Friday, June 3, 2016
Durant's Decision
The popular opinion is that Durant should stay with the Thunder. The Thunder are in a complex situation. Their team was one win away from making it to the NBA Finals, but Durant, and Westbrook may well have peaked as a duo. Four years ago when they lost the NBA Finals
to the Heat, they were a very young team. Their future looked bright. Four years later, while they have been good since then, they have not won a championship. In their own conference is a young Golden State team that looks better prepared for the future than OKC. They had their chance this year, and they had a great chance. They got Golden State with an injured Steph Curry, who hadn't quite found his touch since coming back. They got out to a 3-1 lead, and then Golden State came back, and won the series. You have to wonder will the Westbrook-Durant dominated Thunder win any championships. If Durant goes to another team, it could be a team that isn't very good.
If he stays with the Thunder they might not win a championship. The championship is what is missing from Durant's resume.
There is also the issue, of Russell Westbrook. Durant is the best player on the team, but the team's second best player is the one who always has the ball in his hands. It's like Westbrook got addicted to dominating the offense when Durant was away, and not even Durant's return will make him change up his style of play. It was part of what hurt the Thunder in those last three games, though Durant also played a big role in the team's struggles. Late in game six Westbrook, and Durant tried to put the team on their shoulders, and it didn't work. The Thunder's had too
many turnovers late in the game, and too few passes. Westbrook especially was making bad mistakes. The feeling when they had the 3-1, lead was that they were going to lose game 5, and win game 6. When they were competitive in game 5, they were acting as if they were fine
with things, even though they lost the game. They knew their best chance to close the series was at home, and they blew that one. Westbrook wants his numbers, and I don't think he wants to step back, and let Durant be the man, even if that's what's better for the team.
What are my feelings on this decision? I think that unless Durant is going to jump the bandwagon of a really good team (which he might do), the best thing to do would be to stay where he is at. Now I don't think they have a great chance at winning a championship next season, but it seems like going back would at least give him a realistic shot. Besides I don't think he wants the backlash that would
happen if he left.
Saturday, May 14, 2016
WNBA's 20th Season What A Big Deal (Not)
The WNBA is going into their 20th season. With some help from the NBA, and a lot of political correctness, the league has reached a milestone that a male league with the same popularity would be very lucky to come close to. I remember the league's first game. It had been preceded by an ambitious promotional campaign. We were having a cookout on that day. We started off watching the game. There were about 4 or 5 of us, and after the others went out, I was the last one there actually watching the game. We had some excitement about it before the game started, but that was gone before halftime. The New York Liberty beat the Los Angeles Sparks that day, and the WNBA was off, and running, or maybe crawling.
The more I watched the WNBA the more it became obvious just how much different the women's game is from the men's. It goes well beyond the fact that they don't dunk, at least not very often. The game is played slow motion compared to the men's game. The passing, running, and dribbling are all done so slowly. They don't jump nearly as high. That makes the rebounding, layups, and blocked shots far entertaining. That doesn't even get to the dunking. Brittney Griner gets so much hype for doing dunks that would be shitty if an NBA player that height performed them. There is also this idea that women's players are better fundamentally, but how true is that? They shoot comparable percentages from the line, but with a smaller ball on the same size basket. They turn the ball over at a higher rate. The stats aren't that way, because the defense is better. Of course female tennis players aren't as good as the men, but at least they are stars, and they draw. The WNBA can't make the same argument. The league gets low ratings on television, their players aren't stars, and interest in the league in general is very low. Still the league gets major league treatment. They are on ESPN a whole lot. WNBA highlights are regularly shown on Sportscenter, and they play in big arenas.
I've had an idea for a big game. What about the U.S. Oympic Women's basketball team play the winning team of the boys McDonald's high school All American game. The idea would never work, but whatever. The boys team would win if it did happen.
