Well, I'm not really giving the tribute yet, because they're not gone yet. But they will be, and maybe before this day is over. I'm tired of trying to take care of them, and I think it'd be good to make a positive impression tomorrow at Willamette High School with the other teachers. So I may sell out and join the establishment.
(The inner turmoil is pretty terrible. I actually feel a little sick to my stomach right now, because I don't want to cut my hair, but I also think it could be really good for my next three months to start off really well tomorrow. Aargh.)
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
My grades
I just checked and my grades for the summer have been posted. I had four classes, two that were pass/no pass and two that were graded. I'm quite happy to report two Ps an A and an A-. Not bad for doing as much work as I wanted to learn stuff that I cared about, and none to get good grades. I'm pretty proud of that, since I feel like I got something out of my classes but didn't let them control me at all. Take that grad school, take that.
Sorry, I was a little out of control at the end there.
Sorry, I was a little out of control at the end there.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
In lieu of substance...
I am intent again on adapting Maniac Magee into a screenplay. I've been thinking about it recently, and think I'll get started on it. Sorry that I'm not writing any of my own stuff. (The sorry is probably more for me, because I wish I had more of my own stuff in me.)
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Zach Randolph
I've been a fan of Randolph since his third season. I admit that I was very skeptical when we drafted him, but I came around quickly, and was really happy that we gave him the HUGE extension. This summer there has been some talk that they might dump him now that Magloire and LaFrentz have come in. That would be really really really really (ad infinitum) stupid. Last year Randolph's big numbers--points and rebounds--dropped, but so did his bad numbers--turnovers--and some other numbers came up, like steals, blocks, 3pt shots/percentage, and assists. In addition, from what I've read and seen this summer, he's working really hard to get into great shape and has even trimmed up a bit. Here's a link to his player page at the Blazers website, it has video on it that made me pretty giddy. It also had an ad that made me want to buy season tickets, even though that would be really dumb. I'm looking into it anyway.
So there's that.
So there's that.
Monday, July 31, 2006
One more thing to add
The Knicks, who seem to be attempting to prove that they really don't know how to stop making absolutely horrible moves, have signed Jared Jeffries to an offer sheet. It seems likely that the Wizards won't match it. This means that they would need more depth in the front court, since Jeffries played all three positions there last year. Maybe the Jamison/Booth for Miles/LaFrentz would be more appealing to them to help shore up the depth issue. And I apologize for publishing so much so quickly after being away for a while.
I should clarify, I'm apologizing to my grad program and my grades.
I should clarify, I'm apologizing to my grad program and my grades.
Addendum to trade post, RE: The Sports Guy's NBA trade value index
I assume that most of the people who read my blog and would care enough to read the trade scenarios I just listed are already familiar with the Sports Guy. But in case that isn't true, there are a few things you should know. First, you should acquaint yourself with his article on the trade value of the top 40 NBA players. The link is in the title and here. You should also know that only two of the guys I listed are in the top 40, both in "Group F: 'Shhhhhh ... We'll Discuss Him, But You Can't Tell ANYONE.'" Allen Iverson is number 24 and Shawn Marion is number 21. So the other three main pieces I talked about, Grant Hill, Antawn Jamison, and Rashard Lewis, are at least not in the Sports Guy's top 40. Of course this doesn't mean they're up for any trade that comes down the line, but it does show that at least one enlightened analyst sees them as the kinds of players that could be available if a decent offer comes up. And LaFrentz/Miles just might be the kind of decent/intriguing offer needed for these sorts of players.
Some trade ideas
I should have been doing homework for the last while, but instead I was working on potential trades for the Blazers. I had to do three-way trades because ESPN doesn't have the Magloire-Blake/Ha/Skinner move in yet, but these are my favorite ones so far, all of which do some good things for the Blazers, I think, including freeing up cap space for next season in most of the moves.
I'm still not sure if I want to get rid of Miles, but if so, then these are deals I would do. I'm not saying any of the other teams would pull the trigger, but they could be intrigued. Miles was pretty explosive--defense, points, excitement--before getting hurt last year. And LaFrentz brings something to the table for a lot of teams. So here are the moves I would want to make, in no particular order (because I can't decide which one would work the best, considering chemistry and potential of people like Travis Outlaw, Martell Webster, and Brandon Roy).
I don't think that Philly is willing to give up AI anymore, but if they were, I think this deal would be great for Portland, and could even be decent for the Sixers. They could move Igoudala to the 2 spot and let him and Miles fly around together, and then they would have some more crappy bulk in the middle.
This one is intriguing for a number of reasons. I really want to see Travis Outlaw thrive, and bringing in Hill would do several things to help with that.
!) It would give him a proven veteran to learn under. 2) It would show that Outlaw is still is the SF of the future, since Hill's contract is up next year. 3) If Hill is healthy, he could bring a ton to the table for Portland, really the opposite of Miles in terms of locker room presence. This could be interesting for Orlanda too, since I still think Miles could burn the league up in the future, and all that junk I already said about LaFrentz.
Of these last three major pieces, I like Marion the least as a player. I love his numbers, but think that he thrives more in a system, and I don't
know how he would fit in Portland's system. Having said that, I also know that he is a very good player. Oh yeah, and I know that Phoenix would probably not entertain this deal, although getting LaFrentz could be enticing in some ways. He's a center, so Amare wouldn't have to be the 5. (Which is good, since he doesn't want to be.) But he is also an oft-perimeter player, filling in nicely for the departed Tim Thomas. He also brings another shot-blocking presence to the sieve-like defense. And Miles likes to run. A lot. Maybe this would be worth thinking about.*
Jamison is my favorite of these last three major players. I like his game, I think he is
unselfish, and I think he would be a lot of fun. He's a well-rounded player, more than Lewis but less than Marion maybe, but mainly I just like him. I don't know how this could help the Wizards, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't consider the deal.
This last deal is the one I would most want to see Portland do. I like Lewis' contract more than any of the other players involved, and because Fortson is so expensive--not to mention terrible--I think he would be worth dumping to take on
LaFrentz's terrible contract. Also, because the Sonics have so many problems with the front-court, this could help them. LaFrentz isn't better than Swift, Sene, and Petro? And Seattle just got rid of Mikki Moore, one of their other centers. LaFrentz would also fill, slightly, the front-court shooter spot that Lewis would be vacating. Miles gives them a strong 3, so that they would have Ridnour, Allen, Miles, Wilcox/Collison, and LaFrentz. I'm convincing myself that this could be a decent team. Portland gets a great young player on the cheap in Lewis and takes on a terrible contract in Fortson, but that comes off the books next summer, which frees them up to take care of everything else. My only problem is that I still think Outlaw could be great, and this would be giving up on him as the future starter for the franchise. But Lewis might be worth it.
So there you have it, a few moves that I'd like to see from Portland if they really do want to get rid of Darius. I'm sure that none of the players I suggested are even available, but it's fun to speculate on what could happen. I'd still rather keep Miles and help him develop into the force I think he could be, but I'd love to dump LaFrentz and his giant contract, and I don't think anyone would be willing to take it on without something else, even Miles. Now I need to do homework.
*by "worth thinking about" I mean that Phoenix would wait until they hung up the phone to laugh at Portland for offering this deal.
I'm still not sure if I want to get rid of Miles, but if so, then these are deals I would do. I'm not saying any of the other teams would pull the trigger, but they could be intrigued. Miles was pretty explosive--defense, points, excitement--before getting hurt last year. And LaFrentz brings something to the table for a lot of teams. So here are the moves I would want to make, in no particular order (because I can't decide which one would work the best, considering chemistry and potential of people like Travis Outlaw, Martell Webster, and Brandon Roy).
I don't think that Philly is willing to give up AI anymore, but if they were, I think this deal would be great for Portland, and could even be decent for the Sixers. They could move Igoudala to the 2 spot and let him and Miles fly around together, and then they would have some more crappy bulk in the middle.
This one is intriguing for a number of reasons. I really want to see Travis Outlaw thrive, and bringing in Hill would do several things to help with that.
!) It would give him a proven veteran to learn under. 2) It would show that Outlaw is still is the SF of the future, since Hill's contract is up next year. 3) If Hill is healthy, he could bring a ton to the table for Portland, really the opposite of Miles in terms of locker room presence. This could be interesting for Orlanda too, since I still think Miles could burn the league up in the future, and all that junk I already said about LaFrentz.Of these last three major pieces, I like Marion the least as a player. I love his numbers, but think that he thrives more in a system, and I don't
know how he would fit in Portland's system. Having said that, I also know that he is a very good player. Oh yeah, and I know that Phoenix would probably not entertain this deal, although getting LaFrentz could be enticing in some ways. He's a center, so Amare wouldn't have to be the 5. (Which is good, since he doesn't want to be.) But he is also an oft-perimeter player, filling in nicely for the departed Tim Thomas. He also brings another shot-blocking presence to the sieve-like defense. And Miles likes to run. A lot. Maybe this would be worth thinking about.* 
Jamison is my favorite of these last three major players. I like his game, I think he is unselfish, and I think he would be a lot of fun. He's a well-rounded player, more than Lewis but less than Marion maybe, but mainly I just like him. I don't know how this could help the Wizards, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't consider the deal.
