Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Two Reasons to Vote for Bernie Sanders
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Good-Bye Sam Mitchell -- Thanks for Trying (No, I mean it)....
When I awoke this morning, I learned that Sam Mitchell was fired by the Timberwolves. There have been several Timberwolves coaches where their firing has resulted in me literally dancing in place the second I heard the news. I have repeatedly called for Sam's firing, yet I did not do my Lowe/Rodgers/Blair/Wittman/Rambis jig when I heard the news. This felt very odd, almost as if I had a soul or something. But I have had some time to digest the firing (which I am still in favor of) and the reason for my ambivalence, and I will attempt to explain it here.
As I have stated a number of times this year, it is rough being a Wolves fan. http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2016/01/things-get-worse-and-worse-for.html http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-continued-lament-as-timberwolves-fan.html
and
http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/12/things-that-concern-me-about-2015-16.html
Sam isn't a particularly good coach, and as I stated on December 8, 2015 (see last link above), the problems that the Timberwolves had were many and needed immediate correction in early December.
The Wolves needed to find 5-7 guys to rely upon and play that rotation a lot, play Tyus Jones as the backup PG, move LaVine to shooting guard (where he likes to play), jettison Kevin Martin, stop playing Andre Miller and Tayshaun Prince, and do basic NBA things like making offense-defense substitutions late in games. Wiggins was regressing, so he needed to be told how to improve.
The Wolves were 8-12. They fell quickly to 22 games under .500 (14-36) by going 6-24 over their next 30. They ended the season 29-53, so it was those 30 games where it all went wrong. What happened in December and January? Well, KAT played about 30 mpg. Why? Who knows. Why would you play your best player 30 mpg? The rest of the year KAT played roughly 36 mpg, and the Wolves went 15-17.
So....settle on a rotation. Use your best players. Pretty simple stuff.
Tyus Jones through Jan. 31 had played 98 minutes. And Andre Miller was starting to play some PG minutes in early February. Tyus then started to play more in late February and March, ending the season as the backup PG. Zach LaVine as a starter (off guard) had a Net Rating of negative 8. As a bench player (PG) - negative 14. As an off guard his scoring went up and his assists stayed roughly the same. During the Wolves' darkest days, LaVine's terrible PG play really hurt them, as is reflected in his advanaced stats during that period.
Ricky Rubio, who never liked the fact that Sam liked to play LaVine 20+ minutes at PG, thrived when Miller and then Tyus became the backup, having his best months in February and March.
Andrew Wiggins, once informed that he actually needed to try to be involved in most possessions every game and attempt some jumpers and pass when tripled on drives to the hoop, played his best in March.
So, all of the things I begged for in early December of 2015 started to change around in February and March of 2016, but not until a 6-24 stretch that ruined the season. If I can notice glaring weaknesses/issues with an NBA club, and see what needs fixing, why does it take SO long for an NBA coach to get it fixed? It is really baffling.
An above average coach does things where a fan doesn't quite understand why they are doing them, but they seem to work. Rick Adelman ran the exact same out of bounds play under his scoring basket 90% of the time - worked for a basket 40% of the time, got the ball in 100% of the time. A guy like Brad Steven just baffles you with the mystery of why his team believes they are good and then goes out and beats teams with far superior talent. Same with Pop - when the Spurs play only bench players 6-12, they still often win against good teams.
I am not asking that the Wolves hire the #1 overall coach ever to stalk the sidelines, but I would like it if I did not have to watch every single game and see the opposing PG stroll into the lane off the pick and roll for a layup or a pass for a dunk. There ARE other ways to play the pick and roll rather than yelling at Rubio "Come on Ricky, get through there!" Sam's team would get absolutely pounded to death with the same play, and we would still defend it the exact same way (poorly).
Sam could be petty and condescending to the press and the fans, and I didn't appreciate his idea that the Wolves played better on the road because the home fans sucked. He also had an odd habit of blaming his young players for poor play when, in fact, those young guys were having the best games.
So, do I think Sam should be fired - yes. Do I hate the guy - no. Why?
He tried.
I mean, it maybe took him 2-3 months to see the problems I was seeing and try to fix them, but at least he kept trying. He didn't insist, in most instances, that what he was doing was 100% correct. Eventually: He played Towns more. He moved LaVine (eventually) to off guard and convinced him that dribbling was a tool to be used when necessary and not a drug to make your brain think you are Kobe or Iverson. He got Wiggy to show a LITTLE more interest in the off the ball game, and some desire to pass the ball. He got rid of the old guys. He started to do offense/defense substitutions late in games (albeit some odd ones at times - taking out KAT for defense?). He stopped playing Prince 35 minutes and played him 10 mpg as a novelty defender/defender of last resort. All of that resulted in Sam's club getting better. He was trying. He also stood up for his club at appropriate times. Rambis NEVER stood up for his players with the refs. Wittman's tirades at the refs appeared to work off a random number generator program -- "OK, today, 7th call of the game, get really mad. 12th call, pretend you don't care."
Sam was interested in the game and appeared to grasp (albeit belatedly) the general concepts of the game that needed improvement from his team. He worked to make the young guys better. He tried to learn something about his players and his players SOMETIMES played hard for him. (The Wolves never played hard for Rambis). His guys weren't crying out for him to be fired.
So, good-bye Sam Mitchell. I won't really miss you that much, but I will appreciate that you tried hard and helped the young guys make progress. For that, I thank you for your service.
As I have stated a number of times this year, it is rough being a Wolves fan. http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2016/01/things-get-worse-and-worse-for.html http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-continued-lament-as-timberwolves-fan.html
and
http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/12/things-that-concern-me-about-2015-16.html
Sam isn't a particularly good coach, and as I stated on December 8, 2015 (see last link above), the problems that the Timberwolves had were many and needed immediate correction in early December.
The Wolves needed to find 5-7 guys to rely upon and play that rotation a lot, play Tyus Jones as the backup PG, move LaVine to shooting guard (where he likes to play), jettison Kevin Martin, stop playing Andre Miller and Tayshaun Prince, and do basic NBA things like making offense-defense substitutions late in games. Wiggins was regressing, so he needed to be told how to improve.
The Wolves were 8-12. They fell quickly to 22 games under .500 (14-36) by going 6-24 over their next 30. They ended the season 29-53, so it was those 30 games where it all went wrong. What happened in December and January? Well, KAT played about 30 mpg. Why? Who knows. Why would you play your best player 30 mpg? The rest of the year KAT played roughly 36 mpg, and the Wolves went 15-17.
So....settle on a rotation. Use your best players. Pretty simple stuff.
Tyus Jones through Jan. 31 had played 98 minutes. And Andre Miller was starting to play some PG minutes in early February. Tyus then started to play more in late February and March, ending the season as the backup PG. Zach LaVine as a starter (off guard) had a Net Rating of negative 8. As a bench player (PG) - negative 14. As an off guard his scoring went up and his assists stayed roughly the same. During the Wolves' darkest days, LaVine's terrible PG play really hurt them, as is reflected in his advanaced stats during that period.
Ricky Rubio, who never liked the fact that Sam liked to play LaVine 20+ minutes at PG, thrived when Miller and then Tyus became the backup, having his best months in February and March.
Andrew Wiggins, once informed that he actually needed to try to be involved in most possessions every game and attempt some jumpers and pass when tripled on drives to the hoop, played his best in March.
So, all of the things I begged for in early December of 2015 started to change around in February and March of 2016, but not until a 6-24 stretch that ruined the season. If I can notice glaring weaknesses/issues with an NBA club, and see what needs fixing, why does it take SO long for an NBA coach to get it fixed? It is really baffling.
An above average coach does things where a fan doesn't quite understand why they are doing them, but they seem to work. Rick Adelman ran the exact same out of bounds play under his scoring basket 90% of the time - worked for a basket 40% of the time, got the ball in 100% of the time. A guy like Brad Steven just baffles you with the mystery of why his team believes they are good and then goes out and beats teams with far superior talent. Same with Pop - when the Spurs play only bench players 6-12, they still often win against good teams.
I am not asking that the Wolves hire the #1 overall coach ever to stalk the sidelines, but I would like it if I did not have to watch every single game and see the opposing PG stroll into the lane off the pick and roll for a layup or a pass for a dunk. There ARE other ways to play the pick and roll rather than yelling at Rubio "Come on Ricky, get through there!" Sam's team would get absolutely pounded to death with the same play, and we would still defend it the exact same way (poorly).
Sam could be petty and condescending to the press and the fans, and I didn't appreciate his idea that the Wolves played better on the road because the home fans sucked. He also had an odd habit of blaming his young players for poor play when, in fact, those young guys were having the best games.
So, do I think Sam should be fired - yes. Do I hate the guy - no. Why?
He tried.
I mean, it maybe took him 2-3 months to see the problems I was seeing and try to fix them, but at least he kept trying. He didn't insist, in most instances, that what he was doing was 100% correct. Eventually: He played Towns more. He moved LaVine (eventually) to off guard and convinced him that dribbling was a tool to be used when necessary and not a drug to make your brain think you are Kobe or Iverson. He got Wiggy to show a LITTLE more interest in the off the ball game, and some desire to pass the ball. He got rid of the old guys. He started to do offense/defense substitutions late in games (albeit some odd ones at times - taking out KAT for defense?). He stopped playing Prince 35 minutes and played him 10 mpg as a novelty defender/defender of last resort. All of that resulted in Sam's club getting better. He was trying. He also stood up for his club at appropriate times. Rambis NEVER stood up for his players with the refs. Wittman's tirades at the refs appeared to work off a random number generator program -- "OK, today, 7th call of the game, get really mad. 12th call, pretend you don't care."
Sam was interested in the game and appeared to grasp (albeit belatedly) the general concepts of the game that needed improvement from his team. He worked to make the young guys better. He tried to learn something about his players and his players SOMETIMES played hard for him. (The Wolves never played hard for Rambis). His guys weren't crying out for him to be fired.
So, good-bye Sam Mitchell. I won't really miss you that much, but I will appreciate that you tried hard and helped the young guys make progress. For that, I thank you for your service.
Thursday, April 07, 2016
Sam Hinkie's 13-page resignation letter - My thoughts
http://espn.go.com/pdf/2016/0406/nba_hinkie_redact.pdf
A few thoughts:
1) My dad liked to heat our farmhouse with a wood burning stove, so once every couple of years we would go to our 50 acres of woods and cut down trees (using a chainsaw, not an axe). We would then cut the wood into 24 inch sections and put it all in an enormous pile by the barn. By the summer of 1984, the pile was 14 feet high by 20 feet wide. It was enormous. I didn't have a real job in the summer of 1984, so my job was to keep the house for my mom (who worked) and split wood (and do other farm work) for my dad (who worked at the school as his real job). He expected me to split wood every day. So that summer I would split wood using a mall and wedges and also using an axe. Some days one hour, some days up to three hours. So, there are probably not many people who know more about using an axe than I do.
Hinkie makes this statement -- "Abraham Lincoln said, 'Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four hours sharpening the axe."
Now, as someone who has swung an axe for 1-3 hours a day, the idea that I would spend 6 hours chopping down a tree struck me as shocking. I know that people back in Lincoln's day were frigging tough, but swinging an axe for six hours to cut down one tree would ruin you physically and mentally. (Most people pre-chainsaw used a crosscut saw to cut down trees, not an axe, but anyway...). Since there were no Sequoia trees in Illinois or Kentucky (to my knowledge) I cannot imagine anyone ever taking 6 hours to cut down a tree. You can chop down a 12 inch diameter tree in under 30 minutes. And if my father gave me 6 hours to chop down a tree and I told him "I will sit on my ass and sharpen my axe for 4 hours first" he would kill me.
Plus, it takes like 10 minutes or less to sharpen an axe. If you sharpened an axe for 4 hours, there would be no axe left. (Imagine sharpening a knife for 4 hours or sharpening a pencil for 4 hours - it would be non-existent when you were done - you are doing more harm than good).