The more I watched the WNBA the more it became obvious just how much different the women's game is from the men's. It goes well beyond the fact that they don't dunk, at least not very often. The game is played slow motion compared to the men's game. The passing, running, and dribbling are all done so slowly. They don't jump nearly as high. That makes the rebounding, layups, and blocked shots far entertaining. That doesn't even get to the dunking. Brittney Griner gets so much hype for doing dunks that would be shitty if an NBA player that height performed them. There is also this idea that women's players are better fundamentally, but how true is that? They shoot comparable percentages from the line, but with a smaller ball on the same size basket. They turn the ball over at a higher rate. The stats aren't that way, because the defense is better. Of course female tennis players aren't as good as the men, but at least they are stars, and they draw. The WNBA can't make the same argument. The league gets low ratings on television, their players aren't stars, and interest in the league in general is very low. Still the league gets major league treatment. They are on ESPN a whole lot. WNBA highlights are regularly shown on Sportscenter, and they play in big arenas.
I've had an idea for a big game. What about the U.S. Oympic Women's basketball team play the winning team of the boys McDonald's high school All American game. The idea would never work, but whatever. The boys team would win if it did happen.
Monday, April 25, 2016
Deflategate
Tom Brady's 4 game suspension was reinstated today. On twitter Brady is trending, and "Free Brady" is also trending. There is obviously plenty people who think that the 4 game suspension is stupid. I want to largely deal with the facts of the situation. Did Tom Brady know about the football being deflated, and the answer to that is yes. I think it's pretty damn obvious Brady knew about that. Why would those Patriot ball boys deflate the ball without the knowledge of the quarterback? How could Brady handle those deflated footballs on a regular basis, and not know they were deflated? While those questions don't provide actual evidence, it is still hard to believe that Brady, at the least, didn't have any knowledge of the footballs being deflated. Jim McNally called himself the deflator, and the Patriots didn't even deny that. They just said he was called that because he was trying to lose weight. If you want to believe that one than you can keep drinking the Tom Brady Kool-Aid. There were plenty texts sent back and forth between John Jastremski, and McNally in which they chat about Tom Brady, and the footballs. One text states 'Tom is acting crazy about the balls'. In another McNally seems to joke about the idea of inflating balls as revenge against Brady for his complaints. Brady and Jastremski began speaking to each other on the phone more frequently after the January 2015 AFC Championship Game. There is no real smoking gun. They didn't find any text from Brady admitting that he asked for the balls to be deflated. There is nothing of that sort, but why should there be. You should expect Tom Brady to do a pretty good job of covering his tracks.
There is also the "coincidence" that Brady destroyed his phone right before meeting Ted Wells. Now why would Brady do such a thing? It could have been for privacy but a Deadspin article stats, Wells only wanted someone to search the phone for Brady's text with certain key words in them. He didn't want to dig into Brady's personal life. Adding more suspicion to the destruction of cell phone is that Brady gave a forensic examiner two phones that he had used around the time, that he would have used the phone he destroyed. The Deadspin article mentions one phone probably being active between May 23, 2014, and November 5, 2014. The other was active from March 6, 2015, until April 8, 2015. March 6 is the date that Brady met up with Ted Wells. So he started using his new phone, on the same date he met with Wells, and not long after destroying the other phone. If Brady could hand over those phones, why wouldn't he hand over the phone that he destroyed, or at least give that to the forensic examiner?
There are still some people who hold on to the belief that Brady didn't know about the deflating of the footballs, but many arguing for Brady don't even bring up that point. They think that the 4 game suspension was too much. I think that a four game suspension is fair enough. It seems to me that the NFL players union is becoming more like social justice warriors, while the league can be seen as representative of the system. The players union bickers, and complains, about so much shit, and they often seem to get their way. The NFL seems to lose in court quite a bit, and Roger Goddell for some reason, seems to make the perfect whipping boy. I don't think Pete Rozell, and Paul Tagliabue had their authority stepped on the way that Goddell has. Players appeal even the most obvious suspensions, in which their actions are caught on camera. There are complaints about CTE, and the risk players, but then you hear a bunch of complaints about how they won't let the defenders be physical anymore. The league just can't do enough to make the players union happy.