This last deal is the one I would most want to see Portland do. I like Lewis' contract more than any of the other players involved, and because Fortson is so expensive--not to mention terrible--I think he would be worth dumping to take on
LaFrentz's terrible contract. Also, because the Sonics have so many problems with the front-court, this could help them. LaFrentz isn't better than Swift, Sene, and Petro? And Seattle just got rid of Mikki Moore, one of their other centers. LaFrentz would also fill, slightly, the front-court shooter spot that Lewis would be vacating. Miles gives them a strong 3, so that they would have Ridnour, Allen, Miles, Wilcox/Collison, and LaFrentz. I'm convincing myself that this could be a decent team. Portland gets a great young player on the cheap in Lewis and takes on a terrible contract in Fortson, but that comes off the books next summer, which frees them up to take care of everything else. My only problem is that I still think Outlaw could be great, and this would be giving up on him as the future starter for the franchise. But Lewis might be worth it.So there you have it, a few moves that I'd like to see from Portland if they really do want to get rid of Darius. I'm sure that none of the players I suggested are even available, but it's fun to speculate on what could happen. I'd still rather keep Miles and help him develop into the force I think he could be, but I'd love to dump LaFrentz and his giant contract, and I don't think anyone would be willing to take it on without something else, even Miles. Now I need to do homework.
*by "worth thinking about" I mean that Phoenix would wait until they hung up the phone to laugh at Portland for offering this deal.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Interesting NY Times Op-Ed
In case the link dies soon, here is the full text. I don't know if I'll get in trouble for having it here, so I'll give clear credit. THIS WAS WRITTEN BY DANIEL GILBERT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES. Enjoy:
He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn’t
By DANIEL GILBERT
Published: July 24, 2006
LONG before seat belts or common sense were particularly widespread, my family made annual trips to New York in our 1963 Valiant station wagon. Mom and Dad took the front seat, my infant sister sat in my mother’s lap and my brother and I had what we called “the wayback” all to ourselves.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge this Image
In the wayback, we’d lounge around doing puzzles, reading comics and counting license plates. Eventually we’d fight. When our fight had finally escalated to the point of tears, our mother would turn around to chastise us, and my brother and I would start to plead our cases. “But he hit me first,” one of us would say, to which the other would inevitably add, “But he hit me harder.”
It turns out that my brother and I were not alone in believing that these two claims can get a puncher off the hook. In virtually every human society, “He hit me first” provides an acceptable rationale for doing that which is otherwise forbidden. Both civil and religious law provide long lists of behaviors that are illegal or immoral — unless they are responses in kind, in which case they are perfectly fine.
After all, it is wrong to punch anyone except a puncher, and our language even has special words — like “retaliation” and “retribution” and “revenge” — whose common prefix is meant to remind us that a punch thrown second is legally and morally different than a punch thrown first.
That’s why participants in every one of the globe’s intractable conflicts — from Ireland to the Middle East — offer the even-numberedness of their punches as grounds for exculpation.
The problem with the principle of even-numberedness is that people count differently. Every action has a cause and a consequence: something that led to it and something that followed from it. But research shows that while people think of their own actions as the consequences of what came before, they think of other people’s actions as the causes of what came later.
In a study conducted by William Swann and colleagues at the University of Texas, pairs of volunteers played the roles of world leaders who were trying to decide whether to initiate a nuclear strike. The first volunteer was asked to make an opening statement, the second volunteer was asked to respond, the first volunteer was asked to respond to the second, and so on. At the end of the conversation, the volunteers were shown several of the statements that had been made and were asked to recall what had been said just before and just after each of them.
The results revealed an intriguing asymmetry: When volunteers were shown one of their own statements, they naturally remembered what had led them to say it. But when they were shown one of their conversation partner’s statements, they naturally remembered how they had responded to it. In other words, volunteers remembered the causes of their own statements and the consequences of their partner’s statements.
What seems like a grossly self-serving pattern of remembering is actually the product of two innocent facts. First, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people’s actions but not our own. Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others. Together, these facts suggest that our reasons for punching will always be more salient to us than the punches themselves — but that the opposite will be true of other people’s reasons and other people’s punches.
Examples aren’t hard to come by. Shiites seek revenge on Sunnis for the revenge they sought on Shiites; Irish Catholics retaliate against the Protestants who retaliated against them; and since 1948, it’s hard to think of any partisan in the Middle East who has done anything but play defense. In each of these instances, people on one side claim that they are merely responding to provocation and dismiss the other side’s identical claim as disingenuous spin. But research suggests that these claims reflect genuinely different perceptions of the same bloody conversation.
If the first principle of legitimate punching is that punches must be even-numbered, the second principle is that an even-numbered punch may be no more forceful than the odd-numbered punch that preceded it. Legitimate retribution is meant to restore balance, and thus an eye for an eye is fair, but an eye for an eyelash is not. When the European Union condemned Israel for bombing Lebanon in retaliation for the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, it did not question Israel’s right to respond, but rather, its “disproportionate use of force.” It is O.K. to hit back, just not too hard.
Research shows that people have as much trouble applying the second principle as the first. In a study conducted by Sukhwinder Shergill and colleagues at University College London, pairs of volunteers were hooked up to a mechanical device that allowed each of them to exert pressure on the other volunteer’s fingers.
The researcher began the game by exerting a fixed amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. The first volunteer was then asked to exert precisely the same amount of pressure on the second volunteer’s finger. The second volunteer was then asked to exert the same amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. And so on. The two volunteers took turns applying equal amounts of pressure to each other’s fingers while the researchers measured the actual amount of pressure they applied.
The results were striking. Although volunteers tried to respond to each other’s touches with equal force, they typically responded with about 40 percent more force than they had just experienced. Each time a volunteer was touched, he touched back harder, which led the other volunteer to touch back even harder. What began as a game of soft touches quickly became a game of moderate pokes and then hard prods, even though both volunteers were doing their level best to respond in kind.
Each volunteer was convinced that he was responding with equal force and that for some reason the other volunteer was escalating. Neither realized that the escalation was the natural byproduct of a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received.
Research teaches us that our reasons and our pains are more palpable, more obvious and real, than are the reasons and pains of others. This leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs.
None of this is to deny the roles that hatred, intolerance, avarice and deceit play in human conflict. It is simply to say that basic principles of human psychology are important ingredients in this miserable stew. Until we learn to stop trusting everything our brains tell us about others — and to start trusting others themselves — there will continue to be tears and recriminations in the wayback.
He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn’t
By DANIEL GILBERT
Published: July 24, 2006
LONG before seat belts or common sense were particularly widespread, my family made annual trips to New York in our 1963 Valiant station wagon. Mom and Dad took the front seat, my infant sister sat in my mother’s lap and my brother and I had what we called “the wayback” all to ourselves.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge this Image
In the wayback, we’d lounge around doing puzzles, reading comics and counting license plates. Eventually we’d fight. When our fight had finally escalated to the point of tears, our mother would turn around to chastise us, and my brother and I would start to plead our cases. “But he hit me first,” one of us would say, to which the other would inevitably add, “But he hit me harder.”
It turns out that my brother and I were not alone in believing that these two claims can get a puncher off the hook. In virtually every human society, “He hit me first” provides an acceptable rationale for doing that which is otherwise forbidden. Both civil and religious law provide long lists of behaviors that are illegal or immoral — unless they are responses in kind, in which case they are perfectly fine.
After all, it is wrong to punch anyone except a puncher, and our language even has special words — like “retaliation” and “retribution” and “revenge” — whose common prefix is meant to remind us that a punch thrown second is legally and morally different than a punch thrown first.
That’s why participants in every one of the globe’s intractable conflicts — from Ireland to the Middle East — offer the even-numberedness of their punches as grounds for exculpation.
The problem with the principle of even-numberedness is that people count differently. Every action has a cause and a consequence: something that led to it and something that followed from it. But research shows that while people think of their own actions as the consequences of what came before, they think of other people’s actions as the causes of what came later.
In a study conducted by William Swann and colleagues at the University of Texas, pairs of volunteers played the roles of world leaders who were trying to decide whether to initiate a nuclear strike. The first volunteer was asked to make an opening statement, the second volunteer was asked to respond, the first volunteer was asked to respond to the second, and so on. At the end of the conversation, the volunteers were shown several of the statements that had been made and were asked to recall what had been said just before and just after each of them.
The results revealed an intriguing asymmetry: When volunteers were shown one of their own statements, they naturally remembered what had led them to say it. But when they were shown one of their conversation partner’s statements, they naturally remembered how they had responded to it. In other words, volunteers remembered the causes of their own statements and the consequences of their partner’s statements.
