dlpin

First of all, the year the Kings almost went to the finals Bibby was no where close to being 1st fiddle. In 2001-2002, which is what we are talking about, his totals were 13.7 ppg and 5 apg in a team that had Crhis Webber, Peja and Vlade in their peaks or close to it. Bibby was only really 1st fiddle later, when they did not have anywhere near the level of success of earlier. Second, you keep making the mistake that offense is more important than defense. Rondo's J sucks, and no one guards him. But that is a small part of his game. He is only 4th fiddle when it comes to taking shots. 3rd best assist to TO ratio in the league, and top 3 among PGs in defense easily. Was Bibby ever top 2 or 3 in offense? You keep talking as if D is some minor part of the game. As far as his importance for the celtics goes, let me quote you a few stats on his role on the team this season: he is 2nd in PER and in Win Shares for the celtics, which give you a better idea of the importance of him being on the court than PPG. For the league, he is 3rd in steals, 3rd in defensive rating. If you are still not convinced, here is how some of the league's top PGs (or SGs he guarded) performed against him: Allen Iverson: 10 points, 4 assists, 4 turnovers Bibby: in the 2 encounters, he scored almost one point below his average, had 2.5 turnovers (as opposed to his 1.5 avg) and 2.5 assists (as opposed to his 4.9avg) Calderon: over 3 points below his average in the 2 games, shooting under 28% (normally 47% shooter) Chris Paul: Shot 31%, his second worst of the season Deron Williams: Fouled out, and had 4 turnovers and just 7 assists (3 under his average) The only way someone can fail to notice how important he is is if they are focusing only on PPG. Obviously he is not the only reason the Cs are so good, but put Bibby (or any other offense first PG) in his place and these celtics would be much, much worse than they are now. With Ray Allen and Paul Pierce playing major minutes, the celtics defense would have as many holes as a swiss cheese if the PG wasnt truly exceptional as a defender. Other than Garnett, Rondo is easily the most important player on this team. Or do you think its Pierce's 40% shooting that has the celtics with the best start in franchise history? Ray Allen's defense? Any way you cut it, be it in the comprehensive stats, be it in the game to game evidence, other than Garnett, Rondo is the player the C's cant afford to lose.

A back court of Bibby and Ray Allen would be killed by any team with a decent guard. And you dont have to imagine what if, just look at Boston when Eddie House is on the floor. I am not saying that Eddie House is anywhere near Bibby, but House is a sharpshooter with questionable defense. He is putting solid scoring stats, but Boston is always worse with him on because of defense. And as far as Bibby being "10x better than rondo," Bibby was never anywhere close to the defender Rondo is. You guys need to stop looking at a player's skill as being only ppg and ast. At 22, Rondo is already near the top in terms of PG defense. Otherwise, how can you explain the Celtics success, even as they lost Posey, and KG, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce are all having career low years? Replace Rondo with a shoot first, no defense PG, and the celtics are nothing special.

At this point I think he is a better player and more valuable than ray allen. PPG does not tell you the whole story about a player. Rondo is 3rd in steals per game, 11th in Assist to TO ratio, 3rd in defensive rating, 8th in assists... And while in offense things are made easy for him, dont tell me that on D playing alongside Ray Allen and Paul Pierce makes things easy for him. At this point in his career, Ray Allen is little more than a sharpshooter, easily replaceable. A defense first PG like rondo, on the other hand... The only PGs in the eastern conference Id pick over rondo if Im starting from scratch are calderon and harris. And in a team with so many scorers and shooters like the celtics, Rondo is the perfect fit. To say he is a BJ Armstrong type of player is laughable. Switch Bibby and Rondo around and the celtics are a much worse team, and the hawks a much better one.

