even for the requisite 17 seconds.
Shame, Gawker, shame!
I am shocked and disappointed in Gawker. I cannot imagine that women would want to endure that level of sweat and those ears, even for the requisite 17 seconds.
Shame, Gawker, shame!
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Numbers 37 through 100 of ESPN's 2016 all-time #NBARank (Not a Click Through)
I will make a note when I think a pick is clearly 10+ spots too high or too low.
37. Rick Berry (I had him at #27, so yes, too low)
38, Walt Frazier
39. Bob Cousy
40. Elvin Hayes
41. Gary Payton (I had him at #35)
42. Bill Walton
The selection of Bill Walton at #42 is more than a little baffling. He is not in the top 100 in either Win Shares or WS/48. In fact, even his 120 great games as a starter did not involve any sort of great WS or WS/48 performance. His 120 great games as a starter did not involve great raw numbers. His positioning at #42 places him only 10 spots behind George Mikan, who won 5 titles, had 3 20 WS seasons, and who was so dominant as a player that they literally changed the rules of the game to hurt him. It cannot be both. Either Mikan is a top 10 player (as I would say) or Walton is out of the top 100 or somewhere down in the 90+ range (as would also befit someone whose career WS arc was similar to that of Marcus Camby and who has one MVP like Derrick Rose).
43. James Worthy
44. Dominique Wilkins
45. Paul Pierce
46. Allan Iverson
(Iverson, a very similar player to Isiah Thomas, falls here while Isiah is #26? I think that the answer (pardon the pun) is that Isiah is WAY WAY WAY too high, while AI is just a little too high.)
47. George Gervin
48. Willis Reed
49. Russell Westbrook
(Russ is an odd case. If you consider that he has had only a couple really good years, you'd place him lower, but how do you reconcile that Steph Curry, whose advanced stats are very similar, is way up at #23? As will be noted later, Harden, Curry and Russ have roughly the same stats. One is at 23, one is at 49 and one is at 97? Is it graded on likeability?)
50. Ray Allen (way too low, I had him at #28 overall, Ray Allen has had a worse career than Westbrook? As far as.....titles? Longevity? What?)
51. Reggie Miller (again, way too low, I had him at #34). Reggie, barring a miracle finish by Kobe, will end up with more career WS than Kobe and a better WS/48. While he toiled in Indiana, and never got to play with Shaq or be coached by Phil Jackson, Reggie deserves better treatment than this.
52. Bob McAdoo
53. Wes Unseld
54. Bernard King
55. Dave Cowens
56. Pau Gasol
57, Robert Parish
58. Tony Parker
59. Carmelo Anthony - he is neither objectively nor subjectively a top 80 player. He has never been first-team all-NBA. He has cracked the top 10 in MVP balloting twice. He just recently reached the top 100 in Win Shares. He has never played on a title team, never reached a finals, only once reached one conference finals (2009) and that team's best player in the playoffs was Chauncey Billups, not Melo. The Myth of Melo appears to derive from the fact that he CAN be a great scorer and he CAN play well when he exerts full effort. But he does not regularly play hard. The only other explanation for his constant overrating is that he has a cool name and was drafted the same year as LeBron James. LeBron James has DOUBLE Melo's career WS and has been 9X first-team all-NBA. If George Clooney were my neighbor, I doubt anyone would say "Oh and HM must be good looking as well, remember, he lives by Clooney"
60. Earl Monroe
61. Manu Ginobili
62. Alex English
63. Tracy McGrady
64. Dennis Rodman
65. Alonzo Mourning
66. Chris Webber -- I agree that this is around where he should fall, but he is viewed by many as a borderline HOF player, so how can he be #66? Mind......blown....
67. Dwight Howard
68. Bob Lanier
69. Vince Carter -- I don't see it. Again, I think ESPN tends to favor guys who COULD be great if they played hard all of the time. Well, that must be a great attribute to have. "HM is the 12th best looking guy in Minneapolis." Huh? "Well, I have seen him when he loses 40 pounds and dresses well. Great looking guy. Um, O....K.
70. Artis Gilmore -- way too low. Look, I will not belabor the point, but he has more career WS than LeBron James right now (as of the date of this entry). Look it up.
71. Pete Maravich
72. Adrian Dantley
73. Dikembe Mutombo
74. Dolph Schayes -- the ESPN panel seemed to basically forget that guys had to play basketball in the early days of the NBA and that some were awfully good and stood out from their peers. ESPN apparently feels capable of simply stating, "Well, so what, the Bird Era guys are way better". Well how do we know? We keep stats across generations, we know how many times he was 1st team all-NBA (6), we know where he stands on today's stats (PER, WS, WS/48) -- all top 36. For seasons above .200 WS/48, Schayes has 7, tied for 16th best all-time. Yet here he is, 15 spots behind Carmelo Anthony, who would need 52 more WS to pass him.
75. Blake Griffin
76. Nate Archibald
77. Joe Dumars -- I love Joe Dumars as a player; love, love, love. But pull out his stats. He is no way a top 100 player of all-time. Love you, Joe D, but no. The constant overrating of Pistons by ESPN is, no doubt, caused by the fact that they ended Bird's run. Anything associated with the 1980s Celts got a huge ratings boost from ESPN.
78. Sam Jones
79. Jerry Lucas
80. Grant Hill
81, Sidney Moncrief
82, David Thompson -- little note here, David Skywalker was a fave of mine. He had 4 great years (2X first-team all-NBA). He is someone it is very hard for me to rate.
83. Chris Mullin
84. Dennis Johnson - No. Not a top 100 player. Similar to Dumars.
85. Dave DeBuscherre
86. Chris Bosh
87. Chauncey Billups -- sit down and review Chauncey's regular season and post-season stats against Isiah's. Then tell me why one is 60 spots higher. There is no way that Vince Carter or Earl Monroe has even a plausible argument that they had a better career than Chauncey.
88. Billy Cunningham
89. Yao Ming
90. Paul Arizin
91. Mo Cheeks - never really an outstanding player. you never said, "Oh no! We have to play against Mo Cheeks!"
92. Nate Thurmond
93. Lenny Wilkins
94. Mark Price -- seems hard to imagine that Mark Price, who really only had 4 really good years in the NBA, would be in the top 100. Is it really worth getting very upset about? Probably not. But it seems odd.