References
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25185129/patriots-attendant-called-himself-deflator-because-he-was-trying-to-lose-weight
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=evidence+against+tom+brady
http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4420576-richard-sherman-seattle-seahawks-suspension-overturned-appeal-adderall
There is also the "coincidence" that Brady destroyed his phone right before meeting Ted Wells. Now why would Brady do such a thing? It could have been for privacy but a Deadspin article stats, Wells only wanted someone to search the phone for Brady's text with certain key words in them. He didn't want to dig into Brady's personal life. Adding more suspicion to the destruction of cell phone is that Brady gave a forensic examiner two phones that he had used around the time, that he would have used the phone he destroyed. The Deadspin article mentions one phone probably being active between May 23, 2014, and November 5, 2014. The other was active from March 6, 2015, until April 8, 2015. March 6 is the date that Brady met up with Ted Wells. So he started using his new phone, on the same date he met with Wells, and not long after destroying the other phone. If Brady could hand over those phones, why wouldn't he hand over the phone that he destroyed, or at least give that to the forensic examiner?
There are still some people who hold on to the belief that Brady didn't know about the deflating of the footballs, but many arguing for Brady don't even bring up that point. They think that the 4 game suspension was too much. I think that a four game suspension is fair enough. It seems to me that the NFL players union is becoming more like social justice warriors, while the league can be seen as representative of the system. The players union bickers, and complains, about so much shit, and they often seem to get their way. The NFL seems to lose in court quite a bit, and Roger Goddell for some reason, seems to make the perfect whipping boy. I don't think Pete Rozell, and Paul Tagliabue had their authority stepped on the way that Goddell has. Players appeal even the most obvious suspensions, in which their actions are caught on camera. There are complaints about CTE, and the risk players, but then you hear a bunch of complaints about how they won't let the defenders be physical anymore. The league just can't do enough to make the players union happy.
References
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25185129/patriots-attendant-called-himself-deflator-because-he-was-trying-to-lose-weight
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=evidence+against+tom+brady
http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4420576-richard-sherman-seattle-seahawks-suspension-overturned-appeal-adderall
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
The Bernie Sanders Guy
Bernie Sanders lost New York. I mean he got some delegates, but he is way behind
Hilary Clinton in terms of delegates. Looks like he has a slim chance of becoming
the Democratic candidate for president. Sanders is a favorite of some of my facebook
friends. I think of him as a Social Justice Warrior running for president. Back in
the day, like 50 years ago, he was marching for desegregation. Nowadays though, I have
no problem considering him an SJW. One example of what I don't like
about Sanders comes from when he was confronted by Blacks Lives Matter protesters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV-ZSP0zAuI
The women rudely interrupted Sanders during his speech, and got right in front of the
podium. They were completely disrespectful to whoever it was in the hat, that tried to
calm things down. What did Sanders do in this situation. He pandered to the women,
and kissed ass. He even offered a handshake at first, which wasn't accepted. He moved
aside, and let them speak. He let them take over what was supposed to be his time.
Even Bernie's ass kissing wasn't enough to get him out of this one. While some people
may see this as some great act of restraint , I thought that it went to far. They talked
down to him, and he didn't even speak to defend himself. This seems like the SJW way of
dealing with blacks. As many white SJWs appear afraid to criticize blacks, unless that black person is an extreme conservative.
I can see why some of my SJW facebook friends like Bernie so much. He wants to raise
minimum wage to 15$ an hour. I've read articles from financial experts on the topic, and none of
them thought that this was a good idea. It isn't a good idea to raise minimum wage that
high anytime in the near future. It would lead to massive layoffs, and even greater
economic inequality. He wants women to get equal salary, but hasn't addressed the main
causes for that wage gap. Women work less hours than men, and are more likely to work
in lower paying fields.
It isn't that Hilary Clinton is great. She's a liar, an opportunist, and her idea of
raising minimum wage to 12$ isn't realistic either. Still Clinton has an understanding
that change is brought about slowing. Sanders seems to not give a fuck. He wants to
change minimum wage to 15 bucks. He wants to change up Wall Street in a way that seems completely unrealistic for the next 4 or 8 years.