I am a celtics fan in Atlanta, but I wont vote. But people keep talking about Garnett towards the end. The reason the Hawks did not win tonight was not garnett in the 4th, but Rondo and Josh Smith in the end of the 2nd. There was a 3 minute stretch in the end of the 2nd when the hawks were up 7 and had possession. They could have turned it into a 10 or more point game easily, but Rondo caught fire exactly at the same time as Josh Smith made a few bonehead mistakes. Sometimes its like Josh Smith intentionally gets beat so he can try to block the shot and look good, and he did this twice when Rondo went for lay ups in this strecth. In this particular stretch I am talking about, rondo had 4 points and Smith 2 turnovers, and the game went from a 7 point hawks lead to a 1 point game. You guys obviously watch way more hawks games than I do (although I do watch a fair share), but Josh Smith has got to be one of the most mentally undisciplined players Ive seen. He has the tools to be out of this world, but if the hawks have the lead, then it seems he either forces his shot or tries to make the highlight film by allowing defenders by to try to block them.

From most accounts, he is the same guy in Boston he was in Minnesota. The only difference is that when someone is overly aggressive in a non-contender, he is showing heart, but when he is overly aggressive in a top team, he is a bully... Now, with regards to KG, here's an old blog post by someone who played with him and would actually go on the record about him, Paul Shirley: http://deadspin.com/5013954/paul-shirley-a...finals-in-spain "Kevin Garnett shares some of Bryant’s personality traits. He’s arrogant…but he realizes it. He can be insufferable…but he laughs about it. He’s intense…but he can turn it off. The contrast between the two was evident even in the first quarter of the first game of this year’s Finals. Bryant took bad shot after bad shot, with no one questioning his decisions. For whatever reason, people—including the self-professed guru of coaching team-oriented basketball—assume that closely guarded fadeaways with a 25% likelihood of success are better since they’re taken by the team’s superstar. Meanwhile, Garnett was playing fairly well. But that’s not the important part. It was evident, just from watching his face that Garnett was, of all things, nervous. And I guess that’s why I liked him so much when I spent three weeks in the Timberwolves’ training camp. Kevin Garnett is almost like the rest of us. He’s gets nervous like the rest of us…laughs at himself like the rest of us…sees how ridiculous his job is, just like the rest of us. Kobe Bryant thinks that it’s perfectly normal that he is widely considered to be the best player in basketball. Kevin Garnett is like the sane person who thinks he might be going crazy. Kobe Bryant is the crazy person who thinks that everyone else is insane."

well, one thing you guys are not taking into account is the selection bias of the sample. I.e., we only have averages for those in the second round who made it to the league. As we can see in the number of cases in each group, there are about half as many second rounders in the sample as 1st rounders. Which means that 2nd rounders produce almost as well as 1st rounders WHEN they make it to the league, which is about 50% of the time.

I was thinking of bringing my camera to one of the home games. It is a DSLR and I have an assortment of lenses. Does anyone what restrictions are in place with regards to that? I mean maximum camera size/lens size or focal length? If not, anyone knows the phone number I can call to find out?

Well, there are two things that work inherently against teams in the south. And it is not exclusive to Atlanta. Heck, people talk about Atlanta fans, but Miami fans are much, much worse, given the success they had. #1- As most southern cities, Atlanta has poor public transportation. This makes getting to games much more cumbersome, especially since the arena is downtown. In most cities with great attendance, getting to the arena is very convenient. #2- And this is the biggest reason: Nice weather + big metro area= lots of stuff to do for very cheap. I dont know if any of you have lived in the northeast or upper midwest during the winter, but you are inside so much that it gets to be a bit claustrophobic. No wonder people flock to events in big open arenas. More than that, there is very little to do on a consistent basis there for people who are into sports and such. So, other than the few weeks when its cold down here in Atlanta, basketball fans have a few options: going home, firing up the grill outside given the weather, opening a beer and watching the game on HD with friends or family, or being stuck in traffic for almost one hour, watching the game with beer at 7 bucks, then being stuck in traffic for almost one hour on the way home. Even if you dont want to stay home, there are dozens of nice, upscale bars with hdtvs showing the game and affordable food. If you try to go to a nice bar in Boston (not a dump) or New York, you might end up spending more than at the game. Places with great attendance are either places with nothing better to do (Salt Lake City, Oklahoma) or places that are very cold, with nice public transit and where other entertainment possibilities are ridiculously expensive (Boston, Detroit, Chicago). Orlando, Miami, Atlanta and New Orleans will never really compete in attendance. Too much to do at good prices, too much of a hassle to get to the arena.