So, in light of this knowledge on wood chopping, I decided that Lincoln must have been joking. The only way the comment makes any sense is if Lincoln was saying, by analogy, "give someone a loose deadline and they will sit around and not do much." So I looked it up.
Lincoln never said any such thing. The quote was always an old saying about if you had 5 (or 10) MINUTES to cut down a tree you'd spend half that time sharpening the axe: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/03/29/sharp-axe/ The quote was never attributed to Lincoln until the 1980s when the sort of business books that Hinkie loves to read started to need to explain why you should spend a lot of time preparing for what you are eventually going to do.
This is not mere nitpicking. What Hinkie is trying to say by using this quote is that he needed 5 years to turn around the Sixers, and he has spent 34 months trying to do so. That is more than reasonable, since it might take 6 hours to chop down a tree and you need 4 hours to sharpen the axe. But the actual source of the quote is that you have 5 or 10 MINUTES to cut down a tree. That is very little time. Sure you cannot just start swinging wildly with a dull axe, but that frigging tree has to come down in a few minutes, not six hours (or in Hinkie's case, 5 years).
Hinkie's situation is not akin to someone having 6 hours to cut down a tree. His situation is more like someone being called in to unclog a drain or a toilet in someone's house. Sure the plumber might say "we need to re-do the plumbing so this never happens again" but will the homeowner agree to wait 2-3-4 months with no working plumbing? Doubtful.
2) His Buffett analogy baffles me. According to this interview: http://www.shookrun.com/documents/buffett_Forbes_1974.pdf Buffett had determined that by 1969 there were simply no good investments out there and he would rather give the people who trusted him their money back rather than try to invest it and lose it.
So, by analogy, Hinkie would be saying that the Sixers had no more deals to make. The market sucks and all of the assets that the Sixers have gathered were the best they could do in the current market. His job is done, he cannot do any more.
But that is really not what he says. He makes analogies to collecting a ton of assets designed to acquire great veteran players (Boston getting Garnett, the Spurs waiting 5 years to get Aldridge). So........if the Sixers have Embiid (who apparently is really lighting it up in practice gyms) and Okafor and 100 draft picks (plus Jerian Grant, my lord he loves Jerian Grant) [NOTE -- it is Jerami Grant, not Jerian Grant - my bad] then aren't Hinkie's services needed most RIGHT NOW? Surely in 34 months he has put together a sign-and-trade plan to get Kevin Durant or LeBron or some other great player. Right? Why not stay around to pull the trigger on that deal?
If you look very closely, what he actually says is that he has to leave because of "management changes." So this implies that he has so little power that he cannot do what he wants to do. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Warren Buffett did -- Buffett had people lining up to give him money to invest, he could have invested it anyway he wanted. Buffett, however, felt the market was so awful that the best decision was to do nothing - so he did nothing. What Hinkie is really whining about is that the Sixers won't let him do what he wants. That has nothing to do with what Warren Buffett did in 1969.
3) Hinkie makes some rather odd statements. First, he mentions that in 2012-13 the Sixers had won a "disappointing" 34 games. What Sixers fan today wouldn't be ecstatic if in the next 2 years they somehow managed to win 34 games in a season?
Second, he states how great the Sixers were on defense with a great veteran like Luc Richard Mbah a Moute anchoring the defense, but declined thereafter when using young players. I don't recall there being any significant bidding war for Luc. If the Sixers wanted to retain him, I am sure they could have. So why state that you used to be great at something with a guy you basically threw away for nothing?
Third, he emphasizes that the Sixers' future is bright by stating that a website projects them in 3 years as the 12th best team in the NBA. 12th best - wow. So it only took three years of the darkest ugliest basketball in the last 40 years to get to a point where the Sixers (in the future) may be the 12th best team! (Hinkie suggests maybe 10th best). Wow. Awesome. So you took over a team that had won a "disappointing 34 games" and now someone projects a 12th place future for you! That is around 45 wins.
"Give me a team that won 34 games, give me three years where you are the league laughingstock and I will turn that into the possibility of 45 wins five years from now!"
Sign me up!
Back to my plumbing analogy - toilet needs unclogging, guy comes in, says, "I will make things worse for 3 months, and you will have to use an outhouse that I will place out by the road during that time, but in 5 months you will have a 25% better plumbing system. Not the best system, mind you, but pretty good."
Finally, his 'zero sum game" analysis is odd. First, all teams do not have the same 82 games. There are not 82 games "up for grabs" -- There are 30 teams and 82 games per team and one winner per game. I would imagine that is 1,230 wins up for grabs, not 82. (I am pretty sure that math is correct - if it were a two-team league each team would play 82 games and there would be 82 wins and 82 losses up for grabs). What Hinkie's approach has proved is that you do not have to "take" wins necessarily, sometimes teams will tank and give you wins. His entire letter implies that the Sixers intentionally lost games to gather better assets and have a steeper recovery. Every team who played the Sixers had a better chance as a result of this strategy.
If what you need to do is "zig" while the other teams "comfortably zag" then why must we "respect tradition" as well? I feel almost as if I am a 12 year old boy again listening to Joe Garagiola every week discuss that the number one key to pitching is (fill in different thing every week - a good fastball, changing speeds, location, being mentally tough, having a good breaking ball). This is the sort of mental masturbation and CYA that people do who cannot explain what their philosophy is. "I try to be a harsh grader, but fair" said one of my college professors. "I will run you to exhaustion, but you will love showing up for practice" said a coach. Both extremely terrible at their jobs, but both had read books stating that you need to be "_________ but the opposite of ________."
Conclusion
I am not saying that The Process put in place by Hinkie may not work. I mean, the Sixers have a good player in Okafor, an OK player in Noel and just a bevy of draft picks -- some of which may be very high picks in what is expected to be a very good draft. Could they get Ben Simmons and Jamal Murray and all of a sudden become a playoff team? Sure. Hinkie may have done a good job. Time will tell.
But when you are quitting because the boss prefers someone else, say, "Look, the boss prefers someone else, I am a figurehead, so I am moving on." You can mention the good things you have done and say how you think the team has potential to be #1 in the East if they draft well. No harm in that. But the gibberish and self-contradictory crap that Hinkie tosses into 13 pages says to me that he is a very insecure person who wants everyone to know that he has met a lot of people and read a lot of books and needs people to believe that he is far, far smarter than anyone who criticizes him. That does not earn him any points in my book, and I will always try to avoid such people, particularly where they accept at face value ridiculous quotes incorrectly attributed to Abe Lincoln.
A few thoughts:
1) My dad liked to heat our farmhouse with a wood burning stove, so once every couple of years we would go to our 50 acres of woods and cut down trees (using a chainsaw, not an axe). We would then cut the wood into 24 inch sections and put it all in an enormous pile by the barn. By the summer of 1984, the pile was 14 feet high by 20 feet wide. It was enormous. I didn't have a real job in the summer of 1984, so my job was to keep the house for my mom (who worked) and split wood (and do other farm work) for my dad (who worked at the school as his real job). He expected me to split wood every day. So that summer I would split wood using a mall and wedges and also using an axe. Some days one hour, some days up to three hours. So, there are probably not many people who know more about using an axe than I do.
Hinkie makes this statement -- "Abraham Lincoln said, 'Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four hours sharpening the axe."
Now, as someone who has swung an axe for 1-3 hours a day, the idea that I would spend 6 hours chopping down a tree struck me as shocking. I know that people back in Lincoln's day were frigging tough, but swinging an axe for six hours to cut down one tree would ruin you physically and mentally. (Most people pre-chainsaw used a crosscut saw to cut down trees, not an axe, but anyway...). Since there were no Sequoia trees in Illinois or Kentucky (to my knowledge) I cannot imagine anyone ever taking 6 hours to cut down a tree. You can chop down a 12 inch diameter tree in under 30 minutes. And if my father gave me 6 hours to chop down a tree and I told him "I will sit on my ass and sharpen my axe for 4 hours first" he would kill me.
Plus, it takes like 10 minutes or less to sharpen an axe. If you sharpened an axe for 4 hours, there would be no axe left. (Imagine sharpening a knife for 4 hours or sharpening a pencil for 4 hours - it would be non-existent when you were done - you are doing more harm than good).
So, in light of this knowledge on wood chopping, I decided that Lincoln must have been joking. The only way the comment makes any sense is if Lincoln was saying, by analogy, "give someone a loose deadline and they will sit around and not do much." So I looked it up.
Lincoln never said any such thing. The quote was always an old saying about if you had 5 (or 10) MINUTES to cut down a tree you'd spend half that time sharpening the axe: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/03/29/sharp-axe/ The quote was never attributed to Lincoln until the 1980s when the sort of business books that Hinkie loves to read started to need to explain why you should spend a lot of time preparing for what you are eventually going to do.
This is not mere nitpicking. What Hinkie is trying to say by using this quote is that he needed 5 years to turn around the Sixers, and he has spent 34 months trying to do so. That is more than reasonable, since it might take 6 hours to chop down a tree and you need 4 hours to sharpen the axe. But the actual source of the quote is that you have 5 or 10 MINUTES to cut down a tree. That is very little time. Sure you cannot just start swinging wildly with a dull axe, but that frigging tree has to come down in a few minutes, not six hours (or in Hinkie's case, 5 years).
Hinkie's situation is not akin to someone having 6 hours to cut down a tree. His situation is more like someone being called in to unclog a drain or a toilet in someone's house. Sure the plumber might say "we need to re-do the plumbing so this never happens again" but will the homeowner agree to wait 2-3-4 months with no working plumbing? Doubtful.
2) His Buffett analogy baffles me. According to this interview: http://www.shookrun.com/documents/buffett_Forbes_1974.pdf Buffett had determined that by 1969 there were simply no good investments out there and he would rather give the people who trusted him their money back rather than try to invest it and lose it.
So, by analogy, Hinkie would be saying that the Sixers had no more deals to make. The market sucks and all of the assets that the Sixers have gathered were the best they could do in the current market. His job is done, he cannot do any more.
But that is really not what he says. He makes analogies to collecting a ton of assets designed to acquire great veteran players (Boston getting Garnett, the Spurs waiting 5 years to get Aldridge). So........if the Sixers have Embiid (who apparently is really lighting it up in practice gyms) and Okafor and 100 draft picks (plus Jerian Grant, my lord he loves Jerian Grant) [NOTE -- it is Jerami Grant, not Jerian Grant - my bad] then aren't Hinkie's services needed most RIGHT NOW? Surely in 34 months he has put together a sign-and-trade plan to get Kevin Durant or LeBron or some other great player. Right? Why not stay around to pull the trigger on that deal?
If you look very closely, what he actually says is that he has to leave because of "management changes." So this implies that he has so little power that he cannot do what he wants to do. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Warren Buffett did -- Buffett had people lining up to give him money to invest, he could have invested it anyway he wanted. Buffett, however, felt the market was so awful that the best decision was to do nothing - so he did nothing. What Hinkie is really whining about is that the Sixers won't let him do what he wants. That has nothing to do with what Warren Buffett did in 1969.
3) Hinkie makes some rather odd statements. First, he mentions that in 2012-13 the Sixers had won a "disappointing" 34 games. What Sixers fan today wouldn't be ecstatic if in the next 2 years they somehow managed to win 34 games in a season?
Second, he states how great the Sixers were on defense with a great veteran like Luc Richard Mbah a Moute anchoring the defense, but declined thereafter when using young players. I don't recall there being any significant bidding war for Luc. If the Sixers wanted to retain him, I am sure they could have. So why state that you used to be great at something with a guy you basically threw away for nothing?
Third, he emphasizes that the Sixers' future is bright by stating that a website projects them in 3 years as the 12th best team in the NBA. 12th best - wow. So it only took three years of the darkest ugliest basketball in the last 40 years to get to a point where the Sixers (in the future) may be the 12th best team! (Hinkie suggests maybe 10th best). Wow. Awesome. So you took over a team that had won a "disappointing 34 games" and now someone projects a 12th place future for you! That is around 45 wins.