95. Marc Gasol
96. Bobby Jones - I have come around to being OK with this selection. One of the greatest defenders of all-time. It was hard for me to stomach at first because he never finished top 23 in MVP balloting and was 2nd team all-NBA only once, but if you look at his many 1st team All-defense awards and his ranking of around 100 for WS and WS/48, OK, fine.
97. James Harden -- poor James Harden. Now I know he has the stupid beard, but geez, his stats are similar to Curry's and Westbrook's and if he could have flipped a few MVP votes, he'd have an MVP. You could say maybe it should go 40-45-50 for all 3 guys, but you cannot justify where they are now. There is no way you can look at the career of James Harden and say it is not as good as the career of David Thompson (#82) and that is giving Harden exactly ZERO credit for the fact that he is going to play 5-10 more years.
98. Gail Goodrich
99. Kevin Love - I fear he may not ever play well enough again to warrant this position
100. Shawn Kemp -- kinda sketchy pick but he is a personal fave, so I am not gonna argue real hard down here at 100. I will note that when you look at best NBA player careers, he may not even be #1 in "Shawn"s -- (Marion).
37. Rick Berry (I had him at #27, so yes, too low)
38, Walt Frazier
39. Bob Cousy
40. Elvin Hayes
41. Gary Payton (I had him at #35)
42. Bill Walton
The selection of Bill Walton at #42 is more than a little baffling. He is not in the top 100 in either Win Shares or WS/48. In fact, even his 120 great games as a starter did not involve any sort of great WS or WS/48 performance. His 120 great games as a starter did not involve great raw numbers. His positioning at #42 places him only 10 spots behind George Mikan, who won 5 titles, had 3 20 WS seasons, and who was so dominant as a player that they literally changed the rules of the game to hurt him. It cannot be both. Either Mikan is a top 10 player (as I would say) or Walton is out of the top 100 or somewhere down in the 90+ range (as would also befit someone whose career WS arc was similar to that of Marcus Camby and who has one MVP like Derrick Rose).
43. James Worthy
44. Dominique Wilkins
45. Paul Pierce
46. Allan Iverson
(Iverson, a very similar player to Isiah Thomas, falls here while Isiah is #26? I think that the answer (pardon the pun) is that Isiah is WAY WAY WAY too high, while AI is just a little too high.)
47. George Gervin
48. Willis Reed
49. Russell Westbrook
(Russ is an odd case. If you consider that he has had only a couple really good years, you'd place him lower, but how do you reconcile that Steph Curry, whose advanced stats are very similar, is way up at #23? As will be noted later, Harden, Curry and Russ have roughly the same stats. One is at 23, one is at 49 and one is at 97? Is it graded on likeability?)
50. Ray Allen (way too low, I had him at #28 overall, Ray Allen has had a worse career than Westbrook? As far as.....titles? Longevity? What?)
51. Reggie Miller (again, way too low, I had him at #34). Reggie, barring a miracle finish by Kobe, will end up with more career WS than Kobe and a better WS/48. While he toiled in Indiana, and never got to play with Shaq or be coached by Phil Jackson, Reggie deserves better treatment than this.
52. Bob McAdoo
53. Wes Unseld
54. Bernard King
55. Dave Cowens
56. Pau Gasol
57, Robert Parish
58. Tony Parker
59. Carmelo Anthony - he is neither objectively nor subjectively a top 80 player. He has never been first-team all-NBA. He has cracked the top 10 in MVP balloting twice. He just recently reached the top 100 in Win Shares. He has never played on a title team, never reached a finals, only once reached one conference finals (2009) and that team's best player in the playoffs was Chauncey Billups, not Melo. The Myth of Melo appears to derive from the fact that he CAN be a great scorer and he CAN play well when he exerts full effort. But he does not regularly play hard. The only other explanation for his constant overrating is that he has a cool name and was drafted the same year as LeBron James. LeBron James has DOUBLE Melo's career WS and has been 9X first-team all-NBA. If George Clooney were my neighbor, I doubt anyone would say "Oh and HM must be good looking as well, remember, he lives by Clooney"
60. Earl Monroe
61. Manu Ginobili
62. Alex English
63. Tracy McGrady
64. Dennis Rodman
65. Alonzo Mourning
66. Chris Webber -- I agree that this is around where he should fall, but he is viewed by many as a borderline HOF player, so how can he be #66? Mind......blown....
67. Dwight Howard
68. Bob Lanier
69. Vince Carter -- I don't see it. Again, I think ESPN tends to favor guys who COULD be great if they played hard all of the time. Well, that must be a great attribute to have. "HM is the 12th best looking guy in Minneapolis." Huh? "Well, I have seen him when he loses 40 pounds and dresses well. Great looking guy. Um, O....K.
70. Artis Gilmore -- way too low. Look, I will not belabor the point, but he has more career WS than LeBron James right now (as of the date of this entry). Look it up.
71. Pete Maravich
72. Adrian Dantley
73. Dikembe Mutombo
74. Dolph Schayes -- the ESPN panel seemed to basically forget that guys had to play basketball in the early days of the NBA and that some were awfully good and stood out from their peers. ESPN apparently feels capable of simply stating, "Well, so what, the Bird Era guys are way better". Well how do we know? We keep stats across generations, we know how many times he was 1st team all-NBA (6), we know where he stands on today's stats (PER, WS, WS/48) -- all top 36. For seasons above .200 WS/48, Schayes has 7, tied for 16th best all-time. Yet here he is, 15 spots behind Carmelo Anthony, who would need 52 more WS to pass him.
75. Blake Griffin
76. Nate Archibald
77. Joe Dumars -- I love Joe Dumars as a player; love, love, love. But pull out his stats. He is no way a top 100 player of all-time. Love you, Joe D, but no. The constant overrating of Pistons by ESPN is, no doubt, caused by the fact that they ended Bird's run. Anything associated with the 1980s Celts got a huge ratings boost from ESPN.
78. Sam Jones
79. Jerry Lucas
80. Grant Hill
81, Sidney Moncrief
82, David Thompson -- little note here, David Skywalker was a fave of mine. He had 4 great years (2X first-team all-NBA). He is someone it is very hard for me to rate.