Most states are like that, with different requirements for sale and carrying, especially concealed. In any case, even in Georgia, and even if he had all permits, he would still be breaking the law, since you cant carry it into any place that is licensed for alcohol sales and consumption on premises.

I think if you need a license to drive you should need a license to have a gun. Also, just like you can't drink and drive, I dont think you should be able to carry a gun where alcohol is served. In this case, I think Burress should never get a gun license again. Anyone who is incompetent enough with one to shoot himself with it is too incompetent to defend himself with it. Im also amazed that there are no penalties for any of the other players with him. You'd think that being out late friday before a key divisional match up would have raised some eyebrows, especially after helping a teammate conceal a legal incident.

You make it sound like UGA was competitive in those games, then the defense came in and gave it all away. Now, dont get me wrong, Richt is the best HC UGA has had in years, and quite possibly the best recruiter UGA ever had. But is too mellow in tough games, and, more importantly, he and his staff on both sides of the ball are just average in game day coaching. His record against teams that have won 8 or more in a season is 9-13 (maybe 10-13 if LSU wins another one). he is 2-5 against florida for a reason. Great guy, but I doubt he will win a national championship any time soon. To say it is all the D's fault is to ignore how lackluster the offense was in those key quarters.

UGA's D has been bad in the big games, but I think they are being turned into scapegoats for a team that was outcoached and outplayed on both sides of the ball when it mattered. Allowing 31 points in the first half agains Bama was bad, but so was gaining less than 100 yards total with 2 turnovers in the first half. Similarly, the offense was just as bad as the defense in the loss to florida. Even in some of the wins the O was less than stellar. People need to look at how UGA has played long term, and the fact is that Richt is a great recruiter and motivator, but lousy game day coach.

If this was even remotely close to truth, user generated rosters with more realistic figures wouldnt be so popular. People need to be more skeptical of "endorsements" like these. EA has dumped and continues to dump boatloads of money on endorsement and licensing fees, so of course anyone involved in the nba is going to say how great their products are. This reminds me of the deal NFL has with canon and photographers. Canon claims to be the top brand for sports photography, and when you look at the sidelines of an NFL game you might even think so. But the thing is that the NFL requires all photographers to use canon jackets, caps and straps even when they themselves shoot other brands. Meanwhile, over half of them shoot nikons.

Mark Richt is the typical college coach where good recruiting hides his deficiencies in play calling most of the time. But in big games or against good game day coaches, he is always exposed and comes up short.

not to take anything away from Ryan, but a lot of credit has to be given to the new coach as well. That is something that is often underrated in this era where so much attention is paid to superstar athletes. Good examples of good coaches making quarterbacks succeed are Ryan, Eli Manning in NY (people think he got so much better last year, but that was because coughlin changed things around significantly), and anyone with Belichick (two late round picks who play like MVPs is not a coincidence. Watch as Cassel comes back to earth and becomes a jeff garcia type once he leaves NE). Meanwhile, what Andy Reid has been doing with McNabb is criminal. McNabb played like an mvp for 4 or 5 seasons before his health started to deteriorate fast because of Reid's riding of him. Other than TO, never got him a good WR, and the play calling has been atrocious. I mean, what with all the play action when you are passing 70% of the time? Whats with all the passes in short yardage situation? Ryan must thank his lucky stars every night for being with a good organization and a good coach.