"Give me a team that won 34 games, give me three years where you are the league laughingstock and I will turn that into the possibility of 45 wins five years from now!"
Sign me up!
Back to my plumbing analogy - toilet needs unclogging, guy comes in, says, "I will make things worse for 3 months, and you will have to use an outhouse that I will place out by the road during that time, but in 5 months you will have a 25% better plumbing system. Not the best system, mind you, but pretty good."
Finally, his 'zero sum game" analysis is odd. First, all teams do not have the same 82 games. There are not 82 games "up for grabs" -- There are 30 teams and 82 games per team and one winner per game. I would imagine that is 1,230 wins up for grabs, not 82. (I am pretty sure that math is correct - if it were a two-team league each team would play 82 games and there would be 82 wins and 82 losses up for grabs). What Hinkie's approach has proved is that you do not have to "take" wins necessarily, sometimes teams will tank and give you wins. His entire letter implies that the Sixers intentionally lost games to gather better assets and have a steeper recovery. Every team who played the Sixers had a better chance as a result of this strategy.
If what you need to do is "zig" while the other teams "comfortably zag" then why must we "respect tradition" as well? I feel almost as if I am a 12 year old boy again listening to Joe Garagiola every week discuss that the number one key to pitching is (fill in different thing every week - a good fastball, changing speeds, location, being mentally tough, having a good breaking ball). This is the sort of mental masturbation and CYA that people do who cannot explain what their philosophy is. "I try to be a harsh grader, but fair" said one of my college professors. "I will run you to exhaustion, but you will love showing up for practice" said a coach. Both extremely terrible at their jobs, but both had read books stating that you need to be "_________ but the opposite of ________."
Conclusion
I am not saying that The Process put in place by Hinkie may not work. I mean, the Sixers have a good player in Okafor, an OK player in Noel and just a bevy of draft picks -- some of which may be very high picks in what is expected to be a very good draft. Could they get Ben Simmons and Jamal Murray and all of a sudden become a playoff team? Sure. Hinkie may have done a good job. Time will tell.
But when you are quitting because the boss prefers someone else, say, "Look, the boss prefers someone else, I am a figurehead, so I am moving on." You can mention the good things you have done and say how you think the team has potential to be #1 in the East if they draft well. No harm in that. But the gibberish and self-contradictory crap that Hinkie tosses into 13 pages says to me that he is a very insecure person who wants everyone to know that he has met a lot of people and read a lot of books and needs people to believe that he is far, far smarter than anyone who criticizes him. That does not earn him any points in my book, and I will always try to avoid such people, particularly where they accept at face value ridiculous quotes incorrectly attributed to Abe Lincoln.
Tuesday, April 05, 2016
Report on North Carolina's Academic Fraud
http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf
While you really need to be a Pollyanna to believe that Roy Williams did not know about all of this fraud, the 2005 title team was populated by AMFAM majors who were not taking real classes and, instead, were taking classes to remain eligible (that did not require class attendance and were graded by someone other than the assigned professor).
Rashad McCants, a starter on the title team, has stated that he never wrote his own papers and went over and picked up the papers he had to hand in right before he had to hand them in.
I do not see how the 2005 title is not vacated. Then you have the 2009 title, which occurred right as UNC was ending the program (the primary person responsible for the program was retiring). That one would probably also be vacated if the NCAA had any balls, but I imagine they will say that there is not enough evidence.
While you really need to be a Pollyanna to believe that Roy Williams did not know about all of this fraud, the 2005 title team was populated by AMFAM majors who were not taking real classes and, instead, were taking classes to remain eligible (that did not require class attendance and were graded by someone other than the assigned professor).
Rashad McCants, a starter on the title team, has stated that he never wrote his own papers and went over and picked up the papers he had to hand in right before he had to hand them in.
I do not see how the 2005 title is not vacated. Then you have the 2009 title, which occurred right as UNC was ending the program (the primary person responsible for the program was retiring). That one would probably also be vacated if the NCAA had any balls, but I imagine they will say that there is not enough evidence.
Monday, April 04, 2016
Shane McMahon Off the Top of a 20 foot cage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ds8wQcptZuo
Really an amazing decision. How much would they need to pay you for you to do this?
Really an amazing decision. How much would they need to pay you for you to do this?
Friday, March 04, 2016
Paul Krugman on the GOP
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/opinion/clash-of-republican-con-artists.html?_r=0
And I imagine that Krugman had to write this piece without the benefit of last night's unbelievable debate in which Rubio and Cruz called Trump a fraud and an idiot and a buffoon and then, when asked whether they would support him if he were the nominee, said, "oh sure."
This isn't a situation where you are saying, "Hey, Joe Blow is an intelligent and honorable man, but we disagree on policy." This is a situation where you are spending 2 hours calling someone a fraud and a con man and then at the end say "but, yes, I am OK with that."
It puts me in mind of the Warner Brothers cartoon where the sheepdog and the wolf are friends who go to work every day and the wolf's job is to steal sheep and the sheepdog's job is to beat the shit out of him. Then at the end of the day they leave and say, "hey, see you tomorrow buddy."
And I imagine that Krugman had to write this piece without the benefit of last night's unbelievable debate in which Rubio and Cruz called Trump a fraud and an idiot and a buffoon and then, when asked whether they would support him if he were the nominee, said, "oh sure."
This isn't a situation where you are saying, "Hey, Joe Blow is an intelligent and honorable man, but we disagree on policy." This is a situation where you are spending 2 hours calling someone a fraud and a con man and then at the end say "but, yes, I am OK with that."
It puts me in mind of the Warner Brothers cartoon where the sheepdog and the wolf are friends who go to work every day and the wolf's job is to steal sheep and the sheepdog's job is to beat the shit out of him. Then at the end of the day they leave and say, "hey, see you tomorrow buddy."
Wednesday, March 02, 2016
Ben Carson -- Anticipated Quitter
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ben-carson-sees-no-path-forward-191755324.html
I am going to go with the statement that I think he will quit, given that even Indiana Jones at his peak could not find "a way forward" as Carson says he will need to find in order to continue.
It is amazing the guy could be a great surgeon, because the opinion you get of the guy is that he is really struggling just to get through interacting with people in everyday life.
If the GOP voter doesn't want a guy who stabbed his friends as a youth and who believes that pyramids were grain storage units, how can we possibly appease such voters?
I am going to go with the statement that I think he will quit, given that even Indiana Jones at his peak could not find "a way forward" as Carson says he will need to find in order to continue.
It is amazing the guy could be a great surgeon, because the opinion you get of the guy is that he is really struggling just to get through interacting with people in everyday life.
If the GOP voter doesn't want a guy who stabbed his friends as a youth and who believes that pyramids were grain storage units, how can we possibly appease such voters?
Monday, February 29, 2016
Best Looking Regular People Entry
https://www.facebook.com/TheBestLookingRegularPeople
A Cat? Small children? What kind of entry is this?
A Cat? Small children? What kind of entry is this?
Gawker "Goes There" With The Marco Rubio Infidelity Rumors
http://gawker.com/5994678/here-are-the-career-ending-marco-rubio-rumors-buzzfeed-wants-to-write-about-without-writing-about
I am shocked and disappointed in Gawker. I cannot imagine that women would want to endure that level of sweat and those ears, even for the requisite 17 seconds.
Shame, Gawker, shame!
I am shocked and disappointed in Gawker. I cannot imagine that women would want to endure that level of sweat and those ears, even for the requisite 17 seconds.
Shame, Gawker, shame!
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Numbers 37 through 100 of ESPN's 2016 all-time #NBARank (Not a Click Through)
I will make a note when I think a pick is clearly 10+ spots too high or too low.
37. Rick Berry (I had him at #27, so yes, too low)
38, Walt Frazier
39. Bob Cousy
40. Elvin Hayes
41. Gary Payton (I had him at #35)
42. Bill Walton
The selection of Bill Walton at #42 is more than a little baffling. He is not in the top 100 in either Win Shares or WS/48. In fact, even his 120 great games as a starter did not involve any sort of great WS or WS/48 performance. His 120 great games as a starter did not involve great raw numbers. His positioning at #42 places him only 10 spots behind George Mikan, who won 5 titles, had 3 20 WS seasons, and who was so dominant as a player that they literally changed the rules of the game to hurt him. It cannot be both. Either Mikan is a top 10 player (as I would say) or Walton is out of the top 100 or somewhere down in the 90+ range (as would also befit someone whose career WS arc was similar to that of Marcus Camby and who has one MVP like Derrick Rose).
43. James Worthy
44. Dominique Wilkins
45. Paul Pierce
46. Allan Iverson
(Iverson, a very similar player to Isiah Thomas, falls here while Isiah is #26? I think that the answer (pardon the pun) is that Isiah is WAY WAY WAY too high, while AI is just a little too high.)
47. George Gervin
48. Willis Reed
49. Russell Westbrook
(Russ is an odd case. If you consider that he has had only a couple really good years, you'd place him lower, but how do you reconcile that Steph Curry, whose advanced stats are very similar, is way up at #23? As will be noted later, Harden, Curry and Russ have roughly the same stats. One is at 23, one is at 49 and one is at 97? Is it graded on likeability?)
50. Ray Allen (way too low, I had him at #28 overall, Ray Allen has had a worse career than Westbrook? As far as.....titles? Longevity? What?)
51. Reggie Miller (again, way too low, I had him at #34). Reggie, barring a miracle finish by Kobe, will end up with more career WS than Kobe and a better WS/48. While he toiled in Indiana, and never got to play with Shaq or be coached by Phil Jackson, Reggie deserves better treatment than this.
52. Bob McAdoo
53. Wes Unseld
54. Bernard King
55. Dave Cowens
56. Pau Gasol
57, Robert Parish
58. Tony Parker
59. Carmelo Anthony - he is neither objectively nor subjectively a top 80 player. He has never been first-team all-NBA. He has cracked the top 10 in MVP balloting twice. He just recently reached the top 100 in Win Shares. He has never played on a title team, never reached a finals, only once reached one conference finals (2009) and that team's best player in the playoffs was Chauncey Billups, not Melo. The Myth of Melo appears to derive from the fact that he CAN be a great scorer and he CAN play well when he exerts full effort. But he does not regularly play hard. The only other explanation for his constant overrating is that he has a cool name and was drafted the same year as LeBron James. LeBron James has DOUBLE Melo's career WS and has been 9X first-team all-NBA. If George Clooney were my neighbor, I doubt anyone would say "Oh and HM must be good looking as well, remember, he lives by Clooney"
60. Earl Monroe
61. Manu Ginobili
62. Alex English
63. Tracy McGrady
64. Dennis Rodman
65. Alonzo Mourning
66. Chris Webber -- I agree that this is around where he should fall, but he is viewed by many as a borderline HOF player, so how can he be #66? Mind......blown....
67. Dwight Howard
68. Bob Lanier
69. Vince Carter -- I don't see it. Again, I think ESPN tends to favor guys who COULD be great if they played hard all of the time. Well, that must be a great attribute to have. "HM is the 12th best looking guy in Minneapolis." Huh? "Well, I have seen him when he loses 40 pounds and dresses well. Great looking guy. Um, O....K.
70. Artis Gilmore -- way too low. Look, I will not belabor the point, but he has more career WS than LeBron James right now (as of the date of this entry). Look it up.
71. Pete Maravich
72. Adrian Dantley
73. Dikembe Mutombo
74. Dolph Schayes -- the ESPN panel seemed to basically forget that guys had to play basketball in the early days of the NBA and that some were awfully good and stood out from their peers. ESPN apparently feels capable of simply stating, "Well, so what, the Bird Era guys are way better". Well how do we know? We keep stats across generations, we know how many times he was 1st team all-NBA (6), we know where he stands on today's stats (PER, WS, WS/48) -- all top 36. For seasons above .200 WS/48, Schayes has 7, tied for 16th best all-time. Yet here he is, 15 spots behind Carmelo Anthony, who would need 52 more WS to pass him.