What seems like a grossly self-serving pattern of remembering is actually the product of two innocent facts. First, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people’s actions but not our own. Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others. Together, these facts suggest that our reasons for punching will always be more salient to us than the punches themselves — but that the opposite will be true of other people’s reasons and other people’s punches.
Examples aren’t hard to come by. Shiites seek revenge on Sunnis for the revenge they sought on Shiites; Irish Catholics retaliate against the Protestants who retaliated against them; and since 1948, it’s hard to think of any partisan in the Middle East who has done anything but play defense. In each of these instances, people on one side claim that they are merely responding to provocation and dismiss the other side’s identical claim as disingenuous spin. But research suggests that these claims reflect genuinely different perceptions of the same bloody conversation.
If the first principle of legitimate punching is that punches must be even-numbered, the second principle is that an even-numbered punch may be no more forceful than the odd-numbered punch that preceded it. Legitimate retribution is meant to restore balance, and thus an eye for an eye is fair, but an eye for an eyelash is not. When the European Union condemned Israel for bombing Lebanon in retaliation for the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, it did not question Israel’s right to respond, but rather, its “disproportionate use of force.” It is O.K. to hit back, just not too hard.
Research shows that people have as much trouble applying the second principle as the first. In a study conducted by Sukhwinder Shergill and colleagues at University College London, pairs of volunteers were hooked up to a mechanical device that allowed each of them to exert pressure on the other volunteer’s fingers.
The researcher began the game by exerting a fixed amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. The first volunteer was then asked to exert precisely the same amount of pressure on the second volunteer’s finger. The second volunteer was then asked to exert the same amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. And so on. The two volunteers took turns applying equal amounts of pressure to each other’s fingers while the researchers measured the actual amount of pressure they applied.
The results were striking. Although volunteers tried to respond to each other’s touches with equal force, they typically responded with about 40 percent more force than they had just experienced. Each time a volunteer was touched, he touched back harder, which led the other volunteer to touch back even harder. What began as a game of soft touches quickly became a game of moderate pokes and then hard prods, even though both volunteers were doing their level best to respond in kind.
Each volunteer was convinced that he was responding with equal force and that for some reason the other volunteer was escalating. Neither realized that the escalation was the natural byproduct of a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received.
Research teaches us that our reasons and our pains are more palpable, more obvious and real, than are the reasons and pains of others. This leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs.
None of this is to deny the roles that hatred, intolerance, avarice and deceit play in human conflict. It is simply to say that basic principles of human psychology are important ingredients in this miserable stew. Until we learn to stop trusting everything our brains tell us about others — and to start trusting others themselves — there will continue to be tears and recriminations in the wayback.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Friday, July 14, 2006
Running diary: 1992 NBA Finals
Note: This has been sitting around for about a month now, but it shouldn't really matter since it's about an event that happened 14 years ago. I also apologize that it turns into a sort of play-by-play at the end, but the game was so crazy I didn't have time to analyze what I was seeing.
10:08 pm: Welcome to my running diary of game six from the 1992 NBA Finals. After a heavy week of World Cup action it’s time to pour down some bitter nostalgia. Fortunately I taped the game from ESPN Classic, so if things start getting too bad I can pause it and go downstairs for a piñ a colada. Unfortunately, since I taped the game from ESPN Classic, I don’t think I’ll get to watch any era commercials. With that, I’ll hit play.
10:12 pm: Dave Rivsine begins by mentioning that the Bulls were battle-tested during this playoff run and that they came into the game with a 3-2 series lead. Uh-oh.
10:12 pm: I miss the NBA on NBC theme music. Ooh, maybe this means I’ll get era commercials.
10:14 pm: This game was in Chicago. I was thinking this was the eyes closed free throw game. Now I don’t know what to expect.
10:15 pm: The starters are being called, with the away Blazers going first. This is the classic Blazer team: Buck Williams, Jerome Kersey, Kevin Duckworth, Terry Porter, and Clyde Drexler. Same goes for the Bulls: Horace Grant, Scottie Pippen, Bill Cartwright, John Paxson, and Michael Jordan. Also of note: Phil Jackson’s tie is atrocious.
10:17 pm: Our first shot of Ahmad Rashad, who Marv Albert reminds us is from Portland. I would also remind you, he went to Oregon. And now Marv is letting us know that no team has ever come back to win the finals after being down 3-2 by winning the final two games on the road.
10:18 pm: Jerome Kersey and Horace Grant took the tip-off. I only mention it because I was shocked that it wasn’t Cartwright and Duckworth…
10:20 pm: I just realized that Marv Albert’s booth partner is Mike Frattello. David Stern needs to bring those two back together. And the Blazers are shooting 0-5 to start the game. But at least Pippen nearly stole the inbounds pass.
10:22 pm: Shooting 0-7 now. But we get some free-throws. And Porter starts the scoring for Portland by hitting both from the line.
10:24 pm: Duckworth gets called for the “elbow” on Cartwright. Thank you Marv. And Kersey missed the Blazers eighth shot from the floor, but gets the putback. Then he steals the ball and has a breakaway dunk. So even though the Blazers started terribly they’re actually ahead now, 6-4.
10:26 pm: The Blazers are shooting 16% from the field, and the announcers just told us that Jordan was second in blocked shots for a guard only to Reggie Lewis from the Celtics. I’m glad I’m not watching this with the Sports Guy.
10:29 pm: I’m done watching commercials. These are crappy, but they’re not from 1992. From now on I’m fast-forwarding.
10:30 pm: ESPN Classic has moved us ahead to 3:06 left in the first quarter.
10:31 pm: Jordan makes a ridiculous pass to Horace Grant. I think there must be something about touching the ball immediately after MJ, because there’s no way Grant should have made that circus shot.
10:34 pm: Jordan gets his first points of the game to tie it at 19, but Kersey matched it with a sweet drive and lay-in. And now two more. And now another two. This is why Bill Schonely called him No-Mercy-Kersey. Hustle basketball? Yeah. Hustle basketball.
10:38 pm: Stat comparison for Kersey and Pippen: Jerome has twelve points and five rebounds, Pippen has four and one.
10:40 pm: Three guard offense with Porter, Ainge, and Drexler, and Clyde made a three as the shot clock expired. I just found out that the Bulls have led for 78% of this series. That’s not ominous.
10:43 pm: ESPN Classic has moved us ahead to 7:24 left in the second quarter.
10:44 pm: The scoreboard in Chicago just showed that Kersey had three fouls, so Adelman took him out. This matters because he’s been the best player in the game so far and because he really only had one. Apparently that was the fault of the Blazers trainer. No, the Blazers have never had any issues with non-playing personell.
10:47 pm: Drexler is playing terribly, but as I was typing that he threw down a sweet dunk. Portland looks really good right now.
10:48 pm: Another drive by Drexler. I guess I just needed to call him out. And now nothing can go Chicago’s way, as they try to call a timeout and instead lose the ball out of bounds.
10:50 pm: The bulls and have been outscored 10-0 since Jordan came back in. Buck Williams makes a driving lay-up and the free-throw to complete the three-point play, and Pippen’s mustache is really ugly. Really ugly.
10:52 pm: I think the wheels are about to fall off. Ainge just dribbled the ball off his foot.
10:53 pm: They just flashed this stat, in 1992 Jordan was already the all-time playoff scoring leader, averaging 34.6 ppg.
10:55 pm: Jordan drains a three after an ugly series of events by the Bulls, but one in which they somehow managed to keep it.
10:58 pm: A great image on the screen right now comparing the Finals stats of Jordan and Drexler. For Clyde the Glide: 25 points, 7.8 rebounds, and 6 assists per game. For Jordan: 36.4 points, 5 rebounds, and 7 assists per game. Those guys were pretty good at basketball.
11:01 pm: Three-pointer by Jordan, which is answered by another three from Porter.
11:04 pm: Kersey gets his third foul as the first-half ends and Pippen gets to go the line to cut the lead back down to six.
11:06 pm: I’m quoting Dave Revsine, the ESPN Classic schmuck talking during hafltime: “Coming up next, Portland would extend the margin to 17 late in the third with perennial all-star Clyde Drexler and talented forward Jerome Kersey leading the charge. But would it be enough to hold off the charging Bulls?” I’m guessing it wouldn’t be, Dave. I’m guessing that’s a no.
11:09 pm: We join the game again with 6:50 left in the third quarter.
11:11 pm: The Blazers had five or so chances on the offensive end, which was capped by Kersey hitting another jumper. It’s crazy how much Kersey has outplayed Pippen in this game. As I wrote that, Kersey hit another jumper. Balzers are up 66-52.
11:12 pm: A beardless Phil Jackson seems to be contemplating how ugly his tie is. Either that or he is realizing how lonely his mustache feels.