83. Chris Mullin
84. Dennis Johnson - No. Not a top 100 player. Similar to Dumars.
85. Dave DeBuscherre
86. Chris Bosh
87. Chauncey Billups -- sit down and review Chauncey's regular season and post-season stats against Isiah's. Then tell me why one is 60 spots higher. There is no way that Vince Carter or Earl Monroe has even a plausible argument that they had a better career than Chauncey.
88. Billy Cunningham
89. Yao Ming
90. Paul Arizin
91. Mo Cheeks - never really an outstanding player. you never said, "Oh no! We have to play against Mo Cheeks!"
92. Nate Thurmond
93. Lenny Wilkins
94. Mark Price -- seems hard to imagine that Mark Price, who really only had 4 really good years in the NBA, would be in the top 100. Is it really worth getting very upset about? Probably not. But it seems odd.
95. Marc Gasol
96. Bobby Jones - I have come around to being OK with this selection. One of the greatest defenders of all-time. It was hard for me to stomach at first because he never finished top 23 in MVP balloting and was 2nd team all-NBA only once, but if you look at his many 1st team All-defense awards and his ranking of around 100 for WS and WS/48, OK, fine.
97. James Harden -- poor James Harden. Now I know he has the stupid beard, but geez, his stats are similar to Curry's and Westbrook's and if he could have flipped a few MVP votes, he'd have an MVP. You could say maybe it should go 40-45-50 for all 3 guys, but you cannot justify where they are now. There is no way you can look at the career of James Harden and say it is not as good as the career of David Thompson (#82) and that is giving Harden exactly ZERO credit for the fact that he is going to play 5-10 more years.
98. Gail Goodrich
99. Kevin Love - I fear he may not ever play well enough again to warrant this position
100. Shawn Kemp -- kinda sketchy pick but he is a personal fave, so I am not gonna argue real hard down here at 100. I will note that when you look at best NBA player careers, he may not even be #1 in "Shawn"s -- (Marion).
Numbers 1 Through 36 of ESPN's 2016 All-Time #NBARank (Not a Cick Through)
Here was ESPN's list from 1 through 100. I have previously rated my top 36, so I will go through and indicate where these guys fell on my list. I will highlight difference of 6+ spots.
1. Michael Jordan (my #1 as well)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (my #3)
3. LeBron James (#4)
4. Magic Johnson (#6)
5. Wilt Chamberlain (#2)
6. Larry Bird (#13)
7. Bill Russell (#8)
8. Tim Duncan (#5)
9. Shaquille O'Neal (#9)
10. Hakeem Olajuwon (#15)
11. Oscar Robertson (#12)
12. Kobe Bryant (#18)
13. Jerry West (#11)
14. Julius Erving (#19)
15. Moses Malone (#16)
16. Karl Malone (#7)
17. Dirk Nowitski (#23)
18. Charles Barkley (#21)
19. John Stockton (#24)
20. David Robinson (#14)
21. Kevin Garnett (#22)
22. Kevin Durant (#25)
23. Stephen Curry (not in my top 36)
24. Elgin Baylor (#20)
25. Scottie Pippen (#36)
26. Isiah Thomas (not in my top 36)
27. Dwyane Wade (#31)
28. John Havlicek (#32)
29. Chris Paul (#26)
30. Steve Nash (#30)
31. Kevin McHale (not on my top 36)
32. Patrick Ewing (#33)
33. George Mikan (my #10)
34. Bob Petit (my #17)
35. Jason Kidd (not in my top 36)
36. Clyde Drexler (my #29)
Guys in my top 36 but not in theirs -- Gary Payton (my #35 their #41), Rick Barry (my #27 their #37), Ray Allen (my #28 their #50), Reggie Miller (my #34 their #51).
1. Michael Jordan (my #1 as well)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (my #3)
3. LeBron James (#4)
4. Magic Johnson (#6)
5. Wilt Chamberlain (#2)
6. Larry Bird (#13)
7. Bill Russell (#8)
8. Tim Duncan (#5)
9. Shaquille O'Neal (#9)
10. Hakeem Olajuwon (#15)
11. Oscar Robertson (#12)
12. Kobe Bryant (#18)
13. Jerry West (#11)
14. Julius Erving (#19)
15. Moses Malone (#16)
16. Karl Malone (#7)
17. Dirk Nowitski (#23)
18. Charles Barkley (#21)
19. John Stockton (#24)
20. David Robinson (#14)
21. Kevin Garnett (#22)
22. Kevin Durant (#25)
23. Stephen Curry (not in my top 36)
24. Elgin Baylor (#20)
25. Scottie Pippen (#36)
26. Isiah Thomas (not in my top 36)
27. Dwyane Wade (#31)
28. John Havlicek (#32)
29. Chris Paul (#26)
30. Steve Nash (#30)
31. Kevin McHale (not on my top 36)
32. Patrick Ewing (#33)
33. George Mikan (my #10)
34. Bob Petit (my #17)
35. Jason Kidd (not in my top 36)
36. Clyde Drexler (my #29)
Guys in my top 36 but not in theirs -- Gary Payton (my #35 their #41), Rick Barry (my #27 their #37), Ray Allen (my #28 their #50), Reggie Miller (my #34 their #51).
Republicans Who Say They Will Not Vote for Trump
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-dilemma-of-conservatives-who-say-theyll-never-vote-for-donald-trump
This is a very interesting article. Some highlights:
1) There is one anti-Trumper who says she would like to vote for herself, then she will be voting for someone whom she agrees 100% with. I hope that is a joke.
2) Bill Kristol (as awful of a person as their is) would prefer to see a (as he puts it) "4th Party" ticket based solely on the need of the U.S. to be dedicated to pursuing war everywhere in the world!!! It is worth noting that Kristol's preferred choice (Dick Cheney) is still alive - I had assumed he was dead, but the fact that he is now more machine than man probably aids him in his longevity.
3) The interesting thing about a lot of these criticisms is that many of the anti-Trumpers do not believe he is conservative ENOUGH!! So, while they don't really mind his tirades against Mexicans and Muslims and his promise to build the world's biggest wall, etc., they fear, for example, that he is not really anti-abortion.
4) This comment is just sad:
Eliot Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a former State Department official in the second Bush Administration, recently tweeted his “short list” of reasons he would never back Trump: “demagoguery, torture, bigotry, misogyny, isolationism, violence. Not the Party of Lincoln & not me.”