75. Blake Griffin
76. Nate Archibald
77. Joe Dumars -- I love Joe Dumars as a player; love, love, love. But pull out his stats. He is no way a top 100 player of all-time. Love you, Joe D, but no. The constant overrating of Pistons by ESPN is, no doubt, caused by the fact that they ended Bird's run. Anything associated with the 1980s Celts got a huge ratings boost from ESPN.
78. Sam Jones
79. Jerry Lucas
80. Grant Hill
81, Sidney Moncrief
82, David Thompson -- little note here, David Skywalker was a fave of mine. He had 4 great years (2X first-team all-NBA). He is someone it is very hard for me to rate.
83. Chris Mullin
84. Dennis Johnson - No. Not a top 100 player. Similar to Dumars.
85. Dave DeBuscherre
86. Chris Bosh
87. Chauncey Billups -- sit down and review Chauncey's regular season and post-season stats against Isiah's. Then tell me why one is 60 spots higher. There is no way that Vince Carter or Earl Monroe has even a plausible argument that they had a better career than Chauncey.
88. Billy Cunningham
89. Yao Ming
90. Paul Arizin
91. Mo Cheeks - never really an outstanding player. you never said, "Oh no! We have to play against Mo Cheeks!"
92. Nate Thurmond
93. Lenny Wilkins
94. Mark Price -- seems hard to imagine that Mark Price, who really only had 4 really good years in the NBA, would be in the top 100. Is it really worth getting very upset about? Probably not. But it seems odd.
95. Marc Gasol
96. Bobby Jones - I have come around to being OK with this selection. One of the greatest defenders of all-time. It was hard for me to stomach at first because he never finished top 23 in MVP balloting and was 2nd team all-NBA only once, but if you look at his many 1st team All-defense awards and his ranking of around 100 for WS and WS/48, OK, fine.
97. James Harden -- poor James Harden. Now I know he has the stupid beard, but geez, his stats are similar to Curry's and Westbrook's and if he could have flipped a few MVP votes, he'd have an MVP. You could say maybe it should go 40-45-50 for all 3 guys, but you cannot justify where they are now. There is no way you can look at the career of James Harden and say it is not as good as the career of David Thompson (#82) and that is giving Harden exactly ZERO credit for the fact that he is going to play 5-10 more years.
98. Gail Goodrich
99. Kevin Love - I fear he may not ever play well enough again to warrant this position
100. Shawn Kemp -- kinda sketchy pick but he is a personal fave, so I am not gonna argue real hard down here at 100. I will note that when you look at best NBA player careers, he may not even be #1 in "Shawn"s -- (Marion).
37. Rick Berry (I had him at #27, so yes, too low)
38, Walt Frazier
39. Bob Cousy
40. Elvin Hayes
41. Gary Payton (I had him at #35)
42. Bill Walton
The selection of Bill Walton at #42 is more than a little baffling. He is not in the top 100 in either Win Shares or WS/48. In fact, even his 120 great games as a starter did not involve any sort of great WS or WS/48 performance. His 120 great games as a starter did not involve great raw numbers. His positioning at #42 places him only 10 spots behind George Mikan, who won 5 titles, had 3 20 WS seasons, and who was so dominant as a player that they literally changed the rules of the game to hurt him. It cannot be both. Either Mikan is a top 10 player (as I would say) or Walton is out of the top 100 or somewhere down in the 90+ range (as would also befit someone whose career WS arc was similar to that of Marcus Camby and who has one MVP like Derrick Rose).
43. James Worthy
44. Dominique Wilkins
45. Paul Pierce
46. Allan Iverson
(Iverson, a very similar player to Isiah Thomas, falls here while Isiah is #26? I think that the answer (pardon the pun) is that Isiah is WAY WAY WAY too high, while AI is just a little too high.)
47. George Gervin
48. Willis Reed
49. Russell Westbrook
(Russ is an odd case. If you consider that he has had only a couple really good years, you'd place him lower, but how do you reconcile that Steph Curry, whose advanced stats are very similar, is way up at #23? As will be noted later, Harden, Curry and Russ have roughly the same stats. One is at 23, one is at 49 and one is at 97? Is it graded on likeability?)
50. Ray Allen (way too low, I had him at #28 overall, Ray Allen has had a worse career than Westbrook? As far as.....titles? Longevity? What?)
51. Reggie Miller (again, way too low, I had him at #34). Reggie, barring a miracle finish by Kobe, will end up with more career WS than Kobe and a better WS/48. While he toiled in Indiana, and never got to play with Shaq or be coached by Phil Jackson, Reggie deserves better treatment than this.
52. Bob McAdoo
53. Wes Unseld
54. Bernard King
55. Dave Cowens
56. Pau Gasol
57, Robert Parish
58. Tony Parker
59. Carmelo Anthony - he is neither objectively nor subjectively a top 80 player. He has never been first-team all-NBA. He has cracked the top 10 in MVP balloting twice. He just recently reached the top 100 in Win Shares. He has never played on a title team, never reached a finals, only once reached one conference finals (2009) and that team's best player in the playoffs was Chauncey Billups, not Melo. The Myth of Melo appears to derive from the fact that he CAN be a great scorer and he CAN play well when he exerts full effort. But he does not regularly play hard. The only other explanation for his constant overrating is that he has a cool name and was drafted the same year as LeBron James. LeBron James has DOUBLE Melo's career WS and has been 9X first-team all-NBA. If George Clooney were my neighbor, I doubt anyone would say "Oh and HM must be good looking as well, remember, he lives by Clooney"
60. Earl Monroe
61. Manu Ginobili
62. Alex English
63. Tracy McGrady
64. Dennis Rodman
65. Alonzo Mourning
66. Chris Webber -- I agree that this is around where he should fall, but he is viewed by many as a borderline HOF player, so how can he be #66? Mind......blown....
67. Dwight Howard
68. Bob Lanier
69. Vince Carter -- I don't see it. Again, I think ESPN tends to favor guys who COULD be great if they played hard all of the time. Well, that must be a great attribute to have. "HM is the 12th best looking guy in Minneapolis." Huh? "Well, I have seen him when he loses 40 pounds and dresses well. Great looking guy. Um, O....K.
70. Artis Gilmore -- way too low. Look, I will not belabor the point, but he has more career WS than LeBron James right now (as of the date of this entry). Look it up.
71. Pete Maravich
72. Adrian Dantley
73. Dikembe Mutombo
74. Dolph Schayes -- the ESPN panel seemed to basically forget that guys had to play basketball in the early days of the NBA and that some were awfully good and stood out from their peers. ESPN apparently feels capable of simply stating, "Well, so what, the Bird Era guys are way better". Well how do we know? We keep stats across generations, we know how many times he was 1st team all-NBA (6), we know where he stands on today's stats (PER, WS, WS/48) -- all top 36. For seasons above .200 WS/48, Schayes has 7, tied for 16th best all-time. Yet here he is, 15 spots behind Carmelo Anthony, who would need 52 more WS to pass him.
75. Blake Griffin
76. Nate Archibald
77. Joe Dumars -- I love Joe Dumars as a player; love, love, love. But pull out his stats. He is no way a top 100 player of all-time. Love you, Joe D, but no. The constant overrating of Pistons by ESPN is, no doubt, caused by the fact that they ended Bird's run. Anything associated with the 1980s Celts got a huge ratings boost from ESPN.
78. Sam Jones
79. Jerry Lucas
80. Grant Hill
81, Sidney Moncrief
82, David Thompson -- little note here, David Skywalker was a fave of mine. He had 4 great years (2X first-team all-NBA). He is someone it is very hard for me to rate.
83. Chris Mullin
84. Dennis Johnson - No. Not a top 100 player. Similar to Dumars.
85. Dave DeBuscherre
86. Chris Bosh
87. Chauncey Billups -- sit down and review Chauncey's regular season and post-season stats against Isiah's. Then tell me why one is 60 spots higher. There is no way that Vince Carter or Earl Monroe has even a plausible argument that they had a better career than Chauncey.
88. Billy Cunningham
89. Yao Ming
90. Paul Arizin
91. Mo Cheeks - never really an outstanding player. you never said, "Oh no! We have to play against Mo Cheeks!"
92. Nate Thurmond
93. Lenny Wilkins
94. Mark Price -- seems hard to imagine that Mark Price, who really only had 4 really good years in the NBA, would be in the top 100. Is it really worth getting very upset about? Probably not. But it seems odd.
95. Marc Gasol
96. Bobby Jones - I have come around to being OK with this selection. One of the greatest defenders of all-time. It was hard for me to stomach at first because he never finished top 23 in MVP balloting and was 2nd team all-NBA only once, but if you look at his many 1st team All-defense awards and his ranking of around 100 for WS and WS/48, OK, fine.
97. James Harden -- poor James Harden. Now I know he has the stupid beard, but geez, his stats are similar to Curry's and Westbrook's and if he could have flipped a few MVP votes, he'd have an MVP. You could say maybe it should go 40-45-50 for all 3 guys, but you cannot justify where they are now. There is no way you can look at the career of James Harden and say it is not as good as the career of David Thompson (#82) and that is giving Harden exactly ZERO credit for the fact that he is going to play 5-10 more years.
98. Gail Goodrich
99. Kevin Love - I fear he may not ever play well enough again to warrant this position
100. Shawn Kemp -- kinda sketchy pick but he is a personal fave, so I am not gonna argue real hard down here at 100. I will note that when you look at best NBA player careers, he may not even be #1 in "Shawn"s -- (Marion).
Numbers 1 Through 36 of ESPN's 2016 All-Time #NBARank (Not a Cick Through)
Here was ESPN's list from 1 through 100. I have previously rated my top 36, so I will go through and indicate where these guys fell on my list. I will highlight difference of 6+ spots.
1. Michael Jordan (my #1 as well)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (my #3)
3. LeBron James (#4)
4. Magic Johnson (#6)
5. Wilt Chamberlain (#2)
6. Larry Bird (#13)
7. Bill Russell (#8)
8. Tim Duncan (#5)
9. Shaquille O'Neal (#9)
10. Hakeem Olajuwon (#15)
11. Oscar Robertson (#12)
12. Kobe Bryant (#18)
13. Jerry West (#11)
14. Julius Erving (#19)
15. Moses Malone (#16)
16. Karl Malone (#7)
17. Dirk Nowitski (#23)
18. Charles Barkley (#21)
19. John Stockton (#24)
20. David Robinson (#14)
21. Kevin Garnett (#22)
22. Kevin Durant (#25)
23. Stephen Curry (not in my top 36)
24. Elgin Baylor (#20)
25. Scottie Pippen (#36)
26. Isiah Thomas (not in my top 36)
27. Dwyane Wade (#31)
28. John Havlicek (#32)
29. Chris Paul (#26)
30. Steve Nash (#30)
31. Kevin McHale (not on my top 36)
32. Patrick Ewing (#33)
33. George Mikan (my #10)
34. Bob Petit (my #17)
35. Jason Kidd (not in my top 36)
36. Clyde Drexler (my #29)
Guys in my top 36 but not in theirs -- Gary Payton (my #35 their #41), Rick Barry (my #27 their #37), Ray Allen (my #28 their #50), Reggie Miller (my #34 their #51).