11:14 pm: This game makes me miss the early ‘90s Blazers more than I thought I did. There were really good. And fun to watch. Maybe if they hire Adelman as coach again, everything will go back to the way it was. I’m going to click my heels three times…
11:16 pm: Jordan makes a turn-around fade-away over Porter and gets the foul. Vintage Jordan? Perhaps.
11:17 pm: The Blazers play a lot like the current Suns. Well, except the Blazers play good team defense and good individual defense,
11:18 pm: Apparently back in the early ‘90s if you got a bloody nose they put a cigarette up your nostril. At least that’s what it looks like they did with Duckworth.
11:20 pm: Jordan has a one-on-three and the Blazers take advantage, with Drexler blocking his lay-in. This Portland team was really good.
11:22 pm: At the end of the third the Blazers lead by fifteen.
11:25 pm: Bulls make a three, and then the Blazers give the ball away. Now Kersey is getting called for a flagrant foul. That was terrible. He was going for ball but came through and hit Scott Williams on the shoulder. Williams only hit one of two, but then the Bulls get another two.
11:29 pm: Stacey King makes two free-throws, so the Bulls are now within nine.
11:30 pm: Pippen hits a short jumper to bring them within seven. Double dribble by Drexler. And Jordan isn’t even on the floor. Oh the humanity.
11:32 pm: Good pass to BJ Armstrong, which he loses. He has to run outside as he regains possession, and then decides to turn around and drill a mid-range jumper. Bulls within five.
11:33 pm: Stacey King just made two more, the Bulls are now down by three.
11:35 pm: Porter dribbles it out of bounds off his knee, and Jordan is back in the game.
11:36 pm: First Bulls miss in a very long time, followed by Drexler getting an easy lay-in. Maybe Portland can hang on?
11:37 pm: Sweet alley-oop attempt from Drexler to Robinson, but they couldn’t quite get it done, Bulls come back with it.
11:38 pm: I just saw Buck Williams talking trash with Jordan. That doesn’t seem like a good idea.
11:39 pm: The young Cliff Robinson I remember shows himself, taking a really bad shot. The Bulls follow it up with a sweet Pippen lay-in and a classic Jordan floater. One point game, timeout Blazers.
11:41 pm: More good news, the Blazers only have one timeout left, the Bulls have four.
11:42 pm: The Blazers have made all 17 of their free-throws so far, which means they’ll miss the ones at the end of the game. By the way, they’re back up by three.
11:43 pm: Pippen hits a three to tie it with a man in his face as the shot clock expires, but Porter answers with a long two.
11:44 pm: Jordan ties it with another floater. In case you were wondering, the Bulls last lead was 4-2.
11:45 pm: Jordan takes the ball out of Williams’ hands and dunks it to take the lead for the first time since the first quarter, but Drexler immediately ties it back up.
11:46 pm: Timeout Bulls.
11:48 pm: Pippen just made another pull-up jumper, Bulls up by two. Then Porter gets the ball stripped, but as he tries to grab it again he knocks it out of bounds.
11:49 pm: Jordan drains another turn-around fade-away, and Portland takes its last timeout down by four.
11:51 pm: A telling stat, the Blazers have zero points off turnovers, the Bulls have 16.
11:52 pm: The Blazers still haven’t missed a free-throw, but are down by two with no timeouts left and 1:13 to go in the game. That is classic Adelman.
11:53 pm: Drexler went up for the lay-in, ran over Scott Williams—who would have been in the circle if that was in the rule-book—no foul on anyone, jump ball on the rebound. Portland gets the ball out of—wait, they reverse the call. Chicago gets the ball out of bounds after the jump.
11:55 pm: Jordan just took the ball all the way down to put Chicago back up by four.
11:56 pm: Portland still hasn’t missed from the line with Kersey hitting the first of two.
11:57 pm: And perfection from the line is maintained. Porltand is down by two. Portland fouls Jordan, who goes to the line with 11.8 seconds left and a two point lead. Of course, MJ makes both, the Blazers can’t do anything, since Adelman already burned all of their timeouts, and the Bulls win their second straight NBA championship. Excuse me, WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.
In case you want to see a YouTube version of the end to this game, click here.
10:08 pm: Welcome to my running diary of game six from the 1992 NBA Finals. After a heavy week of World Cup action it’s time to pour down some bitter nostalgia. Fortunately I taped the game from ESPN Classic, so if things start getting too bad I can pause it and go downstairs for a pi
10:12 pm: Dave Rivsine begins by mentioning that the Bulls were battle-tested during this playoff run and that they came into the game with a 3-2 series lead. Uh-oh.
10:12 pm: I miss the NBA on NBC theme music. Ooh, maybe this means I’ll get era commercials.
10:14 pm: This game was in Chicago. I was thinking this was the eyes closed free throw game. Now I don’t know what to expect.
10:15 pm: The starters are being called, with the away Blazers going first. This is the classic Blazer team: Buck Williams, Jerome Kersey, Kevin Duckworth, Terry Porter, and Clyde Drexler. Same goes for the Bulls: Horace Grant, Scottie Pippen, Bill Cartwright, John Paxson, and Michael Jordan. Also of note: Phil Jackson’s tie is atrocious.
10:17 pm: Our first shot of Ahmad Rashad, who Marv Albert reminds us is from Portland. I would also remind you, he went to Oregon. And now Marv is letting us know that no team has ever come back to win the finals after being down 3-2 by winning the final two games on the road.
10:18 pm: Jerome Kersey and Horace Grant took the tip-off. I only mention it because I was shocked that it wasn’t Cartwright and Duckworth…
10:20 pm: I just realized that Marv Albert’s booth partner is Mike Frattello. David Stern needs to bring those two back together. And the Blazers are shooting 0-5 to start the game. But at least Pippen nearly stole the inbounds pass.
10:22 pm: Shooting 0-7 now. But we get some free-throws. And Porter starts the scoring for Portland by hitting both from the line.
10:24 pm: Duckworth gets called for the “elbow” on Cartwright. Thank you Marv. And Kersey missed the Blazers eighth shot from the floor, but gets the putback. Then he steals the ball and has a breakaway dunk. So even though the Blazers started terribly they’re actually ahead now, 6-4.
10:26 pm: The Blazers are shooting 16% from the field, and the announcers just told us that Jordan was second in blocked shots for a guard only to Reggie Lewis from the Celtics. I’m glad I’m not watching this with the Sports Guy.
10:29 pm: I’m done watching commercials. These are crappy, but they’re not from 1992. From now on I’m fast-forwarding.
10:30 pm: ESPN Classic has moved us ahead to 3:06 left in the first quarter.
10:31 pm: Jordan makes a ridiculous pass to Horace Grant. I think there must be something about touching the ball immediately after MJ, because there’s no way Grant should have made that circus shot.
10:34 pm: Jordan gets his first points of the game to tie it at 19, but Kersey matched it with a sweet drive and lay-in. And now two more. And now another two. This is why Bill Schonely called him No-Mercy-Kersey. Hustle basketball? Yeah. Hustle basketball.
10:38 pm: Stat comparison for Kersey and Pippen: Jerome has twelve points and five rebounds, Pippen has four and one.
10:40 pm: Three guard offense with Porter, Ainge, and Drexler, and Clyde made a three as the shot clock expired. I just found out that the Bulls have led for 78% of this series. That’s not ominous.
10:43 pm: ESPN Classic has moved us ahead to 7:24 left in the second quarter.
10:44 pm: The scoreboard in Chicago just showed that Kersey had three fouls, so Adelman took him out. This matters because he’s been the best player in the game so far and because he really only had one. Apparently that was the fault of the Blazers trainer. No, the Blazers have never had any issues with non-playing personell.
10:47 pm: Drexler is playing terribly, but as I was typing that he threw down a sweet dunk. Portland looks really good right now.
10:48 pm: Another drive by Drexler. I guess I just needed to call him out. And now nothing can go Chicago’s way, as they try to call a timeout and instead lose the ball out of bounds.
10:50 pm: The bulls and have been outscored 10-0 since Jordan came back in. Buck Williams makes a driving lay-up and the free-throw to complete the three-point play, and Pippen’s mustache is really ugly. Really ugly.
10:52 pm: I think the wheels are about to fall off. Ainge just dribbled the ball off his foot.
10:53 pm: They just flashed this stat, in 1992 Jordan was already the all-time playoff scoring leader, averaging 34.6 ppg.
10:55 pm: Jordan drains a three after an ugly series of events by the Bulls, but one in which they somehow managed to keep it.
10:58 pm: A great image on the screen right now comparing the Finals stats of Jordan and Drexler. For Clyde the Glide: 25 points, 7.8 rebounds, and 6 assists per game. For Jordan: 36.4 points, 5 rebounds, and 7 assists per game. Those guys were pretty good at basketball.
11:01 pm: Three-pointer by Jordan, which is answered by another three from Porter.
11:04 pm: Kersey gets his third foul as the first-half ends and Pippen gets to go the line to cut the lead back down to six.