He was literally a member of the GWBush Administration and he opposes torture? Ever watch Zero Dark Thirty? Ever read the Bush Administration's pro-torture memos? You WORKED for that administration! Misogyny? Bigotry? That is call "the Republican Base". He is against both "isolationism" (which generally means he wants to intervene in other countries' wars) and "violence" (so we should actively intervene, but cause no violence?).
This is a very interesting article. Some highlights:
1) There is one anti-Trumper who says she would like to vote for herself, then she will be voting for someone whom she agrees 100% with. I hope that is a joke.
2) Bill Kristol (as awful of a person as their is) would prefer to see a (as he puts it) "4th Party" ticket based solely on the need of the U.S. to be dedicated to pursuing war everywhere in the world!!! It is worth noting that Kristol's preferred choice (Dick Cheney) is still alive - I had assumed he was dead, but the fact that he is now more machine than man probably aids him in his longevity.
3) The interesting thing about a lot of these criticisms is that many of the anti-Trumpers do not believe he is conservative ENOUGH!! So, while they don't really mind his tirades against Mexicans and Muslims and his promise to build the world's biggest wall, etc., they fear, for example, that he is not really anti-abortion.
4) This comment is just sad:
Eliot Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a former State Department official in the second Bush Administration, recently tweeted his “short list” of reasons he would never back Trump: “demagoguery, torture, bigotry, misogyny, isolationism, violence. Not the Party of Lincoln & not me.”
He was literally a member of the GWBush Administration and he opposes torture? Ever watch Zero Dark Thirty? Ever read the Bush Administration's pro-torture memos? You WORKED for that administration! Misogyny? Bigotry? That is call "the Republican Base". He is against both "isolationism" (which generally means he wants to intervene in other countries' wars) and "violence" (so we should actively intervene, but cause no violence?).
The other argument against Trump, basically, is that he is a "bad guy." OK, if he is a bad guy, then you have an obligation to affirmatively act to vote for HIS OPPONENT. But those saying Trump is a bad guy just say "uh, I won't vote for him." What a bold statement! I will stand on the sideline and hope he does not win. This is akin to saying that if someone is running through your neighborhood setting houses on fire that you will not run out and give him more matches or a lighter. Bold stance.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Why Fox News and the Republican Party Has Made Donald Trump's Run Possible
In reviewing this article, I found myself slightly agreeing with its premise:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-great-republican-stalemate/470058/
but I think that the reason for the Republican Party possibly ending up with Donald Trump as a nominee needs a little more fleshing out. Here goes.
As I mentioned here: http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-some-people-love-donald-trump.html there are a lot of reasons that some people like Donald Trump. One of the reasons people like Donald Trump is also a primary reason that other people like Bernie Sanders -- each man tells the voters that their lot in life is not their fault and is caused by someone else. In the case of Trump, he blames the failure of his supporters' lives on the usual GOP suspects -- Obama, minorities, immigrants, the politically correct eggheads. Sanders, of course, blames the failure of his supporters to advance in life on the wealthy. His campaign commercials could not help but make you feel better about yourself -- "Are you doing everything right and yet cannot get ahead?" The subtext here being, of course, that YOU are not getting ahead because fucking millionaires are suckling at the government teat, and, otherwise, you'd be rich.
Folks on both sides of the political spectrum can now watch TV and say, "Geez, you know what? I used to think that it was because I never studied and got all Cs and Ds in school. But you know what? It is the fucking _______________ that are holding me back from becoming a nuclear scientist! F them, I am voting for {Trump/Bernie)."
Now, helping out Trump and Sanders in this pitch is the fact that they are running against simply awful opponents. Hillary Clinton is easily one of the most unlikeable politicians in the world. She is not optimistic, she is not enjoyable. She has an awful grating voice and style. She is not attractive. She is unwilling to ever admit a mistake, and she will run 5 miles to take credit for anything positive that ever happened, whether she had anything to do with it or not. She is not someone you want to win ANYTHING. I will probably end up voting for Hillary, but I will not be happy about it.
Trump, on the other hand, gets to run against an awfully motley crew as well. Is there anyone less compelling than (the late) Jeb! Bush? Low energy. Elect me because my brother was an awful President? Marco Rubio - Rick Santorum could not identify ONE accomplishment of Rubio's and Rick was endorsing him! Pro-amnesty anchor baby? Yep, just what GOP voters crave. Ted Cruz - my lord. Unless you believe in a theocracy, how can you vote for Ted Cruz? He is basically a real life version of the lying peddler Mr. Haney from Green Acres. Ben Carson - believes the pyramids were used for grain storage, appears always ready to doze off. Thinks it is a good story to note how he used to stab his best friends (only to be thwarted by a belt buckle). Only John Kasich is a credible candidate, and should probably win the nomination, except he looks like your retired uncle who is late for a meeting with his lawyer and threw on the first jacket he could find. (That plus he had the gall to suggest that the government maybe should protect poor people and the mentally ill).
So, maybe it is possible that if every other choice were not so awful that Trump would struggle more. But, alas, we will never know. So let's examine Trump's approach and see why it appeals to GOP voters weaned on Fox News.
1) The country is falling apart, everything is shit. ("Make America Great Again!") -- Try to watch 45 minutes of Fox News. This message is CONSTANTLY repeated every single day on Fox News. Obama sucks, he is killing us. He is awful, he is the worst, we live, basically in the Dark Ages and instead of a Renaissance we will get Darker Ages. It is repeated every freaking minute of the day.
2) Say ANYTHING you want to say without regard to whether there are facts to support it. This has long been GOP/Fox News orthodoxy. Barack Obama was born in Kenya. He never went to Columbia. He was a poor student. He killed Antonin Scalia. There is no such thing as global warming. Guns don't kill two year olds; their inability to properly operate the gun does. You cannot trust scientists/professors/eggheads. What do they know? They are losers, not cool beer drinkers like you.
Against this background, which has lasted 20+ years, the GOP now wants people to EXAMINE statements made by Donald Trump? "I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it." How do we know that is possible? -- because he says so and only eggheads tell us the opposite. "I will cut off the internet to all terrorist." Um, well, how do you know they are....and how would you??? Blah, blah, blah, Trump says he can do it - I believe him. Are you eggheads in the party gonna tell me that you have "facts" to the contrary. Oh come on! Fox News has warned me about that for 20 years. Believe us, not "facts."