Maybe if Bernie can't become president he can tell those BLM women who protested his
event to bend over, while he chews their asses out.
Hilary Clinton in terms of delegates. Looks like he has a slim chance of becoming
the Democratic candidate for president. Sanders is a favorite of some of my facebook
friends. I think of him as a Social Justice Warrior running for president. Back in
the day, like 50 years ago, he was marching for desegregation. Nowadays though, I have
no problem considering him an SJW. One example of what I don't like
about Sanders comes from when he was confronted by Blacks Lives Matter protesters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV-ZSP0zAuI
The women rudely interrupted Sanders during his speech, and got right in front of the
podium. They were completely disrespectful to whoever it was in the hat, that tried to
calm things down. What did Sanders do in this situation. He pandered to the women,
and kissed ass. He even offered a handshake at first, which wasn't accepted. He moved
aside, and let them speak. He let them take over what was supposed to be his time.
Even Bernie's ass kissing wasn't enough to get him out of this one. While some people
may see this as some great act of restraint , I thought that it went to far. They talked
down to him, and he didn't even speak to defend himself. This seems like the SJW way of
dealing with blacks. As many white SJWs appear afraid to criticize blacks, unless that black person is an extreme conservative.
I can see why some of my SJW facebook friends like Bernie so much. He wants to raise
minimum wage to 15$ an hour. I've read articles from financial experts on the topic, and none of
them thought that this was a good idea. It isn't a good idea to raise minimum wage that
high anytime in the near future. It would lead to massive layoffs, and even greater
economic inequality. He wants women to get equal salary, but hasn't addressed the main
causes for that wage gap. Women work less hours than men, and are more likely to work
in lower paying fields.
It isn't that Hilary Clinton is great. She's a liar, an opportunist, and her idea of
raising minimum wage to 12$ isn't realistic either. Still Clinton has an understanding
that change is brought about slowing. Sanders seems to not give a fuck. He wants to
change minimum wage to 15 bucks. He wants to change up Wall Street in a way that seems completely unrealistic for the next 4 or 8 years.
Maybe if Bernie can't become president he can tell those BLM women who protested his
event to bend over, while he chews their asses out.
Monday, April 11, 2016
When mind reading is simply complex mathemathics
I've seen these types of videos before. Someone says that they can read your mind, and then gives you some math questions. You start off with a number, then do some other math, and end up with an answer that matches up to what the person in the video says it will. Usually these math tricks are very easy for me to figure out, but I ran into one that was a bit more complex. It was a video from SoFlo's facebook page that was shared by someone who is a friend of mine of facebook. The instructions went like this
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 2
Add 5
Multiply by 50
Add 1766 if you had your birthday this year, or 1765 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth
The first digit of the number will be the number you chose and the other two will be your age. The guy in the video says that you will get a 3 digit number. It works just fine, though if you start off with the number 10, you will get a four digit number, with the first two being the number 10. Still only a small portion of people are going to pick ten. Firstly it makes up just 10% of possible numbers for you to pick, and my guess would if you ask a large group people to think of a number between 1 and 10, less than 10% of them would think of 10.
I already knew before I did the math that it was a mathematics and not mind reading (which I don't believe in anyway), I just wanted to figure out how to break it down, and explain it, so I thought it provided a nice little challenge. In searching google I found a chat from 2004 in which someone broke down a similar problem using algebra. In their equation they used X to represent the number you started off with. I wanted to find a way to break the problem down in a less algebraic fashion. After some time of looking for patterns. I came to a conclusion. One important part of the formula is that the two numbers which you multiply in the equation are 2 and 50. If you multiply those numbers together you get 100. This assures you that the last two digits will be the same, no matter what number you start off with. If you start off with 2, then that number you end up with will be 100 greater than what you would end up with if you started with 1. You also need to make sure that the number you have before you subtract your age is one that will make the problem work. Here's a breakdown of what that number should be using some algebra, in which X represents the number you think of before doing the math, or, as I'll call it, the starting number
Current Year + 100X if your birthday has passed this year
(Current Year-1)+100X if it hasn't
The current year is 2016, lets make it more simple. The formula would then be 2016+100X, if your birthday has passed this year, or 2015+100X if it hasn't. If your starting number is 1, then the number you have before you subtract your year of birth should be 2116, or 2115 respectively. If it is 2, then it should be either 2216, or 2215. If it's 3 then you should have either 2316, or 2315. I came up with a similar formula that works
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 4
Add 5
Multiply by 25
Add 1891 if you had your birthday this year, or 1890 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth.