1. Michael Jordan (my #1 as well)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (my #3)
3. LeBron James (#4)
4. Magic Johnson (#6)
5. Wilt Chamberlain (#2)
6. Larry Bird (#13)
7. Bill Russell (#8)
8. Tim Duncan (#5)
9. Shaquille O'Neal (#9)
10. Hakeem Olajuwon (#15)
11. Oscar Robertson (#12)
12. Kobe Bryant (#18)
13. Jerry West (#11)
14. Julius Erving (#19)
15. Moses Malone (#16)
16. Karl Malone (#7)
17. Dirk Nowitski (#23)
18. Charles Barkley (#21)
19. John Stockton (#24)
20. David Robinson (#14)
21. Kevin Garnett (#22)
22. Kevin Durant (#25)
23. Stephen Curry (not in my top 36)
24. Elgin Baylor (#20)
25. Scottie Pippen (#36)
26. Isiah Thomas (not in my top 36)
27. Dwyane Wade (#31)
28. John Havlicek (#32)
29. Chris Paul (#26)
30. Steve Nash (#30)
31. Kevin McHale (not on my top 36)
32. Patrick Ewing (#33)
33. George Mikan (my #10)
34. Bob Petit (my #17)
35. Jason Kidd (not in my top 36)
36. Clyde Drexler (my #29)
Guys in my top 36 but not in theirs -- Gary Payton (my #35 their #41), Rick Barry (my #27 their #37), Ray Allen (my #28 their #50), Reggie Miller (my #34 their #51).
Republicans Who Say They Will Not Vote for Trump
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-dilemma-of-conservatives-who-say-theyll-never-vote-for-donald-trump
This is a very interesting article. Some highlights:
1) There is one anti-Trumper who says she would like to vote for herself, then she will be voting for someone whom she agrees 100% with. I hope that is a joke.
2) Bill Kristol (as awful of a person as their is) would prefer to see a (as he puts it) "4th Party" ticket based solely on the need of the U.S. to be dedicated to pursuing war everywhere in the world!!! It is worth noting that Kristol's preferred choice (Dick Cheney) is still alive - I had assumed he was dead, but the fact that he is now more machine than man probably aids him in his longevity.
3) The interesting thing about a lot of these criticisms is that many of the anti-Trumpers do not believe he is conservative ENOUGH!! So, while they don't really mind his tirades against Mexicans and Muslims and his promise to build the world's biggest wall, etc., they fear, for example, that he is not really anti-abortion.
4) This comment is just sad:
Eliot Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a former State Department official in the second Bush Administration, recently tweeted his “short list” of reasons he would never back Trump: “demagoguery, torture, bigotry, misogyny, isolationism, violence. Not the Party of Lincoln & not me.”
He was literally a member of the GWBush Administration and he opposes torture? Ever watch Zero Dark Thirty? Ever read the Bush Administration's pro-torture memos? You WORKED for that administration! Misogyny? Bigotry? That is call "the Republican Base". He is against both "isolationism" (which generally means he wants to intervene in other countries' wars) and "violence" (so we should actively intervene, but cause no violence?).
This is a very interesting article. Some highlights:
1) There is one anti-Trumper who says she would like to vote for herself, then she will be voting for someone whom she agrees 100% with. I hope that is a joke.
2) Bill Kristol (as awful of a person as their is) would prefer to see a (as he puts it) "4th Party" ticket based solely on the need of the U.S. to be dedicated to pursuing war everywhere in the world!!! It is worth noting that Kristol's preferred choice (Dick Cheney) is still alive - I had assumed he was dead, but the fact that he is now more machine than man probably aids him in his longevity.
3) The interesting thing about a lot of these criticisms is that many of the anti-Trumpers do not believe he is conservative ENOUGH!! So, while they don't really mind his tirades against Mexicans and Muslims and his promise to build the world's biggest wall, etc., they fear, for example, that he is not really anti-abortion.
4) This comment is just sad:
Eliot Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a former State Department official in the second Bush Administration, recently tweeted his “short list” of reasons he would never back Trump: “demagoguery, torture, bigotry, misogyny, isolationism, violence. Not the Party of Lincoln & not me.”
He was literally a member of the GWBush Administration and he opposes torture? Ever watch Zero Dark Thirty? Ever read the Bush Administration's pro-torture memos? You WORKED for that administration! Misogyny? Bigotry? That is call "the Republican Base". He is against both "isolationism" (which generally means he wants to intervene in other countries' wars) and "violence" (so we should actively intervene, but cause no violence?).
The other argument against Trump, basically, is that he is a "bad guy." OK, if he is a bad guy, then you have an obligation to affirmatively act to vote for HIS OPPONENT. But those saying Trump is a bad guy just say "uh, I won't vote for him." What a bold statement! I will stand on the sideline and hope he does not win. This is akin to saying that if someone is running through your neighborhood setting houses on fire that you will not run out and give him more matches or a lighter. Bold stance.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Why Fox News and the Republican Party Has Made Donald Trump's Run Possible
In reviewing this article, I found myself slightly agreeing with its premise:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-great-republican-stalemate/470058/
but I think that the reason for the Republican Party possibly ending up with Donald Trump as a nominee needs a little more fleshing out. Here goes.
As I mentioned here: http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-some-people-love-donald-trump.html there are a lot of reasons that some people like Donald Trump. One of the reasons people like Donald Trump is also a primary reason that other people like Bernie Sanders -- each man tells the voters that their lot in life is not their fault and is caused by someone else. In the case of Trump, he blames the failure of his supporters' lives on the usual GOP suspects -- Obama, minorities, immigrants, the politically correct eggheads. Sanders, of course, blames the failure of his supporters to advance in life on the wealthy. His campaign commercials could not help but make you feel better about yourself -- "Are you doing everything right and yet cannot get ahead?" The subtext here being, of course, that YOU are not getting ahead because fucking millionaires are suckling at the government teat, and, otherwise, you'd be rich.
Folks on both sides of the political spectrum can now watch TV and say, "Geez, you know what? I used to think that it was because I never studied and got all Cs and Ds in school. But you know what? It is the fucking _______________ that are holding me back from becoming a nuclear scientist! F them, I am voting for {Trump/Bernie)."
Now, helping out Trump and Sanders in this pitch is the fact that they are running against simply awful opponents. Hillary Clinton is easily one of the most unlikeable politicians in the world. She is not optimistic, she is not enjoyable. She has an awful grating voice and style. She is not attractive. She is unwilling to ever admit a mistake, and she will run 5 miles to take credit for anything positive that ever happened, whether she had anything to do with it or not. She is not someone you want to win ANYTHING. I will probably end up voting for Hillary, but I will not be happy about it.
Trump, on the other hand, gets to run against an awfully motley crew as well. Is there anyone less compelling than (the late) Jeb! Bush? Low energy. Elect me because my brother was an awful President? Marco Rubio - Rick Santorum could not identify ONE accomplishment of Rubio's and Rick was endorsing him! Pro-amnesty anchor baby? Yep, just what GOP voters crave. Ted Cruz - my lord. Unless you believe in a theocracy, how can you vote for Ted Cruz? He is basically a real life version of the lying peddler Mr. Haney from Green Acres. Ben Carson - believes the pyramids were used for grain storage, appears always ready to doze off. Thinks it is a good story to note how he used to stab his best friends (only to be thwarted by a belt buckle). Only John Kasich is a credible candidate, and should probably win the nomination, except he looks like your retired uncle who is late for a meeting with his lawyer and threw on the first jacket he could find. (That plus he had the gall to suggest that the government maybe should protect poor people and the mentally ill).
So, maybe it is possible that if every other choice were not so awful that Trump would struggle more. But, alas, we will never know. So let's examine Trump's approach and see why it appeals to GOP voters weaned on Fox News.
1) The country is falling apart, everything is shit. ("Make America Great Again!") -- Try to watch 45 minutes of Fox News. This message is CONSTANTLY repeated every single day on Fox News. Obama sucks, he is killing us. He is awful, he is the worst, we live, basically in the Dark Ages and instead of a Renaissance we will get Darker Ages. It is repeated every freaking minute of the day.
2) Say ANYTHING you want to say without regard to whether there are facts to support it. This has long been GOP/Fox News orthodoxy. Barack Obama was born in Kenya. He never went to Columbia. He was a poor student. He killed Antonin Scalia. There is no such thing as global warming. Guns don't kill two year olds; their inability to properly operate the gun does. You cannot trust scientists/professors/eggheads. What do they know? They are losers, not cool beer drinkers like you.
Against this background, which has lasted 20+ years, the GOP now wants people to EXAMINE statements made by Donald Trump? "I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it." How do we know that is possible? -- because he says so and only eggheads tell us the opposite. "I will cut off the internet to all terrorist." Um, well, how do you know they are....and how would you??? Blah, blah, blah, Trump says he can do it - I believe him. Are you eggheads in the party gonna tell me that you have "facts" to the contrary. Oh come on! Fox News has warned me about that for 20 years. Believe us, not "facts."
3) Say Things Completely Contrary to Things You Have Said in the Past, Even the Recent Past, Even Yesterday. This is the world of Mitt Romney and John McCain and Scott Walker and Rick Snyder. So, sure, McCain used to be a rather liberal Republican, but TODAY in 2008 he is a hard-core conservative. Sure Mitt Romney created Romney-care, which became ObamaCare, but TODAY in 2012 he is a rock-ribbed health care haters who understands how awful it is. Sure Walker and Snyder ran as common sense conservatives who would help increase union jobs and improve people's wages, but once ELECTED they decided to just become hateful right wingers who destroyed good paying jobs and their states' economies.
Sam Brownback said his tax cuts would boost revenue for Kansas -- it didn't? Well, it was never intended to! Come on. Geez, you guys. tax cuts obviously don't increase revenues. Silly voters - who told you that? "You did." Who are you going to believe, me, or the things the Democrats play to you of me saying on videotape?
4) State a Ton of Things With No Specific Examples -- Illegal immigrants are flooding into the U.S. lately - false, but still stated. Obama is not deporting any illegals -- false, but still a thing. 50% of your paycheck goes to welfare for illegals. Welfare queens driving Cadillacs. Michele Bachmann - HPV vaccines cause mental retardation. Tom Emmer - Minnesota waiters often make over $100,000 a year. "Got any specific examples?" Well, no. I don't need them, everybody knows that. I heard a story from a guy who was told that.....
5) The Media Is Biased Against Conservatives and Cannot Be Trusted. When a Republican says just ridiculous shit "Obama is going to declare martial law and stay on for another 4 years" the media might be expected to ask, "Um, what possible facts do you have to support that?" or, back before 20 years ago the media would actually say, "That is ridiculous, that is just false." The Fox News response (now adopted by the GOP), 'SEE, it MUST be true because the liberal media wants you to THINK it is false!" This "truth-fier" is the greatest invention of all-time for a political party -- "Obama caused Joe the Plumber not to buy a $400,000 business because Joe would pay $400,000 per year in taxes!" Well, there are so many things wrong with that statement, where do we start....SEE! It MUST be true if they are fighting so hard to disprove the statement!
New Section
I do not share today's general Democratic Party hatred for Ronald Reagan. We were desperate for some pride as a country, having lost virtually all of our pride when Carter was President, and Regan brought that pride back. Sure he built up a deficit with his tax cuts and huge spending increases, but for 8 years we were generally better off. When he saw how horrible his budget busting ways were, 6 years in, he worked with the Democrats to raise taxes and get things a little more reasonable.
Reagan believed, generally, in the facts. Sure he had his own opinion of what the facts meant, but he didn't just say stupid shit and make people believe that his lies were facts. Even when Iran-Contra blew up in his face, he sort of 'fessed up; saying it was important to trade arms for hostages and he should have known better if he was paying more attention. (It was a lie, but a slight one and he really didn't think anyone bought it -- he was just too lovable and popular to punish for his misdeed - like your old dog who poops in the entryway one day out of 300).
George H.W. Bush was a smart guy - he could be kind of pompous, but, again, you got the feeling he did what he thought actually was best for the country and listened to facts and logic.