3) Say Things Completely Contrary to Things You Have Said in the Past, Even the Recent Past, Even Yesterday. This is the world of Mitt Romney and John McCain and Scott Walker and Rick Snyder. So, sure, McCain used to be a rather liberal Republican, but TODAY in 2008 he is a hard-core conservative. Sure Mitt Romney created Romney-care, which became ObamaCare, but TODAY in 2012 he is a rock-ribbed health care haters who understands how awful it is. Sure Walker and Snyder ran as common sense conservatives who would help increase union jobs and improve people's wages, but once ELECTED they decided to just become hateful right wingers who destroyed good paying jobs and their states' economies.
Sam Brownback said his tax cuts would boost revenue for Kansas -- it didn't? Well, it was never intended to! Come on. Geez, you guys. tax cuts obviously don't increase revenues. Silly voters - who told you that? "You did." Who are you going to believe, me, or the things the Democrats play to you of me saying on videotape?
4) State a Ton of Things With No Specific Examples -- Illegal immigrants are flooding into the U.S. lately - false, but still stated. Obama is not deporting any illegals -- false, but still a thing. 50% of your paycheck goes to welfare for illegals. Welfare queens driving Cadillacs. Michele Bachmann - HPV vaccines cause mental retardation. Tom Emmer - Minnesota waiters often make over $100,000 a year. "Got any specific examples?" Well, no. I don't need them, everybody knows that. I heard a story from a guy who was told that.....
5) The Media Is Biased Against Conservatives and Cannot Be Trusted. When a Republican says just ridiculous shit "Obama is going to declare martial law and stay on for another 4 years" the media might be expected to ask, "Um, what possible facts do you have to support that?" or, back before 20 years ago the media would actually say, "That is ridiculous, that is just false." The Fox News response (now adopted by the GOP), 'SEE, it MUST be true because the liberal media wants you to THINK it is false!" This "truth-fier" is the greatest invention of all-time for a political party -- "Obama caused Joe the Plumber not to buy a $400,000 business because Joe would pay $400,000 per year in taxes!" Well, there are so many things wrong with that statement, where do we start....SEE! It MUST be true if they are fighting so hard to disprove the statement!
New Section
I do not share today's general Democratic Party hatred for Ronald Reagan. We were desperate for some pride as a country, having lost virtually all of our pride when Carter was President, and Regan brought that pride back. Sure he built up a deficit with his tax cuts and huge spending increases, but for 8 years we were generally better off. When he saw how horrible his budget busting ways were, 6 years in, he worked with the Democrats to raise taxes and get things a little more reasonable.
Reagan believed, generally, in the facts. Sure he had his own opinion of what the facts meant, but he didn't just say stupid shit and make people believe that his lies were facts. Even when Iran-Contra blew up in his face, he sort of 'fessed up; saying it was important to trade arms for hostages and he should have known better if he was paying more attention. (It was a lie, but a slight one and he really didn't think anyone bought it -- he was just too lovable and popular to punish for his misdeed - like your old dog who poops in the entryway one day out of 300).
George H.W. Bush was a smart guy - he could be kind of pompous, but, again, you got the feeling he did what he thought actually was best for the country and listened to facts and logic.
I don't know what happened to the Republican Party thereafter. Maybe it was Gingrich and his scorched earth efforts to hurt Bill Clinton? Maybe it was the success of GW Bush's bullshit "compassionate conservatism" claim, which told political operatives, "Hey, look, maybe we need to just lie to win?" Who knows? But the Republican party since 2000 might as well have renamed itself the We Support Idiots party, Look, there is nothing wrong with trying to cut your own taxes if you are super wealthy. It is a little mean-spirited, but heck, go for it. But the Poor Wing of the party??? My lord.
http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2011/05/rich-wing-romney-poor-wing-palin.html
Sarah Palin? Is there anything more awful than the idea that the Republican Party nominated a person for Vice President who took 5 years to get through 4 different colleges, perhaps distracted by the need to bang Glen Rice and who just generally does not know anything about anything important connected to running a country? Perhaps that is where the safety rope to sanity broke? When the GOP and Fox News had to support that idiot. Is she qualified? Well, certainly. Don't believe what anyone says, she is great, she is awesome. She will really do what is right for YOU!
Who does that Palin love sound like? It sounds like Trump. "Trust me. Things will be great. Greater, greatest. How do I know? Cuz I know - it is on my hat!" Trump has at least done SOMETHING with his life and graduated from impressive schools. While a blowhard, he is not a moron. So, when less than 8 years ago the party and Fox News were all in favor of Sarah Palin, their protestations against Donald Trump fall more than a little flat. Is there a difference between saying inflammatory conservative things and not meaning them (Trump) and saying similar things and being too dumb to understand them and why they make no logical sense (Palin)? Not much of a difference.
Anyway -- this item kind of got away from me, so take it for what it is worth, because I am not editing it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-great-republican-stalemate/470058/
but I think that the reason for the Republican Party possibly ending up with Donald Trump as a nominee needs a little more fleshing out. Here goes.
As I mentioned here: http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-some-people-love-donald-trump.html there are a lot of reasons that some people like Donald Trump. One of the reasons people like Donald Trump is also a primary reason that other people like Bernie Sanders -- each man tells the voters that their lot in life is not their fault and is caused by someone else. In the case of Trump, he blames the failure of his supporters' lives on the usual GOP suspects -- Obama, minorities, immigrants, the politically correct eggheads. Sanders, of course, blames the failure of his supporters to advance in life on the wealthy. His campaign commercials could not help but make you feel better about yourself -- "Are you doing everything right and yet cannot get ahead?" The subtext here being, of course, that YOU are not getting ahead because fucking millionaires are suckling at the government teat, and, otherwise, you'd be rich.
Folks on both sides of the political spectrum can now watch TV and say, "Geez, you know what? I used to think that it was because I never studied and got all Cs and Ds in school. But you know what? It is the fucking _______________ that are holding me back from becoming a nuclear scientist! F them, I am voting for {Trump/Bernie)."