11:06 pm: I’m quoting Dave Revsine, the ESPN Classic schmuck talking during hafltime: “Coming up next, Portland would extend the margin to 17 late in the third with perennial all-star Clyde Drexler and talented forward Jerome Kersey leading the charge. But would it be enough to hold off the charging Bulls?” I’m guessing it wouldn’t be, Dave. I’m guessing that’s a no.
11:09 pm: We join the game again with 6:50 left in the third quarter.
11:11 pm: The Blazers had five or so chances on the offensive end, which was capped by Kersey hitting another jumper. It’s crazy how much Kersey has outplayed Pippen in this game. As I wrote that, Kersey hit another jumper. Balzers are up 66-52.
11:12 pm: A beardless Phil Jackson seems to be contemplating how ugly his tie is. Either that or he is realizing how lonely his mustache feels.
11:14 pm: This game makes me miss the early ‘90s Blazers more than I thought I did. There were really good. And fun to watch. Maybe if they hire Adelman as coach again, everything will go back to the way it was. I’m going to click my heels three times…
11:16 pm: Jordan makes a turn-around fade-away over Porter and gets the foul. Vintage Jordan? Perhaps.
11:17 pm: The Blazers play a lot like the current Suns. Well, except the Blazers play good team defense and good individual defense,
11:18 pm: Apparently back in the early ‘90s if you got a bloody nose they put a cigarette up your nostril. At least that’s what it looks like they did with Duckworth.
11:20 pm: Jordan has a one-on-three and the Blazers take advantage, with Drexler blocking his lay-in. This Portland team was really good.
11:22 pm: At the end of the third the Blazers lead by fifteen.
11:25 pm: Bulls make a three, and then the Blazers give the ball away. Now Kersey is getting called for a flagrant foul. That was terrible. He was going for ball but came through and hit Scott Williams on the shoulder. Williams only hit one of two, but then the Bulls get another two.
11:29 pm: Stacey King makes two free-throws, so the Bulls are now within nine.
11:30 pm: Pippen hits a short jumper to bring them within seven. Double dribble by Drexler. And Jordan isn’t even on the floor. Oh the humanity.
11:32 pm: Good pass to BJ Armstrong, which he loses. He has to run outside as he regains possession, and then decides to turn around and drill a mid-range jumper. Bulls within five.
11:33 pm: Stacey King just made two more, the Bulls are now down by three.
11:35 pm: Porter dribbles it out of bounds off his knee, and Jordan is back in the game.
11:36 pm: First Bulls miss in a very long time, followed by Drexler getting an easy lay-in. Maybe Portland can hang on?
11:37 pm: Sweet alley-oop attempt from Drexler to Robinson, but they couldn’t quite get it done, Bulls come back with it.
11:38 pm: I just saw Buck Williams talking trash with Jordan. That doesn’t seem like a good idea.
11:39 pm: The young Cliff Robinson I remember shows himself, taking a really bad shot. The Bulls follow it up with a sweet Pippen lay-in and a classic Jordan floater. One point game, timeout Blazers.
11:41 pm: More good news, the Blazers only have one timeout left, the Bulls have four.
11:42 pm: The Blazers have made all 17 of their free-throws so far, which means they’ll miss the ones at the end of the game. By the way, they’re back up by three.
11:43 pm: Pippen hits a three to tie it with a man in his face as the shot clock expires, but Porter answers with a long two.
11:44 pm: Jordan ties it with another floater. In case you were wondering, the Bulls last lead was 4-2.
11:45 pm: Jordan takes the ball out of Williams’ hands and dunks it to take the lead for the first time since the first quarter, but Drexler immediately ties it back up.
11:46 pm: Timeout Bulls.
11:48 pm: Pippen just made another pull-up jumper, Bulls up by two. Then Porter gets the ball stripped, but as he tries to grab it again he knocks it out of bounds.
11:49 pm: Jordan drains another turn-around fade-away, and Portland takes its last timeout down by four.
11:51 pm: A telling stat, the Blazers have zero points off turnovers, the Bulls have 16.
11:52 pm: The Blazers still haven’t missed a free-throw, but are down by two with no timeouts left and 1:13 to go in the game. That is classic Adelman.
11:53 pm: Drexler went up for the lay-in, ran over Scott Williams—who would have been in the circle if that was in the rule-book—no foul on anyone, jump ball on the rebound. Portland gets the ball out of—wait, they reverse the call. Chicago gets the ball out of bounds after the jump.
11:55 pm: Jordan just took the ball all the way down to put Chicago back up by four.
11:56 pm: Portland still hasn’t missed from the line with Kersey hitting the first of two.
11:57 pm: And perfection from the line is maintained. Porltand is down by two. Portland fouls Jordan, who goes to the line with 11.8 seconds left and a two point lead. Of course, MJ makes both, the Blazers can’t do anything, since Adelman already burned all of their timeouts, and the Bulls win their second straight NBA championship. Excuse me, WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.
In case you want to see a YouTube version of the end to this game, click here.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
They didn't read my earlier posts
So the Blazers appear to be trying to finally end any loyalty from the Portland fan base. That came about when they didn't draft Morrison, which they could have done with the number two pick from Chicago. That isn't really what has sent me again to the dark realms trying to figure out how much more I can take. What did that was the trading away of Telfair and Khryapa, two guys I considered to be important parts of the building of this Blazers team. I would have liked to keep them both anyway, but especially if the Blazers are serious about moving Randolph and Miles. If they're able to get rid of those two guys--and this next part could happen only if the first one does--and re-sign Przybilla, then they have a core of Przybilla, Jack, Dixon, Outlaw, and Webster coming back next year. That isn't the core of players I would want. Throw in an overpaid Raef LaFrentz and Dan Dickau--who the Blazers already gave an audition--and I'm not convinced that Aldridge and Roy were worth it. Having said that, I just now found out that we traded Foye for Roy, and I'm really happy about that. I just think it's too bad we took Aldridge, and I'm even more upset that we traded away Telfair, who I think could still become an unbelievable point guard.
I just finished a class and needed to rant, so that's all for now. I'm going to buy a computer some time next week, so I'll have a chance at that point to edit and post my running diary of 1992 NBA Finals game 6.
I just finished a class and needed to rant, so that's all for now. I'm going to buy a computer some time next week, so I'll have a chance at that point to edit and post my running diary of 1992 NBA Finals game 6.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
State of the Blazers...part 3
So this is just a quick post to say that I'm pretty excited that the Blazers fired GM John Nash. I would love to see them get rid of team president Steve Patterson. It's hard to fix management issues that have been plaguing the team since Bob Whitsitt was hired in 1994.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
State of the Blazers...part 2
(I began part 1 by mentioning Derek Anderson, so I'll begin part 2 with some other historical tidbits)
Some news about former Blazer coaches: Rick Adelman just got fired, again, and Mike Dunleavy recently botched another playoff series. In addition, a former player from Adelman's days in Portland, Mario Elie, and Adelman's replacement in Portland, P.J. Carlesimo, are on the short list of likely replacements for him in Sacramento.
And Blazer related Sports Guy stuff: why does he have to keep reminding me of that dreadful game seven against the Lakers in 2000? That was the day I graduated from high school. It was terrible. Jerk.
Once again Oregonlive, the Oregonian's online newspaper, has been running a survivor style competition to see who the fans think should remain from the team last year. I don't mind this except for what it does to the mentality of the fans. Certainly part of the reason that the Blazers haven't been doing as well in the past few seasons is the personnel on the team. But the problems that have led to the demise of one of the great NBA franchises are located mainly in the management camp. In the heyday of the Portland Trail Blazers there was a core of players that could be counted on. From 1989 until 1995 the foursome of Clyde Drexler, Buck Williams, Jerome Kersey, and Terry Porter were constant. At the end of that span they traded Drexler away, and neither Kersey nor Porter were starting, but they were still a part of the team. As those players were getting older other players stepped in and provided continuity. Cliff Robinson was a holdover from the glory days of the early '90s, and then Arvydas Sabonis finally arrived, followed the next year by Rasheed Wallace, the year after that by Brian Grant and Damon Stoudamire. That was the 1997-98 season. Because of the slow personnel turnover--instead of bringing players in for one year stints--the Blazers were able to overcome a declining public image and off-court antics to continue as a perennial playoff performer. The downfall of the Blazers really was game seven of the Western Conference Finals in 2000.
After that game management decided that they needed to make some big changes. And maybe they did. But what happened was to start shifting the focus from being a good team to bringing in the right players. Even though there had been some complaining, most of the Blazers accepted their roles on a team that was loaded with talent. People like Brian Grant and Rasheed Wallace actually cared about the community. When management decided it needed to make big changes, instead of expecting more from the players they had already invested in, that's when things really started sliding.
I know, the NBA isn't a league that allows for keeping teams together for long periods of time. But it is possible to keep a core of players together. This idea that getting rid of problem players and bringing in fresh blood will solve things is outrageous. Most of the teams that have done well, even in the NBA, have had a core of players that have some longevity. I think it's time for another table. I'll examine the NBA champions from the last 20 years, and look at how long the core players had been together.