I don't know what happened to the Republican Party thereafter. Maybe it was Gingrich and his scorched earth efforts to hurt Bill Clinton? Maybe it was the success of GW Bush's bullshit "compassionate conservatism" claim, which told political operatives, "Hey, look, maybe we need to just lie to win?" Who knows? But the Republican party since 2000 might as well have renamed itself the We Support Idiots party, Look, there is nothing wrong with trying to cut your own taxes if you are super wealthy. It is a little mean-spirited, but heck, go for it. But the Poor Wing of the party??? My lord.
http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2011/05/rich-wing-romney-poor-wing-palin.html
Sarah Palin? Is there anything more awful than the idea that the Republican Party nominated a person for Vice President who took 5 years to get through 4 different colleges, perhaps distracted by the need to bang Glen Rice and who just generally does not know anything about anything important connected to running a country? Perhaps that is where the safety rope to sanity broke? When the GOP and Fox News had to support that idiot. Is she qualified? Well, certainly. Don't believe what anyone says, she is great, she is awesome. She will really do what is right for YOU!
Who does that Palin love sound like? It sounds like Trump. "Trust me. Things will be great. Greater, greatest. How do I know? Cuz I know - it is on my hat!" Trump has at least done SOMETHING with his life and graduated from impressive schools. While a blowhard, he is not a moron. So, when less than 8 years ago the party and Fox News were all in favor of Sarah Palin, their protestations against Donald Trump fall more than a little flat. Is there a difference between saying inflammatory conservative things and not meaning them (Trump) and saying similar things and being too dumb to understand them and why they make no logical sense (Palin)? Not much of a difference.
Anyway -- this item kind of got away from me, so take it for what it is worth, because I am not editing it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-great-republican-stalemate/470058/
but I think that the reason for the Republican Party possibly ending up with Donald Trump as a nominee needs a little more fleshing out. Here goes.
As I mentioned here: http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-some-people-love-donald-trump.html there are a lot of reasons that some people like Donald Trump. One of the reasons people like Donald Trump is also a primary reason that other people like Bernie Sanders -- each man tells the voters that their lot in life is not their fault and is caused by someone else. In the case of Trump, he blames the failure of his supporters' lives on the usual GOP suspects -- Obama, minorities, immigrants, the politically correct eggheads. Sanders, of course, blames the failure of his supporters to advance in life on the wealthy. His campaign commercials could not help but make you feel better about yourself -- "Are you doing everything right and yet cannot get ahead?" The subtext here being, of course, that YOU are not getting ahead because fucking millionaires are suckling at the government teat, and, otherwise, you'd be rich.
Folks on both sides of the political spectrum can now watch TV and say, "Geez, you know what? I used to think that it was because I never studied and got all Cs and Ds in school. But you know what? It is the fucking _______________ that are holding me back from becoming a nuclear scientist! F them, I am voting for {Trump/Bernie)."
Now, helping out Trump and Sanders in this pitch is the fact that they are running against simply awful opponents. Hillary Clinton is easily one of the most unlikeable politicians in the world. She is not optimistic, she is not enjoyable. She has an awful grating voice and style. She is not attractive. She is unwilling to ever admit a mistake, and she will run 5 miles to take credit for anything positive that ever happened, whether she had anything to do with it or not. She is not someone you want to win ANYTHING. I will probably end up voting for Hillary, but I will not be happy about it.
Trump, on the other hand, gets to run against an awfully motley crew as well. Is there anyone less compelling than (the late) Jeb! Bush? Low energy. Elect me because my brother was an awful President? Marco Rubio - Rick Santorum could not identify ONE accomplishment of Rubio's and Rick was endorsing him! Pro-amnesty anchor baby? Yep, just what GOP voters crave. Ted Cruz - my lord. Unless you believe in a theocracy, how can you vote for Ted Cruz? He is basically a real life version of the lying peddler Mr. Haney from Green Acres. Ben Carson - believes the pyramids were used for grain storage, appears always ready to doze off. Thinks it is a good story to note how he used to stab his best friends (only to be thwarted by a belt buckle). Only John Kasich is a credible candidate, and should probably win the nomination, except he looks like your retired uncle who is late for a meeting with his lawyer and threw on the first jacket he could find. (That plus he had the gall to suggest that the government maybe should protect poor people and the mentally ill).
So, maybe it is possible that if every other choice were not so awful that Trump would struggle more. But, alas, we will never know. So let's examine Trump's approach and see why it appeals to GOP voters weaned on Fox News.
1) The country is falling apart, everything is shit. ("Make America Great Again!") -- Try to watch 45 minutes of Fox News. This message is CONSTANTLY repeated every single day on Fox News. Obama sucks, he is killing us. He is awful, he is the worst, we live, basically in the Dark Ages and instead of a Renaissance we will get Darker Ages. It is repeated every freaking minute of the day.
2) Say ANYTHING you want to say without regard to whether there are facts to support it. This has long been GOP/Fox News orthodoxy. Barack Obama was born in Kenya. He never went to Columbia. He was a poor student. He killed Antonin Scalia. There is no such thing as global warming. Guns don't kill two year olds; their inability to properly operate the gun does. You cannot trust scientists/professors/eggheads. What do they know? They are losers, not cool beer drinkers like you.
Against this background, which has lasted 20+ years, the GOP now wants people to EXAMINE statements made by Donald Trump? "I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it." How do we know that is possible? -- because he says so and only eggheads tell us the opposite. "I will cut off the internet to all terrorist." Um, well, how do you know they are....and how would you??? Blah, blah, blah, Trump says he can do it - I believe him. Are you eggheads in the party gonna tell me that you have "facts" to the contrary. Oh come on! Fox News has warned me about that for 20 years. Believe us, not "facts."
3) Say Things Completely Contrary to Things You Have Said in the Past, Even the Recent Past, Even Yesterday. This is the world of Mitt Romney and John McCain and Scott Walker and Rick Snyder. So, sure, McCain used to be a rather liberal Republican, but TODAY in 2008 he is a hard-core conservative. Sure Mitt Romney created Romney-care, which became ObamaCare, but TODAY in 2012 he is a rock-ribbed health care haters who understands how awful it is. Sure Walker and Snyder ran as common sense conservatives who would help increase union jobs and improve people's wages, but once ELECTED they decided to just become hateful right wingers who destroyed good paying jobs and their states' economies.
Sam Brownback said his tax cuts would boost revenue for Kansas -- it didn't? Well, it was never intended to! Come on. Geez, you guys. tax cuts obviously don't increase revenues. Silly voters - who told you that? "You did." Who are you going to believe, me, or the things the Democrats play to you of me saying on videotape?
4) State a Ton of Things With No Specific Examples -- Illegal immigrants are flooding into the U.S. lately - false, but still stated. Obama is not deporting any illegals -- false, but still a thing. 50% of your paycheck goes to welfare for illegals. Welfare queens driving Cadillacs. Michele Bachmann - HPV vaccines cause mental retardation. Tom Emmer - Minnesota waiters often make over $100,000 a year. "Got any specific examples?" Well, no. I don't need them, everybody knows that. I heard a story from a guy who was told that.....
5) The Media Is Biased Against Conservatives and Cannot Be Trusted. When a Republican says just ridiculous shit "Obama is going to declare martial law and stay on for another 4 years" the media might be expected to ask, "Um, what possible facts do you have to support that?" or, back before 20 years ago the media would actually say, "That is ridiculous, that is just false." The Fox News response (now adopted by the GOP), 'SEE, it MUST be true because the liberal media wants you to THINK it is false!" This "truth-fier" is the greatest invention of all-time for a political party -- "Obama caused Joe the Plumber not to buy a $400,000 business because Joe would pay $400,000 per year in taxes!" Well, there are so many things wrong with that statement, where do we start....SEE! It MUST be true if they are fighting so hard to disprove the statement!
New Section
I do not share today's general Democratic Party hatred for Ronald Reagan. We were desperate for some pride as a country, having lost virtually all of our pride when Carter was President, and Regan brought that pride back. Sure he built up a deficit with his tax cuts and huge spending increases, but for 8 years we were generally better off. When he saw how horrible his budget busting ways were, 6 years in, he worked with the Democrats to raise taxes and get things a little more reasonable.
Reagan believed, generally, in the facts. Sure he had his own opinion of what the facts meant, but he didn't just say stupid shit and make people believe that his lies were facts. Even when Iran-Contra blew up in his face, he sort of 'fessed up; saying it was important to trade arms for hostages and he should have known better if he was paying more attention. (It was a lie, but a slight one and he really didn't think anyone bought it -- he was just too lovable and popular to punish for his misdeed - like your old dog who poops in the entryway one day out of 300).
George H.W. Bush was a smart guy - he could be kind of pompous, but, again, you got the feeling he did what he thought actually was best for the country and listened to facts and logic.
I don't know what happened to the Republican Party thereafter. Maybe it was Gingrich and his scorched earth efforts to hurt Bill Clinton? Maybe it was the success of GW Bush's bullshit "compassionate conservatism" claim, which told political operatives, "Hey, look, maybe we need to just lie to win?" Who knows? But the Republican party since 2000 might as well have renamed itself the We Support Idiots party, Look, there is nothing wrong with trying to cut your own taxes if you are super wealthy. It is a little mean-spirited, but heck, go for it. But the Poor Wing of the party??? My lord.
http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2011/05/rich-wing-romney-poor-wing-palin.html
Sarah Palin? Is there anything more awful than the idea that the Republican Party nominated a person for Vice President who took 5 years to get through 4 different colleges, perhaps distracted by the need to bang Glen Rice and who just generally does not know anything about anything important connected to running a country? Perhaps that is where the safety rope to sanity broke? When the GOP and Fox News had to support that idiot. Is she qualified? Well, certainly. Don't believe what anyone says, she is great, she is awesome. She will really do what is right for YOU!
Who does that Palin love sound like? It sounds like Trump. "Trust me. Things will be great. Greater, greatest. How do I know? Cuz I know - it is on my hat!" Trump has at least done SOMETHING with his life and graduated from impressive schools. While a blowhard, he is not a moron. So, when less than 8 years ago the party and Fox News were all in favor of Sarah Palin, their protestations against Donald Trump fall more than a little flat. Is there a difference between saying inflammatory conservative things and not meaning them (Trump) and saying similar things and being too dumb to understand them and why they make no logical sense (Palin)? Not much of a difference.
Anyway -- this item kind of got away from me, so take it for what it is worth, because I am not editing it.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
The Evolution of the Game of Basketball
http://www.hooptactics.com/Basketball_Basics_History
Some things you would have thought would take a long time (the rule of 5 players per side, the idea of a glass backboard) came really early on.
Other things you would have thought would have been abandoned very early lasted a long time (center jump after every made basket lasted until the start of 1938, even though there were open bottomed nets being used as early as 1912!).
Good stuff.
Some things you would have thought would take a long time (the rule of 5 players per side, the idea of a glass backboard) came really early on.
Other things you would have thought would have been abandoned very early lasted a long time (center jump after every made basket lasted until the start of 1938, even though there were open bottomed nets being used as early as 1912!).
Good stuff.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Carly Fiorina - Quitter
I tried real hard to find a picture of her where she looks hideous. You know what? When she is not talking, she is actually pretty good looking, and, when shot from far enough away and from below (as pictured), can actually look pretty good.
Hmmmm. Goodbye - she will not be missed.
Hmmmm. Goodbye - she will not be missed.
Chris Christie -- Quitter
https://gma.yahoo.com/chris-christie-expected-formally-end-presidential-bid-early-161038064--abc-news-topstories.html#
Add this one-word descriptor to "fat" and "blowhard" and you have three good choices for Christie.
If only he had ever told voters that he used to be a federal prosecutor - I think that could have made the difference.
I guess he won't be kicking Barack Obama's ass out of the White House anytime soon.
On the plus side, he did manage to eviscerate the pathetic pro-amnesty anchor baby robot Marco Rubio before exiting.
Add this one-word descriptor to "fat" and "blowhard" and you have three good choices for Christie.
If only he had ever told voters that he used to be a federal prosecutor - I think that could have made the difference.