Now, helping out Trump and Sanders in this pitch is the fact that they are running against simply awful opponents. Hillary Clinton is easily one of the most unlikeable politicians in the world. She is not optimistic, she is not enjoyable. She has an awful grating voice and style. She is not attractive. She is unwilling to ever admit a mistake, and she will run 5 miles to take credit for anything positive that ever happened, whether she had anything to do with it or not. She is not someone you want to win ANYTHING. I will probably end up voting for Hillary, but I will not be happy about it.
Trump, on the other hand, gets to run against an awfully motley crew as well. Is there anyone less compelling than (the late) Jeb! Bush? Low energy. Elect me because my brother was an awful President? Marco Rubio - Rick Santorum could not identify ONE accomplishment of Rubio's and Rick was endorsing him! Pro-amnesty anchor baby? Yep, just what GOP voters crave. Ted Cruz - my lord. Unless you believe in a theocracy, how can you vote for Ted Cruz? He is basically a real life version of the lying peddler Mr. Haney from Green Acres. Ben Carson - believes the pyramids were used for grain storage, appears always ready to doze off. Thinks it is a good story to note how he used to stab his best friends (only to be thwarted by a belt buckle). Only John Kasich is a credible candidate, and should probably win the nomination, except he looks like your retired uncle who is late for a meeting with his lawyer and threw on the first jacket he could find. (That plus he had the gall to suggest that the government maybe should protect poor people and the mentally ill).
So, maybe it is possible that if every other choice were not so awful that Trump would struggle more. But, alas, we will never know. So let's examine Trump's approach and see why it appeals to GOP voters weaned on Fox News.
1) The country is falling apart, everything is shit. ("Make America Great Again!") -- Try to watch 45 minutes of Fox News. This message is CONSTANTLY repeated every single day on Fox News. Obama sucks, he is killing us. He is awful, he is the worst, we live, basically in the Dark Ages and instead of a Renaissance we will get Darker Ages. It is repeated every freaking minute of the day.
2) Say ANYTHING you want to say without regard to whether there are facts to support it. This has long been GOP/Fox News orthodoxy. Barack Obama was born in Kenya. He never went to Columbia. He was a poor student. He killed Antonin Scalia. There is no such thing as global warming. Guns don't kill two year olds; their inability to properly operate the gun does. You cannot trust scientists/professors/eggheads. What do they know? They are losers, not cool beer drinkers like you.
Against this background, which has lasted 20+ years, the GOP now wants people to EXAMINE statements made by Donald Trump? "I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it." How do we know that is possible? -- because he says so and only eggheads tell us the opposite. "I will cut off the internet to all terrorist." Um, well, how do you know they are....and how would you??? Blah, blah, blah, Trump says he can do it - I believe him. Are you eggheads in the party gonna tell me that you have "facts" to the contrary. Oh come on! Fox News has warned me about that for 20 years. Believe us, not "facts."
3) Say Things Completely Contrary to Things You Have Said in the Past, Even the Recent Past, Even Yesterday. This is the world of Mitt Romney and John McCain and Scott Walker and Rick Snyder. So, sure, McCain used to be a rather liberal Republican, but TODAY in 2008 he is a hard-core conservative. Sure Mitt Romney created Romney-care, which became ObamaCare, but TODAY in 2012 he is a rock-ribbed health care haters who understands how awful it is. Sure Walker and Snyder ran as common sense conservatives who would help increase union jobs and improve people's wages, but once ELECTED they decided to just become hateful right wingers who destroyed good paying jobs and their states' economies.
Sam Brownback said his tax cuts would boost revenue for Kansas -- it didn't? Well, it was never intended to! Come on. Geez, you guys. tax cuts obviously don't increase revenues. Silly voters - who told you that? "You did." Who are you going to believe, me, or the things the Democrats play to you of me saying on videotape?
4) State a Ton of Things With No Specific Examples -- Illegal immigrants are flooding into the U.S. lately - false, but still stated. Obama is not deporting any illegals -- false, but still a thing. 50% of your paycheck goes to welfare for illegals. Welfare queens driving Cadillacs. Michele Bachmann - HPV vaccines cause mental retardation. Tom Emmer - Minnesota waiters often make over $100,000 a year. "Got any specific examples?" Well, no. I don't need them, everybody knows that. I heard a story from a guy who was told that.....
5) The Media Is Biased Against Conservatives and Cannot Be Trusted. When a Republican says just ridiculous shit "Obama is going to declare martial law and stay on for another 4 years" the media might be expected to ask, "Um, what possible facts do you have to support that?" or, back before 20 years ago the media would actually say, "That is ridiculous, that is just false." The Fox News response (now adopted by the GOP), 'SEE, it MUST be true because the liberal media wants you to THINK it is false!" This "truth-fier" is the greatest invention of all-time for a political party -- "Obama caused Joe the Plumber not to buy a $400,000 business because Joe would pay $400,000 per year in taxes!" Well, there are so many things wrong with that statement, where do we start....SEE! It MUST be true if they are fighting so hard to disprove the statement!
New Section
I do not share today's general Democratic Party hatred for Ronald Reagan. We were desperate for some pride as a country, having lost virtually all of our pride when Carter was President, and Regan brought that pride back. Sure he built up a deficit with his tax cuts and huge spending increases, but for 8 years we were generally better off. When he saw how horrible his budget busting ways were, 6 years in, he worked with the Democrats to raise taxes and get things a little more reasonable.
Reagan believed, generally, in the facts. Sure he had his own opinion of what the facts meant, but he didn't just say stupid shit and make people believe that his lies were facts. Even when Iran-Contra blew up in his face, he sort of 'fessed up; saying it was important to trade arms for hostages and he should have known better if he was paying more attention. (It was a lie, but a slight one and he really didn't think anyone bought it -- he was just too lovable and popular to punish for his misdeed - like your old dog who poops in the entryway one day out of 300).
George H.W. Bush was a smart guy - he could be kind of pompous, but, again, you got the feeling he did what he thought actually was best for the country and listened to facts and logic.