The table shows that, with the exception of the 2003-04 Pistons, the NBA champion team had a core group of players who had been together for at least two years before winning a championship. Even the Bulls had a core of players not including Jordan that had been together during his absence. You'll notice too that only one of the teams lost someone from the core that I mentioned if they won back-to-back titles. In addition to these things, what most analysts thought was so incredible about that 2003-04 Pistons team was how well they played together as a team. It seemed as though they had been together for more than just one full season before their championship run. Also of interest is how many teams had one or two players that were added to their core before the championship run started, so that if I were only looking for teams that had been together for two years, instead of trying to find longevity of the core, I could have listed a lot more names for several of those teams.
This brings me back to my question: can a team in the NBA keep a core of players together in the current situation? I believe they can. What does that mean for Portland? It means that management needs to stop blaming the players for everything and start taking some responsibility for the mismanagement that's gone on in the last six years. It means that the Blazers need to let Telfair, Miles, and Randolph know that they are the core of the team and they will be playing together for more than just the next season. It means that they need to resign Przybilla to be a guy that pulls the other core players along. It means that McMillan needs to have the confidence of management so he can mold these core players into a team. It means that management needs to put more confidence in the players instead of just threatening to get rid of them if something goes wrong. I might include a few other players in that core group: Outlaw, Khryapa, Webster, and Przybilla, but that means that these guys need to continue to develop as players and teammates--and in Przybilla's case resign with the team.
After seeing my Seahawks have a fantastic year in the NFL I came to the conclusion that continuity was more important in pro sports than many people acknowledge. Upon doing the research into the last 20 years of NBA champions I believe that even more strongly. Hopefully it works, and hopefully the Blazers follow the plan.
(A huge source for this post was Basketball-Reference.com. This site has all sorts of goodies on it, and is up there with some of my other favorite NBA sites:
82games.com
Hoopsworld.com)
Some news about former Blazer coaches: Rick Adelman just got fired, again, and Mike Dunleavy recently botched another playoff series. In addition, a former player from Adelman's days in Portland, Mario Elie, and Adelman's replacement in Portland, P.J. Carlesimo, are on the short list of likely replacements for him in Sacramento.
And Blazer related Sports Guy stuff: why does he have to keep reminding me of that dreadful game seven against the Lakers in 2000? That was the day I graduated from high school. It was terrible. Jerk.
Once again Oregonlive, the Oregonian's online newspaper, has been running a survivor style competition to see who the fans think should remain from the team last year. I don't mind this except for what it does to the mentality of the fans. Certainly part of the reason that the Blazers haven't been doing as well in the past few seasons is the personnel on the team. But the problems that have led to the demise of one of the great NBA franchises are located mainly in the management camp. In the heyday of the Portland Trail Blazers there was a core of players that could be counted on. From 1989 until 1995 the foursome of Clyde Drexler, Buck Williams, Jerome Kersey, and Terry Porter were constant. At the end of that span they traded Drexler away, and neither Kersey nor Porter were starting, but they were still a part of the team. As those players were getting older other players stepped in and provided continuity. Cliff Robinson was a holdover from the glory days of the early '90s, and then Arvydas Sabonis finally arrived, followed the next year by Rasheed Wallace, the year after that by Brian Grant and Damon Stoudamire. That was the 1997-98 season. Because of the slow personnel turnover--instead of bringing players in for one year stints--the Blazers were able to overcome a declining public image and off-court antics to continue as a perennial playoff performer. The downfall of the Blazers really was game seven of the Western Conference Finals in 2000.
After that game management decided that they needed to make some big changes. And maybe they did. But what happened was to start shifting the focus from being a good team to bringing in the right players. Even though there had been some complaining, most of the Blazers accepted their roles on a team that was loaded with talent. People like Brian Grant and Rasheed Wallace actually cared about the community. When management decided it needed to make big changes, instead of expecting more from the players they had already invested in, that's when things really started sliding.
I know, the NBA isn't a league that allows for keeping teams together for long periods of time. But it is possible to keep a core of players together. This idea that getting rid of problem players and bringing in fresh blood will solve things is outrageous. Most of the teams that have done well, even in the NBA, have had a core of players that have some longevity. I think it's time for another table. I'll examine the NBA champions from the last 20 years, and look at how long the core players had been together.
| Year | NBA Champions | Core players | Years together |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1985-86 | Celtics | Bird, McHale, Parish | 5 |
| 1986-87 | Lakers | Abdul-Jabbar, Johnson, Worthy, Cooper, Rambis | 4 |
| 1987-88 | Lakers | Same (and some others) | 5 |
| 1988-89 | Pistons | Thomas, Laimbeer, Dumars | 3 |
| 1989-90 | Pistons | Same and Rodman | 3 |
| 1990-91 | Bulls | Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Paxson | 3 |
| 1991-92 | Bulls | Same and Cartwright | 3 |
| 1992-93 | Bulls | Same and Armstrong | 3 |
| 1993-94 | Rockets | Olajuwon, Thorpe, Maxwell, Smith | 3 |
| 1994-95 | Rockets | Same, minus Thorpe | 4 |
| 1995-96 | Bulls | Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr, Longley | 2 |
| 1996-97 | Bulls | Same, Jordan and Harper | 2 |
| 1997-98 | Bulls | Same and Rodman | 2 |
| 1998-99 | Spurs | Robinson, Elliot, Johnson | 3 |
| 1999-2000 | Lakers | O'Neal, Bryant, Fisher, Horry | 3 |
| 2000-2001 | Lakers | Same and Fox | 3 |
| 2001-2002 | Lakers | Same | 4 |
| 2002-2003 | Spurs | Duncan, Robinson, Rose, Kerr | 4 |
| 2003-2004 | Pistons | Billups, Hamilton, Wallace, Prince | 1 |
| 2004-2005 | Spurs | Duncan, Parker, Bowen | 3 |
The table shows that, with the exception of the 2003-04 Pistons, the NBA champion team had a core group of players who had been together for at least two years before winning a championship. Even the Bulls had a core of players not including Jordan that had been together during his absence. You'll notice too that only one of the teams lost someone from the core that I mentioned if they won back-to-back titles. In addition to these things, what most analysts thought was so incredible about that 2003-04 Pistons team was how well they played together as a team. It seemed as though they had been together for more than just one full season before their championship run. Also of interest is how many teams had one or two players that were added to their core before the championship run started, so that if I were only looking for teams that had been together for two years, instead of trying to find longevity of the core, I could have listed a lot more names for several of those teams.
This brings me back to my question: can a team in the NBA keep a core of players together in the current situation? I believe they can. What does that mean for Portland? It means that management needs to stop blaming the players for everything and start taking some responsibility for the mismanagement that's gone on in the last six years. It means that the Blazers need to let Telfair, Miles, and Randolph know that they are the core of the team and they will be playing together for more than just the next season. It means that they need to resign Przybilla to be a guy that pulls the other core players along. It means that McMillan needs to have the confidence of management so he can mold these core players into a team. It means that management needs to put more confidence in the players instead of just threatening to get rid of them if something goes wrong. I might include a few other players in that core group: Outlaw, Khryapa, Webster, and Przybilla, but that means that these guys need to continue to develop as players and teammates--and in Przybilla's case resign with the team.
After seeing my Seahawks have a fantastic year in the NFL I came to the conclusion that continuity was more important in pro sports than many people acknowledge. Upon doing the research into the last 20 years of NBA champions I believe that even more strongly. Hopefully it works, and hopefully the Blazers follow the plan.
(A huge source for this post was Basketball-Reference.com. This site has all sorts of goodies on it, and is up there with some of my other favorite NBA sites:
82games.com
Hoopsworld.com)
Friday, May 19, 2006
State of the Blazers...part 1
In honor of my days playing NBA Live at the Kay house, the first thing I need to say is that the Blazers are paying Derek Anderson $9.7 million next year to play for the Heat. So that's good news.
Other salary type news: only two guys come off the books this season. Voshon Lenard is one of them, and I don't think we should resign him. The other is Joel Pryzbilla. I really don't know what we should do about him, since he played really well for the team this season, but he doesn't like the attitude of a lot of guys and is going to probably go for more money than he's worth.
Some more important salary info: the top three paid players for the Blazers have dealt with injuries the last two seasons, which has really hindered their contributions to the team. Zach Randolph was healthier this season, but I am a bit worried that the injury could hamper him in the future. More on Randolph when I actually talk about which players they should keep. Ratliff is overpaid. The Blazers knew they were taking a risk when they traded for him, that he had a history of injuries. The first season he was in Portland he stayed healthy and was fantastic. But since then things have gone the same way for him that they had been going since he came out of Wyoming. So if someone would be willing to take that big contract, I think we should dump him. The third player--besides Derek Anderson, bravo management--earning top dollar for the Blazers is Darius Miles. I'm still torn about Miles, because I like his game a lot. I think he could be an incredible player, and that he brings a ton on each end of the court. But I'm beginning to wonder if the problems he had with Cheeks are going to keep coming back. More on him later, too.