I guess he won't be kicking Barack Obama's ass out of the White House anytime soon.
On the plus side, he did manage to eviscerate the pathetic pro-amnesty anchor baby robot Marco Rubio before exiting.
Tuesday, February 09, 2016
Cam Newton Studied Kyle Korver's Late Game Effort
Newton did not jump on the fumble, much as Korver thought better of stepping in front of LeBron James here:
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
The Most Egregious Errors Thus Far In ESPN's All-Time #nbarank
Through today we are up to #26 (Isiah Thomas), who, coincidentally, is one of the greatest mistakes. Isiah's career "advanced stats" are roughly equivalent to Stephon Marbury's and his WS/48 number of .109 does not register in the top 250 all-time.
If you look at Isiah's awards, he was only first-team all-NBA three times and all-NBA second team twice. He never finished in the top 4 of the MVP balloting in any year.
1) So, Isiah Thomas - should be around 60, is ranked 26th -- huge error. If we are awarding spots for titles and title appearances, then why is Chauncey Billups at #87? Chauncey 121 WS, .176 WS/48, 38 VORP. Read this and then ask if one guy should be 61 spots higher than the other: http://bkref.com/tiny/8JCjG
2) Bob Pettit and George Mikan -- two of the greatest basketball players of all-time. Mikan led his teams to 5 titles and was so dominant that the league changed its rules to hurt him. He had 3 20 WS seasons. Bob Pettit was 2X MVP of the league and 10X first-team all-NBA. He retired as the NBA's all-time leading scorer.
ESPN has these guys ranked ##33 and 34. Now, compare their ranking to Larry Bird and Kevin McHale. McHale was 1X all-NBA and never challenged for an MVP. ESPN has him ranked at #31!!! Pettit's career is far more akin to Bird's career (top dog on a team that constantly challenged for titles) than it is McHale's. Bird will be top 15.
ESPN has Bill Walton ranked as the #42 best player in NBA history, largely based upon his 1 MVP and his title with Portland. Walton played a total of 120 great NBA games as a starter and 80 more as a 6th man (and a 20 mpg 6th man at that). Yet George Mikan, who had 3 of the best seasons ever played and led his team to 5 titles, ranks a meager 9 spots higher? How? Why?
3) As noted, Bill Walton is far too high. His career resembles that of Derrick Rose. Rose is not even listed in the top 100. Yao Ming was a great player for 6 years or so -- he is #89. The Walton ranking is nonsensical. Did he have a better career than Bob McAdoo (#52)? No. He did not.
4) The Steph Curry ranking (God knows where he will end up) is maddening. If you compare career stats for Curry, Westbrook and Harden, they are very comparable. Yet Harden is #97, Westbrook is #49 and Curry appears headed for a top 20 ranking. Where will the madness end? I mean, Steve Nash was 2X MVP and he played forever and he is already ranked (#30). There is no way that Stephen Curry has had a better career than Chris Paul (#29) so far.
The only way you can rank Curry as high as they have is to say to yourself, "Well, we think these past two years will generally be an average year for Steph going forward". If you believe that, then why not just rank him #1? His current season will be maybe the best season ever played, so why not just put him in front of Jordan?
5) Artis Gilmore at #70 is given absolutely no credit for his 5X first-team all-ABA performances or his nearly 190 total ABA/NBA WS. He is ranked behind Vince Carter? 5 spots above Blake Griffin? 11 spots behind Carmelo?
6) Almost Every Old Player Gets the Shaft -- I mean, put to one side Pettit and Mikan (who are both underrated by 20+ spots). Dolph Schayes was 6X first-team all-NBA and 6X second-team. he is ranked at #74, 3 spots above Joe Dumars (never first-team all-NBA). Hal Greer and Dave Bing and Bill Sharman were top 50 players as late as the 1996 list, They are now erased from this current top 100 list (Sharman, a 4X first-team all-NBA player, being the worst snub).
Neal Johnston should have a movie made about him called "The Player Whom Everyone Forgot." http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsne01.html 4X first-team all-NBA. Led the league in WS 5X, couldn't edge out Shawn Kemp?
7) The pro-Boston bias for guys in the Bird Era is pretty apparent. Walton and McHale are 30 spots too high. Dennis Johnson is listed (#84) as a better player than Chris Bosh (#86) There is absolutely no basis for that. http://bkref.com/tiny/5SUja DJ is not a top 100 player. Robert Parish is 13 spots higher than Artis Gilmore? 11 spots higher than Bob Lanier? The 3rd best guy on the Celtics (maybe the 4th offensive option)?
8) There are certain guys on the list that appear to just be "OK, how about him" or "Hey, I used to watch this guy" entries. Mark Price yes, but Dave Bing no. Mo Cheeks yes, but Paul Westphal no? Bobby Jones (who basically never started) yes, but Buck Williams and Horace Grant no? What did poor Jack Sikma do piss off the basketball powers that be? Look at his chart of "similarity scores". 7 of the top 8 "most similar" guys are on the top 100 list. Sikma? He is no Gail Goodrich, Kevin Love or Shawn Kemp.
That is it for now. We can only hope the errors do not become worse ##1-25. Scottie Pippen (my #36) and Steph Curry better show up soon.
If you look at Isiah's awards, he was only first-team all-NBA three times and all-NBA second team twice. He never finished in the top 4 of the MVP balloting in any year.
1) So, Isiah Thomas - should be around 60, is ranked 26th -- huge error. If we are awarding spots for titles and title appearances, then why is Chauncey Billups at #87? Chauncey 121 WS, .176 WS/48, 38 VORP. Read this and then ask if one guy should be 61 spots higher than the other: http://bkref.com/tiny/8JCjG
2) Bob Pettit and George Mikan -- two of the greatest basketball players of all-time. Mikan led his teams to 5 titles and was so dominant that the league changed its rules to hurt him. He had 3 20 WS seasons. Bob Pettit was 2X MVP of the league and 10X first-team all-NBA. He retired as the NBA's all-time leading scorer.
ESPN has these guys ranked ##33 and 34. Now, compare their ranking to Larry Bird and Kevin McHale. McHale was 1X all-NBA and never challenged for an MVP. ESPN has him ranked at #31!!! Pettit's career is far more akin to Bird's career (top dog on a team that constantly challenged for titles) than it is McHale's. Bird will be top 15.
ESPN has Bill Walton ranked as the #42 best player in NBA history, largely based upon his 1 MVP and his title with Portland. Walton played a total of 120 great NBA games as a starter and 80 more as a 6th man (and a 20 mpg 6th man at that). Yet George Mikan, who had 3 of the best seasons ever played and led his team to 5 titles, ranks a meager 9 spots higher? How? Why?
3) As noted, Bill Walton is far too high. His career resembles that of Derrick Rose. Rose is not even listed in the top 100. Yao Ming was a great player for 6 years or so -- he is #89. The Walton ranking is nonsensical. Did he have a better career than Bob McAdoo (#52)? No. He did not.
4) The Steph Curry ranking (God knows where he will end up) is maddening. If you compare career stats for Curry, Westbrook and Harden, they are very comparable. Yet Harden is #97, Westbrook is #49 and Curry appears headed for a top 20 ranking. Where will the madness end? I mean, Steve Nash was 2X MVP and he played forever and he is already ranked (#30). There is no way that Stephen Curry has had a better career than Chris Paul (#29) so far.
The only way you can rank Curry as high as they have is to say to yourself, "Well, we think these past two years will generally be an average year for Steph going forward". If you believe that, then why not just rank him #1? His current season will be maybe the best season ever played, so why not just put him in front of Jordan?
5) Artis Gilmore at #70 is given absolutely no credit for his 5X first-team all-ABA performances or his nearly 190 total ABA/NBA WS. He is ranked behind Vince Carter? 5 spots above Blake Griffin? 11 spots behind Carmelo?
6) Almost Every Old Player Gets the Shaft -- I mean, put to one side Pettit and Mikan (who are both underrated by 20+ spots). Dolph Schayes was 6X first-team all-NBA and 6X second-team. he is ranked at #74, 3 spots above Joe Dumars (never first-team all-NBA). Hal Greer and Dave Bing and Bill Sharman were top 50 players as late as the 1996 list, They are now erased from this current top 100 list (Sharman, a 4X first-team all-NBA player, being the worst snub).
Neal Johnston should have a movie made about him called "The Player Whom Everyone Forgot." http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsne01.html 4X first-team all-NBA. Led the league in WS 5X, couldn't edge out Shawn Kemp?
7) The pro-Boston bias for guys in the Bird Era is pretty apparent. Walton and McHale are 30 spots too high. Dennis Johnson is listed (#84) as a better player than Chris Bosh (#86) There is absolutely no basis for that. http://bkref.com/tiny/5SUja DJ is not a top 100 player. Robert Parish is 13 spots higher than Artis Gilmore? 11 spots higher than Bob Lanier? The 3rd best guy on the Celtics (maybe the 4th offensive option)?
8) There are certain guys on the list that appear to just be "OK, how about him" or "Hey, I used to watch this guy" entries. Mark Price yes, but Dave Bing no. Mo Cheeks yes, but Paul Westphal no? Bobby Jones (who basically never started) yes, but Buck Williams and Horace Grant no? What did poor Jack Sikma do piss off the basketball powers that be? Look at his chart of "similarity scores". 7 of the top 8 "most similar" guys are on the top 100 list. Sikma? He is no Gail Goodrich, Kevin Love or Shawn Kemp.
That is it for now. We can only hope the errors do not become worse ##1-25. Scottie Pippen (my #36) and Steph Curry better show up soon.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
My Continued Lament as a Timberwolves Fan
The Wolves just sent me a bill for season tickets next year -- an extra $600. One would think that such a request from a 14-35 club would at least come with a handwritten apology from the owner. Something like, "Geez, I am sorry that we have completely fucked you over since May of 2004, but you see, I am only worth around $2 billion, so I need to make you pay more while you put three kids through school." You know, something like that.
The last time the Timberwolves made the playoffs, I had just turned 40 and my kids were 10-8-6. It is now 12 years later and they are still sending me bills and explaining from time to time that they are rebuilding and really have a solid young nucleus for the future. And we are 14-35.
Who is the Timberwolves' General Manager/VP of Basketball Operations? Milt Newton. The number of front offices that Milt Newton has run pre-2015? Zero. His hiring announcement for the Wolves says he was the Wizards' Vice President of Player Personnel for.......10 years. During that time in Washington he was the front office.........third in charge. What this resume would suggest is that the Wiz had two guys who they thought were better equipped for the job, and, no one in the NBA believed that Newton was worth looking at, even as a second banana. Now that may not be true, but that is what it looks like -- Newton was a third stringer for a mediocre D.C. organization and moved up to second string by going to a far worse organization.
Who is our coach? Sam Mitchell -- career record before this year? 156-189. After being fired by the Toronto Raptors, Sam was hired and then demoted as an assistant coach for the Nets. Sam's last head coaching task before the Wolves was to coach the US Select team in the 2012 William Jones Cup in Taiwan. The U.S. took....third place.
So, that is our coach and GM. But you know what? Hey, a mediocre coach like Doc Rivers had Tom Thibodeau as and assistant and reached the NBA finals, winning in 2008. So you can win with good assistants..........like, say, Sidney Lowe? Ryan Saunders? Rick Adelman -- oh wait, it is David Adelman. Look, my son has a lot of skills and he is far superior to me in a lot of ways. If I retired or died tomorrow, however, I would recommend hiring him as your attorney on the basis that I am/was his father. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't do that.
The lack of quality on the basketball side of the operation can be seen in the season thus far. Andrew Wiggins has talent -- he has declined as a player. Karl-Anthony Towns is the best rookie the Wolves have ever had (and we have had Garnett and Marbury) by a lot. I despise how Zach LaVine plays, but he has had a nice 4 game stretch here. And we are.....14-35. We may be headed for another 60 loss season.