I don't know what happened to the Republican Party thereafter. Maybe it was Gingrich and his scorched earth efforts to hurt Bill Clinton? Maybe it was the success of GW Bush's bullshit "compassionate conservatism" claim, which told political operatives, "Hey, look, maybe we need to just lie to win?" Who knows? But the Republican party since 2000 might as well have renamed itself the We Support Idiots party, Look, there is nothing wrong with trying to cut your own taxes if you are super wealthy. It is a little mean-spirited, but heck, go for it. But the Poor Wing of the party??? My lord.
http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2011/05/rich-wing-romney-poor-wing-palin.html
Sarah Palin? Is there anything more awful than the idea that the Republican Party nominated a person for Vice President who took 5 years to get through 4 different colleges, perhaps distracted by the need to bang Glen Rice and who just generally does not know anything about anything important connected to running a country? Perhaps that is where the safety rope to sanity broke? When the GOP and Fox News had to support that idiot. Is she qualified? Well, certainly. Don't believe what anyone says, she is great, she is awesome. She will really do what is right for YOU!
Who does that Palin love sound like? It sounds like Trump. "Trust me. Things will be great. Greater, greatest. How do I know? Cuz I know - it is on my hat!" Trump has at least done SOMETHING with his life and graduated from impressive schools. While a blowhard, he is not a moron. So, when less than 8 years ago the party and Fox News were all in favor of Sarah Palin, their protestations against Donald Trump fall more than a little flat. Is there a difference between saying inflammatory conservative things and not meaning them (Trump) and saying similar things and being too dumb to understand them and why they make no logical sense (Palin)? Not much of a difference.
Anyway -- this item kind of got away from me, so take it for what it is worth, because I am not editing it.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
The Evolution of the Game of Basketball
http://www.hooptactics.com/Basketball_Basics_History
Some things you would have thought would take a long time (the rule of 5 players per side, the idea of a glass backboard) came really early on.
Other things you would have thought would have been abandoned very early lasted a long time (center jump after every made basket lasted until the start of 1938, even though there were open bottomed nets being used as early as 1912!).
Good stuff.
Some things you would have thought would take a long time (the rule of 5 players per side, the idea of a glass backboard) came really early on.
Other things you would have thought would have been abandoned very early lasted a long time (center jump after every made basket lasted until the start of 1938, even though there were open bottomed nets being used as early as 1912!).
Good stuff.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Carly Fiorina - Quitter
I tried real hard to find a picture of her where she looks hideous. You know what? When she is not talking, she is actually pretty good looking, and, when shot from far enough away and from below (as pictured), can actually look pretty good.
Hmmmm. Goodbye - she will not be missed.
Hmmmm. Goodbye - she will not be missed.
Chris Christie -- Quitter
https://gma.yahoo.com/chris-christie-expected-formally-end-presidential-bid-early-161038064--abc-news-topstories.html#
Add this one-word descriptor to "fat" and "blowhard" and you have three good choices for Christie.
If only he had ever told voters that he used to be a federal prosecutor - I think that could have made the difference.
I guess he won't be kicking Barack Obama's ass out of the White House anytime soon.
On the plus side, he did manage to eviscerate the pathetic pro-amnesty anchor baby robot Marco Rubio before exiting.
Add this one-word descriptor to "fat" and "blowhard" and you have three good choices for Christie.
If only he had ever told voters that he used to be a federal prosecutor - I think that could have made the difference.
I guess he won't be kicking Barack Obama's ass out of the White House anytime soon.
On the plus side, he did manage to eviscerate the pathetic pro-amnesty anchor baby robot Marco Rubio before exiting.
Tuesday, February 09, 2016
Cam Newton Studied Kyle Korver's Late Game Effort
Newton did not jump on the fumble, much as Korver thought better of stepping in front of LeBron James here:
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
The Most Egregious Errors Thus Far In ESPN's All-Time #nbarank
Through today we are up to #26 (Isiah Thomas), who, coincidentally, is one of the greatest mistakes. Isiah's career "advanced stats" are roughly equivalent to Stephon Marbury's and his WS/48 number of .109 does not register in the top 250 all-time.
If you look at Isiah's awards, he was only first-team all-NBA three times and all-NBA second team twice. He never finished in the top 4 of the MVP balloting in any year.
1) So, Isiah Thomas - should be around 60, is ranked 26th -- huge error. If we are awarding spots for titles and title appearances, then why is Chauncey Billups at #87? Chauncey 121 WS, .176 WS/48, 38 VORP. Read this and then ask if one guy should be 61 spots higher than the other: http://bkref.com/tiny/8JCjG
2) Bob Pettit and George Mikan -- two of the greatest basketball players of all-time. Mikan led his teams to 5 titles and was so dominant that the league changed its rules to hurt him. He had 3 20 WS seasons. Bob Pettit was 2X MVP of the league and 10X first-team all-NBA. He retired as the NBA's all-time leading scorer.
ESPN has these guys ranked ##33 and 34. Now, compare their ranking to Larry Bird and Kevin McHale. McHale was 1X all-NBA and never challenged for an MVP. ESPN has him ranked at #31!!! Pettit's career is far more akin to Bird's career (top dog on a team that constantly challenged for titles) than it is McHale's. Bird will be top 15.
ESPN has Bill Walton ranked as the #42 best player in NBA history, largely based upon his 1 MVP and his title with Portland. Walton played a total of 120 great NBA games as a starter and 80 more as a 6th man (and a 20 mpg 6th man at that). Yet George Mikan, who had 3 of the best seasons ever played and led his team to 5 titles, ranks a meager 9 spots higher? How? Why?
3) As noted, Bill Walton is far too high. His career resembles that of Derrick Rose. Rose is not even listed in the top 100. Yao Ming was a great player for 6 years or so -- he is #89. The Walton ranking is nonsensical. Did he have a better career than Bob McAdoo (#52)? No. He did not.
4) The Steph Curry ranking (God knows where he will end up) is maddening. If you compare career stats for Curry, Westbrook and Harden, they are very comparable. Yet Harden is #97, Westbrook is #49 and Curry appears headed for a top 20 ranking. Where will the madness end? I mean, Steve Nash was 2X MVP and he played forever and he is already ranked (#30). There is no way that Stephen Curry has had a better career than Chris Paul (#29) so far.
The only way you can rank Curry as high as they have is to say to yourself, "Well, we think these past two years will generally be an average year for Steph going forward". If you believe that, then why not just rank him #1? His current season will be maybe the best season ever played, so why not just put him in front of Jordan?
5) Artis Gilmore at #70 is given absolutely no credit for his 5X first-team all-ABA performances or his nearly 190 total ABA/NBA WS. He is ranked behind Vince Carter? 5 spots above Blake Griffin? 11 spots behind Carmelo?