It works just the same. In fact if you take it beyond three digits numbers it works for numbers past 10. I tried the same for numbers 15, 25, 99, 100, and 1000. No matter what my starting number is, the last two digits in the answer are my the age, and the other digit(s), is the starting number. Here are some other ways to use the same math, and just changing numbers up.
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 5
Add 5
Multiply by 20
Add 1916 if you had your birthday this year, or 1915 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth.
Instead of adding 5 lets take the original formula, and add a different number, and come up with something that works
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 2
Add 4
Multiply by 50
Add 1816 if you had your birthday this year, or 1815 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth
Let's look at this problem as having different steps. Multiplying 2 is the first step, adding 4 is the second, and so on. The keys to the formula is that the numbers in step one, and three are numbers that when multiplied together give you 100, and then in step 4 you want to add a number that is going to make the problem workout.
It is also worth noting that it is no coincidence that this problem is being brought to us in a leap year. The chat about the similar equation, also came from a leap year (2004). If you were doing the problem in a year that wasn't a leap year, you may need to make a slight change for those who were born on a leap day. If the date is before March, then everything is fine. If it's after March then someone who was born on a leap day can just treat it as if their birthday has already passed in that year.
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 2
Add 5
Multiply by 50
Add 1766 if you had your birthday this year, or 1765 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth
The first digit of the number will be the number you chose and the other two will be your age. The guy in the video says that you will get a 3 digit number. It works just fine, though if you start off with the number 10, you will get a four digit number, with the first two being the number 10. Still only a small portion of people are going to pick ten. Firstly it makes up just 10% of possible numbers for you to pick, and my guess would if you ask a large group people to think of a number between 1 and 10, less than 10% of them would think of 10.
I already knew before I did the math that it was a mathematics and not mind reading (which I don't believe in anyway), I just wanted to figure out how to break it down, and explain it, so I thought it provided a nice little challenge. In searching google I found a chat from 2004 in which someone broke down a similar problem using algebra. In their equation they used X to represent the number you started off with. I wanted to find a way to break the problem down in a less algebraic fashion. After some time of looking for patterns. I came to a conclusion. One important part of the formula is that the two numbers which you multiply in the equation are 2 and 50. If you multiply those numbers together you get 100. This assures you that the last two digits will be the same, no matter what number you start off with. If you start off with 2, then that number you end up with will be 100 greater than what you would end up with if you started with 1. You also need to make sure that the number you have before you subtract your age is one that will make the problem work. Here's a breakdown of what that number should be using some algebra, in which X represents the number you think of before doing the math, or, as I'll call it, the starting number
Current Year + 100X if your birthday has passed this year
(Current Year-1)+100X if it hasn't
The current year is 2016, lets make it more simple. The formula would then be 2016+100X, if your birthday has passed this year, or 2015+100X if it hasn't. If your starting number is 1, then the number you have before you subtract your year of birth should be 2116, or 2115 respectively. If it is 2, then it should be either 2216, or 2215. If it's 3 then you should have either 2316, or 2315. I came up with a similar formula that works
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 4
Add 5
Multiply by 25
Add 1891 if you had your birthday this year, or 1890 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth.
It works just the same. In fact if you take it beyond three digits numbers it works for numbers past 10. I tried the same for numbers 15, 25, 99, 100, and 1000. No matter what my starting number is, the last two digits in the answer are my the age, and the other digit(s), is the starting number. Here are some other ways to use the same math, and just changing numbers up.
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 5
Add 5
Multiply by 20
Add 1916 if you had your birthday this year, or 1915 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth.