OK, so we are having YET ANOTHER rebuilding year. But that is OK, because we are giving minutes to young guys like Tyus Jones.........oh, wait, we just played Andre Miller 12 minutes and Tyus Jones 0. And Tayshaun Prince over 30 minutes.
My mom will turn 80 on March 19. That same day, Andre Miller will be half as old as my mom. If we are 14-35, we do not want someone playing who is half as old as my mom. Tayshaun Prince is a professional, and he is willing to play as long as you ask him to play, but he will soon be 36 years old. He has a 6.3 PER (league average is 15) and he plays starter minutes for us. Why? What possible reason could there be for this?
If the reason that we are playing Andre Miller and Tayshaun Prince is that we are trying to win games, then why are we not REALLY trying to win games? If you were coaching this team and someone told you, "OK, you are going to be shot and killed if you do not win 35 games" what would you do? 1) You'd play Towns 40 minutes a night -- he is so obviously your best player on both ends of the floor. 2) you would run plays so that every time down you would have Towns touch the ball at least twice. 3) you'd play Shabazz 30 minutes a night. 4) you would play Rubio 40 minutes a night. 5) You'd tell Wiggins that he needs to get 2 blocks and 3 offensive rebounds a night to justify starter minutes. If you cannot do that, you go down to 24 minutes a night and we will play Tayshaun more.
You would probably also try to find the best advice you could get from folks who are currently out of work (Scott Brooks and Tom Thibodeau maybe) and say, "how do I run an offense? how do I run a defense?" I mean, you have to win 35 games, you cannot be proud. Just ask. Hell, beg.
But the problem with the Timberwolves is that there is no accountability, no sense of urgency. Kurt Rambis was allowed to go 32-132. Think about that. David Kahn was allowed to pass on Steph Curry twice, once for Jonny Flynn. Kept his job for three years.
Rick Adelman was +9, +5 +9 in his three years as the Wolves coach, going from 17-65 (Rambis) to 40-42. Then after Adelman left the Wolves went 16-66 under Flip.
The Wolves after going 16-66 got Karl-Anthony Towns, who may put up 7 Win Shares. Yet the Wolves appear ready to completely squander his effort (LeBron as a rookie had 5.1 WS but the Cavs won 18 more games than the prior year).
Anyway, just another long lament to note how awful I feel and how the Wolves continue to kick me in the balls and then send me a bill for the privilege. As a Timberwolves fane, I am..........the gambler from "Let It Ride" where the main character asks the gambler why, instead of betting $200, the gambler doesn't just give the main character $100 and let the main character kick him in the balls -- it would be quicker and cheaper.
The last time the Timberwolves made the playoffs, I had just turned 40 and my kids were 10-8-6. It is now 12 years later and they are still sending me bills and explaining from time to time that they are rebuilding and really have a solid young nucleus for the future. And we are 14-35.
Who is the Timberwolves' General Manager/VP of Basketball Operations? Milt Newton. The number of front offices that Milt Newton has run pre-2015? Zero. His hiring announcement for the Wolves says he was the Wizards' Vice President of Player Personnel for.......10 years. During that time in Washington he was the front office.........third in charge. What this resume would suggest is that the Wiz had two guys who they thought were better equipped for the job, and, no one in the NBA believed that Newton was worth looking at, even as a second banana. Now that may not be true, but that is what it looks like -- Newton was a third stringer for a mediocre D.C. organization and moved up to second string by going to a far worse organization.
Who is our coach? Sam Mitchell -- career record before this year? 156-189. After being fired by the Toronto Raptors, Sam was hired and then demoted as an assistant coach for the Nets. Sam's last head coaching task before the Wolves was to coach the US Select team in the 2012 William Jones Cup in Taiwan. The U.S. took....third place.
So, that is our coach and GM. But you know what? Hey, a mediocre coach like Doc Rivers had Tom Thibodeau as and assistant and reached the NBA finals, winning in 2008. So you can win with good assistants..........like, say, Sidney Lowe? Ryan Saunders? Rick Adelman -- oh wait, it is David Adelman. Look, my son has a lot of skills and he is far superior to me in a lot of ways. If I retired or died tomorrow, however, I would recommend hiring him as your attorney on the basis that I am/was his father. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't do that.
The lack of quality on the basketball side of the operation can be seen in the season thus far. Andrew Wiggins has talent -- he has declined as a player. Karl-Anthony Towns is the best rookie the Wolves have ever had (and we have had Garnett and Marbury) by a lot. I despise how Zach LaVine plays, but he has had a nice 4 game stretch here. And we are.....14-35. We may be headed for another 60 loss season.
OK, so we are having YET ANOTHER rebuilding year. But that is OK, because we are giving minutes to young guys like Tyus Jones.........oh, wait, we just played Andre Miller 12 minutes and Tyus Jones 0. And Tayshaun Prince over 30 minutes.
My mom will turn 80 on March 19. That same day, Andre Miller will be half as old as my mom. If we are 14-35, we do not want someone playing who is half as old as my mom. Tayshaun Prince is a professional, and he is willing to play as long as you ask him to play, but he will soon be 36 years old. He has a 6.3 PER (league average is 15) and he plays starter minutes for us. Why? What possible reason could there be for this?
If the reason that we are playing Andre Miller and Tayshaun Prince is that we are trying to win games, then why are we not REALLY trying to win games? If you were coaching this team and someone told you, "OK, you are going to be shot and killed if you do not win 35 games" what would you do? 1) You'd play Towns 40 minutes a night -- he is so obviously your best player on both ends of the floor. 2) you would run plays so that every time down you would have Towns touch the ball at least twice. 3) you'd play Shabazz 30 minutes a night. 4) you would play Rubio 40 minutes a night. 5) You'd tell Wiggins that he needs to get 2 blocks and 3 offensive rebounds a night to justify starter minutes. If you cannot do that, you go down to 24 minutes a night and we will play Tayshaun more.
You would probably also try to find the best advice you could get from folks who are currently out of work (Scott Brooks and Tom Thibodeau maybe) and say, "how do I run an offense? how do I run a defense?" I mean, you have to win 35 games, you cannot be proud. Just ask. Hell, beg.
But the problem with the Timberwolves is that there is no accountability, no sense of urgency. Kurt Rambis was allowed to go 32-132. Think about that. David Kahn was allowed to pass on Steph Curry twice, once for Jonny Flynn. Kept his job for three years.
Rick Adelman was +9, +5 +9 in his three years as the Wolves coach, going from 17-65 (Rambis) to 40-42. Then after Adelman left the Wolves went 16-66 under Flip.
The Wolves after going 16-66 got Karl-Anthony Towns, who may put up 7 Win Shares. Yet the Wolves appear ready to completely squander his effort (LeBron as a rookie had 5.1 WS but the Cavs won 18 more games than the prior year).
Anyway, just another long lament to note how awful I feel and how the Wolves continue to kick me in the balls and then send me a bill for the privilege. As a Timberwolves fane, I am..........the gambler from "Let It Ride" where the main character asks the gambler why, instead of betting $200, the gambler doesn't just give the main character $100 and let the main character kick him in the balls -- it would be quicker and cheaper.
Friday, January 29, 2016
ESPN's NBA Rank Reaches its Final 36
My list of 36 contains 32 guys currently not already ranked in the top 100 by ESPN.
I lost 4 guys from my top 36: I am told that I overrated Ray Allen by 22 spots (50 v. 28); Reggie Miller by 17 spots (51 v. 34), Rick Barry by 10 (37 v. 27) and Gary Payton (41 v. 35).
Here are my 32 remaining guys listed alphabetically by last name):
Kareem, Barkley, Baylor, Bird, Kobe, Wilt, Drexler, Duncan, Durant, Dr. J, Ewing, KG, Havlicek, LeBron, Magic, Jordan, Karl Malone, Moses Malone, George Mikan, Nash, Dirk, Hakeem, Shaq, Chris Paul, Bob Petit, Pippen, Oscar, David Robinson, Russell, Stockton, Wade, West.
I cannot imagine that the remaining 32 guys are not absolute locks to be in ESPN's top 36. Who are the 3 absolute worst guys on my list? Pippen, Ewing and Havlicek? Are those guys gonna be ranked below 100? No.
So who are the 4 guys I missed (supposedly underrated)? We know that, right or (very) wrong, Steph Curry will be on the ESPN top 36.
Of the guys who were on the 1996 Top 50 list and who have not yet been ranked by ESPN in its top 100, we have remaining Dave Bing, Hal Greer, Kevin McHale, and Bill Sharman. You gotta think that McHale at least will make it.
I did not have Jason Kidd on my list, as I did not evaluate him as a top 36 player (was Jason Kidd as good as the guys I have in my top 36? I'd say no.). But he did play 50,000 minutes, so I imagine he will be another fill-in.
Then if you look at the ESPN PG ratings you will see that they have Isiah Thomas above Chris Paul and Kidd, so Isiah will make it.
Therefore, look for ESPN to add McHale, Kidd, Thomas, and Curry to my top 32, probably in that order. Hell, Curry might be #1 overall in their minds.
So what will be the horrible glaring errors for ESPN's #nbarank?
Well, in 1996, Dave Bing, Hal Greer, and Bill Sharman were considered top 50 all-time players by a panel of experts. These three gentlemen are not in the #nbarank top 100. Seems hard to imagine.
In addition, poor Neal Johnston continues to be completely forgotten. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsne01.html Now, compare Neal Johnston's NBA statistics and honors with those of Yao Ming (their #89) or Bill Walton (their #42) and tell me that Neal Johnston deserves to be left out of the top 100 completely.
HM
I lost 4 guys from my top 36: I am told that I overrated Ray Allen by 22 spots (50 v. 28); Reggie Miller by 17 spots (51 v. 34), Rick Barry by 10 (37 v. 27) and Gary Payton (41 v. 35).
Here are my 32 remaining guys listed alphabetically by last name):
Kareem, Barkley, Baylor, Bird, Kobe, Wilt, Drexler, Duncan, Durant, Dr. J, Ewing, KG, Havlicek, LeBron, Magic, Jordan, Karl Malone, Moses Malone, George Mikan, Nash, Dirk, Hakeem, Shaq, Chris Paul, Bob Petit, Pippen, Oscar, David Robinson, Russell, Stockton, Wade, West.
I cannot imagine that the remaining 32 guys are not absolute locks to be in ESPN's top 36. Who are the 3 absolute worst guys on my list? Pippen, Ewing and Havlicek? Are those guys gonna be ranked below 100? No.
So who are the 4 guys I missed (supposedly underrated)? We know that, right or (very) wrong, Steph Curry will be on the ESPN top 36.
Of the guys who were on the 1996 Top 50 list and who have not yet been ranked by ESPN in its top 100, we have remaining Dave Bing, Hal Greer, Kevin McHale, and Bill Sharman. You gotta think that McHale at least will make it.
I did not have Jason Kidd on my list, as I did not evaluate him as a top 36 player (was Jason Kidd as good as the guys I have in my top 36? I'd say no.). But he did play 50,000 minutes, so I imagine he will be another fill-in.
Then if you look at the ESPN PG ratings you will see that they have Isiah Thomas above Chris Paul and Kidd, so Isiah will make it.
Therefore, look for ESPN to add McHale, Kidd, Thomas, and Curry to my top 32, probably in that order. Hell, Curry might be #1 overall in their minds.
So what will be the horrible glaring errors for ESPN's #nbarank?
Well, in 1996, Dave Bing, Hal Greer, and Bill Sharman were considered top 50 all-time players by a panel of experts. These three gentlemen are not in the #nbarank top 100. Seems hard to imagine.
In addition, poor Neal Johnston continues to be completely forgotten. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsne01.html Now, compare Neal Johnston's NBA statistics and honors with those of Yao Ming (their #89) or Bill Walton (their #42) and tell me that Neal Johnston deserves to be left out of the top 100 completely.
HM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)