So which Blazers are not being overpaid? Sebastian Telfair, who is only making $1.79 million next year. Victor Khryapa, a very good SF from Russia, who is making $1.14 million next year. Juan Dixon, who I would think is overpaid at $2.7 million next year except that he was one of the few bright spots on offense this season for Portland. Travis Outlaw, who is a phenomenal athlete and a pretty good basketball player, who made 900K last year and will make $1.53 million next year. Here is my statisticall backup to these statements, thanks to 82games.com.
The fair salary, which is based on the Roland rating--something I don't yet understand--and what the player brings to the team on and off the court, is as follows for each of the players I just said wasn't overpaid.
Telfair: $1.93 million
Khryapa: $1.26 million
Dixon: $3.09 million
Outlaw: $430 thousand
So I was wrong about Outlaw, but right about the other three, for the sake of comparison, here are the actual salaries and the fair salaries for the rest of the team:
More to come later, it looks like I was wrong on a few other players...
Other salary type news: only two guys come off the books this season. Voshon Lenard is one of them, and I don't think we should resign him. The other is Joel Pryzbilla. I really don't know what we should do about him, since he played really well for the team this season, but he doesn't like the attitude of a lot of guys and is going to probably go for more money than he's worth.
Some more important salary info: the top three paid players for the Blazers have dealt with injuries the last two seasons, which has really hindered their contributions to the team. Zach Randolph was healthier this season, but I am a bit worried that the injury could hamper him in the future. More on Randolph when I actually talk about which players they should keep. Ratliff is overpaid. The Blazers knew they were taking a risk when they traded for him, that he had a history of injuries. The first season he was in Portland he stayed healthy and was fantastic. But since then things have gone the same way for him that they had been going since he came out of Wyoming. So if someone would be willing to take that big contract, I think we should dump him. The third player--besides Derek Anderson, bravo management--earning top dollar for the Blazers is Darius Miles. I'm still torn about Miles, because I like his game a lot. I think he could be an incredible player, and that he brings a ton on each end of the court. But I'm beginning to wonder if the problems he had with Cheeks are going to keep coming back. More on him later, too.
So which Blazers are not being overpaid? Sebastian Telfair, who is only making $1.79 million next year. Victor Khryapa, a very good SF from Russia, who is making $1.14 million next year. Juan Dixon, who I would think is overpaid at $2.7 million next year except that he was one of the few bright spots on offense this season for Portland. Travis Outlaw, who is a phenomenal athlete and a pretty good basketball player, who made 900K last year and will make $1.53 million next year. Here is my statisticall backup to these statements, thanks to 82games.com.
The fair salary, which is based on the Roland rating--something I don't yet understand--and what the player brings to the team on and off the court, is as follows for each of the players I just said wasn't overpaid.
Telfair: $1.93 million
Khryapa: $1.26 million
Dixon: $3.09 million
Outlaw: $430 thousand
So I was wrong about Outlaw, but right about the other three, for the sake of comparison, here are the actual salaries and the fair salaries for the rest of the team:
| Player | Fair Salary(in millions) | Actual Salary(in millions) |
|---|---|---|
| Randolph | $6.50 | $12.00 |
| Przybilla | $3.78 | $1.56 |
| Dixon | $3.09 | $2.70 |
| Miles | $2.36 | $7.75 |
| Blake | $2.08 | $1.08 |
| Telfair | $1.93 | $1.79 |
| Khryapa | $1.26 | $1.14 |
| Jack | $0.89 | $1.14 |
| Webser | $0.63 | $2.78 |
| Outlaw | $0.43 | $1.53 |
| Lenard | $0.21 | $3.52 |
| Skinner | $0.17 | $5.40 |
| Seung-Jin | $0.08 | $0.74 |
More to come later, it looks like I was wrong on a few other players...
Thursday, May 18, 2006
From Phoenix, with hate
Okay, the hate isn't for you--and by you, I mean anyone who for unimaginable reasons still checks my blog, there's nothing but love for you--it's for Phoenix. I have less than three weeks left here and I'm quite ready to get out. Not that I haven't had a good time. And not that I haven't gotten some work. Those were my two reasons for coming back down for this month-plus, and both have been accomplished. But I am very excited to get back to the pacific northwest. Nearly everything for Oregon is lined up, I just need to send a few things back to them and then make sure I get housing. I'm pretty excited about that too, I think. By Jonathan Lewis' request I plan on writing a state of the Blazers blog in the near future. I may do the same for the Seahawks, and even a mid-season state of the Braves. In fact, I could just turn this into a sports blog. I might write more.
Monday, February 20, 2006
A Eulogy--Almost
My iPod is broken. This is world-ending news. Only six months ago this couldn't have happened, since I didn't even own an iPod yet. But now I do, and it's broken.
I am in Palo Alto for a week with no music. And then I'll be in San Francisco for another week with no music. All because my iPod is broken. Six months ago the worst that could have happened was for me to lose a CD. Or for a skip to develop during a favorite song. Or for the player to break. But those problems are easy to fix. For the first two I could simply listen to something else. For the last one I could buy a cheap new CD player. But a broken iPod is not as easy to fix while I'm away from home.
The sad-faced iPod icon told me to visit the support section of the Apple web site. But without my computer connector I can do no such thing. Even if I could, the best that I imagine could happen would be a re-install of the iPod software, wiping out my library of music, which I would be unable to recover until I got back home.
This leaves my ears open to the air. Instead of music, the new soundtrack of my life is the faucet in the other room, the traffic outside, and the air moving through the vents of Michael's house. I wouldn't quite call this silence, but it is quiet. It's this relative quiet that makes me realize how hard actual silence must be to endure. I wonder if this approaches the spiritual discipline of silence that Michael read about in a Dallas Willard book.
I have thought about visiting an Apple store to see if they can fix my iPod. I am still considering that option. But I'm not sure that if I get my iPod back I will stay here with my relative quiet. And in these two days I've grown to like the not-quite-silence.
Two weeks away from home is a long time, but with music it doesn't seem as long. Palo Alto and San Francisco are a long way from Roseburg, but with music they don't seem as far. Maybe the added time and distance are what I need. I came into this thinking of it as a break. Now I'm wondering if I might instead call it a retreat. Yesterday I was thinking about how nice it might be to spend considerable time at a monastery. I might not have to wait to get there, because my iPod is broken.
I am in Palo Alto for a week with no music. And then I'll be in San Francisco for another week with no music. All because my iPod is broken. Six months ago the worst that could have happened was for me to lose a CD. Or for a skip to develop during a favorite song. Or for the player to break. But those problems are easy to fix. For the first two I could simply listen to something else. For the last one I could buy a cheap new CD player. But a broken iPod is not as easy to fix while I'm away from home.
The sad-faced iPod icon told me to visit the support section of the Apple web site. But without my computer connector I can do no such thing. Even if I could, the best that I imagine could happen would be a re-install of the iPod software, wiping out my library of music, which I would be unable to recover until I got back home.
This leaves my ears open to the air. Instead of music, the new soundtrack of my life is the faucet in the other room, the traffic outside, and the air moving through the vents of Michael's house. I wouldn't quite call this silence, but it is quiet. It's this relative quiet that makes me realize how hard actual silence must be to endure. I wonder if this approaches the spiritual discipline of silence that Michael read about in a Dallas Willard book.
I have thought about visiting an Apple store to see if they can fix my iPod. I am still considering that option. But I'm not sure that if I get my iPod back I will stay here with my relative quiet. And in these two days I've grown to like the not-quite-silence.
Two weeks away from home is a long time, but with music it doesn't seem as long. Palo Alto and San Francisco are a long way from Roseburg, but with music they don't seem as far. Maybe the added time and distance are what I need. I came into this thinking of it as a break. Now I'm wondering if I might instead call it a retreat. Yesterday I was thinking about how nice it might be to spend considerable time at a monastery. I might not have to wait to get there, because my iPod is broken.
A small treatise on writing
It's funny how hard it is to write with a pen. It's not hard because my hand or fingers are weak. No, it's hard because I'm a child of the technology revolution. I want to write because it feels so much more organic. When my hand is moving the words are flowing right out of me. This flow needs to keep going, otherwise it dries up. There is no cut and paste. This method of writing is less forgiving of a first draft--the rough draft will be rougher because if I bother to edit as I write nothing will happen. This very characteristic makes me a better writer, because I am forced to continue writing no matter what. If I want anyone else to ever see what I've written, I'll have to type it. No one else could read my handwriting. Of course this means typing it into a computer, which means forced editing. This editing most often comes at some point later than the original writing session. The requisite waiting period some guys have for calling girls is three days, or so I hear. I don't know if this is to develop some perspective, but that seems plausible. I need at least that much perspective with my own writing. Three days should give me enough time to realize that my flawless work may in fact have a few flaws, or that the waste of ink I scribbled has a little value after all. Then when I type it out I get to edit, rewrite, and revise. That reminds me an awful lot of the writing process I learned in high school.