From what I remember him saying, the basic insight is that close games are true toss ups decided by random factors, as opposed to decisive wins. That is, the rationale is that blow outs tell you more about a team's skill than tight games. So a team that decisively won 50 games and lost the other 32 by 1 or 2 points is better than a team that decisively won 30 games, and just squeaked by winning another 25 at the last second. Case in point last night's hawks loss: that PP shot was at best a 50% shot, so the loss (or win) was more due to luck and randomness than true decisive superiority. My problem with Hollinger is that he creates these "black boxes" and then places blind faith in them. Methodologically, my problem is that his statistics are purely descriptive. He makes no effort to model trends and swings, or even specific match ups, other than arbitrarily discounting certain numbers over others. Case in point, last year's playoffs when he underestimated the cavs (the hawks caught everyone by surprise, even though a more statistically savvy person would have modeled how the Celtics did against athletic teams as opposed to just looking at the overall number) despite their improvements late, and later underestimated the celtics in the final. Explicitly including trends and other momentum and experience indicators in a true model as opposed to a descriptive statistic would have allowed him to be much more precise in forecasting the cavs success against the wizards and the celtics success against the lakers.

Normally I wouldn't defend Hollinger because I think basing everything on numbers alone leads to some inconsistencies. But here I find myself defending him. He is not "acting" like a hawks fan. His ranking are based purely on his formula, and he does not have any reason to skew them in any way. After all, his career success depends on him being accurate. There are two things that are the key to his formula, more than anything else: margin of victory (really THE key stat in his formula) and strength of schedule. So hawks are number 2 not because he skewed the numbers to show so, but because the hawks have the second largest margin of victory average and the 10th largest "strength of schedule" score.

According to the Boston Globe, 17 teams have inquired about signing him. No typo, seventeen! Of course, in true journalistic fashion, I would bet that most of these inquiries were not serious, more like curiosity at how much he is asking for or just trying to mess up the pistons by providing evidence of some previous agreement. But still, serious interest.

McDyess first season with the Pistons was 04-05, which was the season following their championship. There are few contenders that I can think of that would want a back up pf. Maybe the celtics, the pistons themselves, and cleveland, as insurance.

Actually, Jason ran in parts 2-4 too. It is only after part 6 that he just walks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nud9-hG0EdY

I grew up watching friday the 13th movies. I especially like that they are re imagining the start of the saga, as opposed to freddy v jason 2 or jason XI. I was always surprised that Halloween and texas chainsaw massacre had remakes/reboots, but Friday the 13th didnt. The new halloween and texas chainsaw massacre were crap because they gave up a lot of what made the originals good to try to come up with rationales and motives that were not really needed. On the other hand, friday the 13th was precisely the series that had the most inconsistencies from episode to episode (was jason alive, was he supernatural), and the least amoung of story beyond part 2.

And even that has gone horribly downhill... from vegas and entourage to endless yapping about "the hills" and so on...

Whatever you think of Hollinger and his stats obsession, at least he is consistent (and, more often than not, one of the better prognosticators out there). He sticks by his numbers and makes actual arguments based on them. I know this is damning with faint praise, but at least I dont feel myself getting dumber by reading his articles, like I do when I read Bill Simmons, Jalen Rose, Tim Legler, Jemelle Hill or Scoop Jackson. Bill Simmons, especially, as he is the biggest flip flopper out there (like when he said the suns were absolutely right in trading JJ, and then last year said that the deal was an obvious mistake).

Yep, Celtics fan since about 1988 (that is the first time I remember paying attention to the NBA), but Ive been living in metro atlanta for about 7 years now, and Ive always sympathized with the hawks.

As some of you may remember, Im a celtics fan. And I dont get why some of you are upset over their predictions. Last year, only one of them even had the celtics coming out of the east, and none thought they'd win a title. The pistons were the consensus no. 1, and the bulls were either no. 1 or 2 in almost all of them. Their predictions are almost meaningless. But, by the way, averaging all predictions the Hawks are 7th in the conference: Eastern Conference Projections Celtics 1.0 Pistons 2.5 Cavs 3.7 Magic 4.0 Sixers 4.5 Raptors 5.7 Hawks 9.1 Wiz 9.3 Bulls 9.4 Heat 9.7 Bucks 10.4 Bobcats 11.9 Pacers 11.9 Nets 13.5 Knicks 13.7 In fact, the best thing for any team is to be underrated. Imagine the celtics this year: if instead of opening 11-0 like last year, they start a reasonable 6-4, all of the sudden everyone will be asking themselves "what is wrong with them" and any little thing will become a story. Same thing for any other team that is predicted to do well.