6) Almost Every Old Player Gets the Shaft -- I mean, put to one side Pettit and Mikan (who are both underrated by 20+ spots). Dolph Schayes was 6X first-team all-NBA and 6X second-team. he is ranked at #74, 3 spots above Joe Dumars (never first-team all-NBA). Hal Greer and Dave Bing and Bill Sharman were top 50 players as late as the 1996 list, They are now erased from this current top 100 list (Sharman, a 4X first-team all-NBA player, being the worst snub).
Neal Johnston should have a movie made about him called "The Player Whom Everyone Forgot." http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsne01.html 4X first-team all-NBA. Led the league in WS 5X, couldn't edge out Shawn Kemp?
7) The pro-Boston bias for guys in the Bird Era is pretty apparent. Walton and McHale are 30 spots too high. Dennis Johnson is listed (#84) as a better player than Chris Bosh (#86) There is absolutely no basis for that. http://bkref.com/tiny/5SUja DJ is not a top 100 player. Robert Parish is 13 spots higher than Artis Gilmore? 11 spots higher than Bob Lanier? The 3rd best guy on the Celtics (maybe the 4th offensive option)?
8) There are certain guys on the list that appear to just be "OK, how about him" or "Hey, I used to watch this guy" entries. Mark Price yes, but Dave Bing no. Mo Cheeks yes, but Paul Westphal no? Bobby Jones (who basically never started) yes, but Buck Williams and Horace Grant no? What did poor Jack Sikma do piss off the basketball powers that be? Look at his chart of "similarity scores". 7 of the top 8 "most similar" guys are on the top 100 list. Sikma? He is no Gail Goodrich, Kevin Love or Shawn Kemp.
That is it for now. We can only hope the errors do not become worse ##1-25. Scottie Pippen (my #36) and Steph Curry better show up soon.
If you look at Isiah's awards, he was only first-team all-NBA three times and all-NBA second team twice. He never finished in the top 4 of the MVP balloting in any year.
1) So, Isiah Thomas - should be around 60, is ranked 26th -- huge error. If we are awarding spots for titles and title appearances, then why is Chauncey Billups at #87? Chauncey 121 WS, .176 WS/48, 38 VORP. Read this and then ask if one guy should be 61 spots higher than the other: http://bkref.com/tiny/8JCjG
2) Bob Pettit and George Mikan -- two of the greatest basketball players of all-time. Mikan led his teams to 5 titles and was so dominant that the league changed its rules to hurt him. He had 3 20 WS seasons. Bob Pettit was 2X MVP of the league and 10X first-team all-NBA. He retired as the NBA's all-time leading scorer.
ESPN has these guys ranked ##33 and 34. Now, compare their ranking to Larry Bird and Kevin McHale. McHale was 1X all-NBA and never challenged for an MVP. ESPN has him ranked at #31!!! Pettit's career is far more akin to Bird's career (top dog on a team that constantly challenged for titles) than it is McHale's. Bird will be top 15.
ESPN has Bill Walton ranked as the #42 best player in NBA history, largely based upon his 1 MVP and his title with Portland. Walton played a total of 120 great NBA games as a starter and 80 more as a 6th man (and a 20 mpg 6th man at that). Yet George Mikan, who had 3 of the best seasons ever played and led his team to 5 titles, ranks a meager 9 spots higher? How? Why?
3) As noted, Bill Walton is far too high. His career resembles that of Derrick Rose. Rose is not even listed in the top 100. Yao Ming was a great player for 6 years or so -- he is #89. The Walton ranking is nonsensical. Did he have a better career than Bob McAdoo (#52)? No. He did not.
4) The Steph Curry ranking (God knows where he will end up) is maddening. If you compare career stats for Curry, Westbrook and Harden, they are very comparable. Yet Harden is #97, Westbrook is #49 and Curry appears headed for a top 20 ranking. Where will the madness end? I mean, Steve Nash was 2X MVP and he played forever and he is already ranked (#30). There is no way that Stephen Curry has had a better career than Chris Paul (#29) so far.
The only way you can rank Curry as high as they have is to say to yourself, "Well, we think these past two years will generally be an average year for Steph going forward". If you believe that, then why not just rank him #1? His current season will be maybe the best season ever played, so why not just put him in front of Jordan?
5) Artis Gilmore at #70 is given absolutely no credit for his 5X first-team all-ABA performances or his nearly 190 total ABA/NBA WS. He is ranked behind Vince Carter? 5 spots above Blake Griffin? 11 spots behind Carmelo?
6) Almost Every Old Player Gets the Shaft -- I mean, put to one side Pettit and Mikan (who are both underrated by 20+ spots). Dolph Schayes was 6X first-team all-NBA and 6X second-team. he is ranked at #74, 3 spots above Joe Dumars (never first-team all-NBA). Hal Greer and Dave Bing and Bill Sharman were top 50 players as late as the 1996 list, They are now erased from this current top 100 list (Sharman, a 4X first-team all-NBA player, being the worst snub).
Neal Johnston should have a movie made about him called "The Player Whom Everyone Forgot." http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsne01.html 4X first-team all-NBA. Led the league in WS 5X, couldn't edge out Shawn Kemp?
7) The pro-Boston bias for guys in the Bird Era is pretty apparent. Walton and McHale are 30 spots too high. Dennis Johnson is listed (#84) as a better player than Chris Bosh (#86) There is absolutely no basis for that. http://bkref.com/tiny/5SUja DJ is not a top 100 player. Robert Parish is 13 spots higher than Artis Gilmore? 11 spots higher than Bob Lanier? The 3rd best guy on the Celtics (maybe the 4th offensive option)?
8) There are certain guys on the list that appear to just be "OK, how about him" or "Hey, I used to watch this guy" entries. Mark Price yes, but Dave Bing no. Mo Cheeks yes, but Paul Westphal no? Bobby Jones (who basically never started) yes, but Buck Williams and Horace Grant no? What did poor Jack Sikma do piss off the basketball powers that be? Look at his chart of "similarity scores". 7 of the top 8 "most similar" guys are on the top 100 list. Sikma? He is no Gail Goodrich, Kevin Love or Shawn Kemp.
That is it for now. We can only hope the errors do not become worse ##1-25. Scottie Pippen (my #36) and Steph Curry better show up soon.