But I didn't even get to the point I started making--which is, of course, a product of writing the rough draft of this in pen--about how hard it is to write. There are several possible causes for this, and I'm going to explore what these might be:
1) Education
I'm not saying that there is a pro-typing/anti-writing character trait inherent in those who have an education. What I mean to say is that the education establishment drives the will to write with ink right out of students. Teachers and professors want everything typed. Something about legibility seems to be involved with their reasoning. But this effectively means that the only time most students use a pen is on a written final. Any paper done in high school or college needs to be typed. Even the least academic student, given his or her choice about what to write a paper on, may find some pleasure in working on it. But even the most academic may have problems with anxiety and confidence when forced to pull out a Blue Book and answer various exam questions. How could this not translate to deep-seated feelings related to each method of relaying the written word?
2) Procrastination
I haven't studied American culture or its history at all, but I find it hard to imagine that procrastination has ever been as common as it is presently, and certainly the common pride in this procrastination is greater than ever. We--I--like to wait until the last minute. There is something exhilarating about a deadline. But because teachers and professors want papers to be typed, this means that even those who might otherwise write out an early draft are likely to use the computer. This enables faster editing. It allows for manipulation of the text. Spell check, thesaurus, and online resources make technical issues easier to take care of quickly. When a paper is due in three hours, efficiency is a key issue.
3) Laziness
Maybe this is related more to procrastination, but I'm sure it isn't only related to that reason. When writing a paper--I mean really writing--hard copies of research materials are needed. This means that a certain amount of work must have been done before the writing was started. Perhaps there is another option. The writer might have such extensive knowledge on the subject that he or she doesn't need the research materials at hand. But this is really not a second option, just a slight modification of the first. Most of us need to spend considerable preparation to have enough knowledge to write about something with no external resources. The other problem is that even with this sort of knowledge, crediting proper sources and steering clear of plagiarism are difficult. Working on the computer from the beginning eliminates these issues. Thanks to Google and other online sources, information is readily available while typing. There is no longer the felt need to go down to the library when a gap in information arises. Sure, too many online sources are looked down upon by teachers and professors. But many print resources are making their way to the web, eliminating this problem. Quoting someone is much easier when using cut and paste rather than read, transcribe, and rewrite.
...
So how do I solve this very personal problem? I see two options for myself, neither of which are inexpensive. The first is to practice writing. If I keep using pen and paper, over and over, despite its perceived impracticality and my inability, eventually I might develop some proficiency at writing. This will take time, effort, and planning, three things I lack. (Perhaps there is something to be said about the inculcation of the virtues that comes from the practice of writing, but I'll save that for some other time.)
The other option is to actually type. Up until this point I have been using type to mean word process, but now I mean just that: typing on a typewriter. If I buy a typewriter I can keep some of the aspects of the typing we've come to know with computers, but also keep the emphasis on the writing process that flows from a pen. The feeling of typing is still present, so the ease with which words seem to come while typing on a keyboard compared with that of grasping a pen isn't lost. In addition, that ever-important legibility isn't lost either. Typewriters can't connect to the internet. They can't save. There's no cut and paste. All the deficiencies of writing for getting something done quickly--and thus undercutting the writing process--are still lacking. But typewriters aren't cheap, either. Nor are they terribly prevalent. The upkeep is costly. And of course, those other expenses that were related to writing, time effort and planning, are still present. Is good writing worth it for one of these two options? I think so. In fact, I think so strongly enough that I now have a long-forgotten ailment and tell-tale sign of a forgotten generation of authors: writer's cramp.
But I didn't even get to the point I started making--which is, of course, a product of writing the rough draft of this in pen--about how hard it is to write. There are several possible causes for this, and I'm going to explore what these might be:
1) Education
I'm not saying that there is a pro-typing/anti-writing character trait inherent in those who have an education. What I mean to say is that the education establishment drives the will to write with ink right out of students. Teachers and professors want everything typed. Something about legibility seems to be involved with their reasoning. But this effectively means that the only time most students use a pen is on a written final. Any paper done in high school or college needs to be typed. Even the least academic student, given his or her choice about what to write a paper on, may find some pleasure in working on it. But even the most academic may have problems with anxiety and confidence when forced to pull out a Blue Book and answer various exam questions. How could this not translate to deep-seated feelings related to each method of relaying the written word?
2) Procrastination
I haven't studied American culture or its history at all, but I find it hard to imagine that procrastination has ever been as common as it is presently, and certainly the common pride in this procrastination is greater than ever. We--I--like to wait until the last minute. There is something exhilarating about a deadline. But because teachers and professors want papers to be typed, this means that even those who might otherwise write out an early draft are likely to use the computer. This enables faster editing. It allows for manipulation of the text. Spell check, thesaurus, and online resources make technical issues easier to take care of quickly. When a paper is due in three hours, efficiency is a key issue.
3) Laziness
Maybe this is related more to procrastination, but I'm sure it isn't only related to that reason. When writing a paper--I mean really writing--hard copies of research materials are needed. This means that a certain amount of work must have been done before the writing was started. Perhaps there is another option. The writer might have such extensive knowledge on the subject that he or she doesn't need the research materials at hand. But this is really not a second option, just a slight modification of the first. Most of us need to spend considerable preparation to have enough knowledge to write about something with no external resources. The other problem is that even with this sort of knowledge, crediting proper sources and steering clear of plagiarism are difficult. Working on the computer from the beginning eliminates these issues. Thanks to Google and other online sources, information is readily available while typing. There is no longer the felt need to go down to the library when a gap in information arises. Sure, too many online sources are looked down upon by teachers and professors. But many print resources are making their way to the web, eliminating this problem. Quoting someone is much easier when using cut and paste rather than read, transcribe, and rewrite.
...
So how do I solve this very personal problem? I see two options for myself, neither of which are inexpensive. The first is to practice writing. If I keep using pen and paper, over and over, despite its perceived impracticality and my inability, eventually I might develop some proficiency at writing. This will take time, effort, and planning, three things I lack. (Perhaps there is something to be said about the inculcation of the virtues that comes from the practice of writing, but I'll save that for some other time.)
The other option is to actually type. Up until this point I have been using type to mean word process, but now I mean just that: typing on a typewriter. If I buy a typewriter I can keep some of the aspects of the typing we've come to know with computers, but also keep the emphasis on the writing process that flows from a pen. The feeling of typing is still present, so the ease with which words seem to come while typing on a keyboard compared with that of grasping a pen isn't lost. In addition, that ever-important legibility isn't lost either. Typewriters can't connect to the internet. They can't save. There's no cut and paste. All the deficiencies of writing for getting something done quickly--and thus undercutting the writing process--are still lacking. But typewriters aren't cheap, either. Nor are they terribly prevalent. The upkeep is costly. And of course, those other expenses that were related to writing, time effort and planning, are still present. Is good writing worth it for one of these two options? I think so. In fact, I think so strongly enough that I now have a long-forgotten ailment and tell-tale sign of a forgotten generation of authors: writer's cramp.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
THE FUTURE!!!
Sorry, sometimes I get carried away. I wanted to have a big, ominous-looking headline. I am now signed up for the last three tests I need before I can get into the education program at the University of Oregon. Now I need to get that application done and my references taken care of. On the other side, Shane is ready to talk about Leuven and all three references for that application are good to go, so now I need to work hard on revamping a paper and figuring out how to convince people that they should let me study philosophy. The timeline for my trip so the bay area seems to be formalizing, since I figured out last night when the Cal-Stanford swim meet is. The last two weeks of February (which includes the beginning of March) will most likely find me down by the bay. Now I just want to figure out when and how I can get back out to Chicago and down to Phoenix. I've got a wedding in Phoenix in early June, but it'd be sweet to get down there another time before then...maybe around my brother's college graduation in May? Now I'm thinking in text, for all to see. Which makes for drivel, in my opinion. So I'm done.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Recent additions to my links
In case you didn't see them, I put these links up because I like 'em and think they're worth looking at:
Tom McGlothlin
j Rogers
Google Video
PutFile
The Oregonian
Apple
MacRumors
The New Yorker
Pitchfork
Tom McGlothlin
j Rogers
Google Video
PutFile
The Oregonian
Apple
MacRumors
The New Yorker
Pitchfork
Edward R. Murrow and the current MSM
I just finished reading this piece from The New Yorker. The thing that's most interesting about it to me, and the most relevant, is the question it raises about government regulation. Liberals and conservatives alike, at various times and in differing circumstances, have tended toward a desire for deregulation, which they've gotten. Is that really better for the public? The article doesn't answer that question at all, but it does make the question palatable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