Instead of adding 5 lets take the original formula, and add a different number, and come up with something that works
Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 2
Add 4
Multiply by 50
Add 1816 if you had your birthday this year, or 1815 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth
Let's look at this problem as having different steps. Multiplying 2 is the first step, adding 4 is the second, and so on. The keys to the formula is that the numbers in step one, and three are numbers that when multiplied together give you 100, and then in step 4 you want to add a number that is going to make the problem workout.
It is also worth noting that it is no coincidence that this problem is being brought to us in a leap year. The chat about the similar equation, also came from a leap year (2004). If you were doing the problem in a year that wasn't a leap year, you may need to make a slight change for those who were born on a leap day. If the date is before March, then everything is fine. If it's after March then someone who was born on a leap day can just treat it as if their birthday has already passed in that year.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Wrestlemania III attendance
Last night was WrestleMania 32. I didn't watch it, but twitter keeps you updated on what's going on. I wanted to find what attendance number the WWE was going to say they had, and also wanted to know the actual attendance. Last night's announced attendance was 101,763, and according to Brian Alvarez of the Wrestling Observer, Dave Meltzer got the real number from the stadium, and it was just under 94,000. I thought about WrestleMania III. The announced attendance was 93,173, but Meltzer said the real attendance was 78,000. Either way last night's WrestleMania beat out the 78,000 number, and if we are to believe what Meltzer was told it was higher than the billed 93,173. Because of that, this might be late, but I felt like looking at WrestleMania III and explaining why I believe Meltzer when it comes to the attendance at that event. Perhaps it speaks to the magnitude of the event that there has been heavy debate over what the actual attendance figure is. Now it's accepted that the WWE lies about their attendance figures, but it's so hard to believe that the attendance for WrestleMania III was as low as 78,000 (still a really high number).
When I read, years ago, about how Meltzer learned of the real attendance being 78,000 I didn't believe it. I had gone to Silverdome.com, and the site said that the arena seated 80,325 and had a capacity of about 90,000 for wrestling, and motocross (not sure if it was motocross). That was years ago, but today I looked up the Pontiac Silverdome on google, and the stadium which is set to me demolished this spring, is listed as having a capacity of 80,311. That capacity wouldn't include floor seats, and for those who believe in the 93,173 number, and for many who believe that it was at least in the 80,000s, that is the key. The argument for there being 93,173 in attendance goes something like this. There were 80,325 seats in the stands, and the stands were full. Add in a bunch of people in floor seats, and 93,173 makes sense. If you think about it that way the 78,000 number does not make sense, so how do you explain it. Well for one even if the stands were full, there is no way there were enough people on the floor for them to have 93,173 people in attendance. That would mean there would have to have been nearly 13,000 on the floor. That would be enough to make a nice looking crowd at Madison Square Garden. There weren't nearly that many people on the floor. Then there is the stands. Today the WWE uses a huge Titantron, which blocks a number of seats. They didn't have anything like that back then, but there were still seats being blocked. It isn't easy to catch, and I haven't read anything about it. I was playing WWE 2k14, and noticed at the WrestleMania III arena there was some yellow contraption right over the ring entrance. In the game there were people seated behind it, but I was wondering if I could spot the real one watching a video of WrestleMania III, and was anyone sitting behind it. So I watched, and there it was above the entrance, and the old WWF logo
Behind it was empty seats, and at top there is a camera. Sure there aren't thousands of empty seats behind, but I found something. Looking at the event I noticed other spots in which the same type of yellow structure was used, and there were either a good number of empty seats behind it, or I couldn't tell.
Here's a shot of another area, where you can see the same type of structure, and see the empty blue behind it, which are empty seats
I saw another while watching Aretha Franklin sing America The Beautiful, and there was another that you could see when you saw the footage from the hard cam. I'm sure those weren't the only ones. For the 78,000 number to be accurate there wouldn't need to be a ton of those structures around. The WWF
had cameras all over the place that night in the Silverdome, and obviously some of them were being mounted on structures that were right in front of empty seats, besides why would you want to seat audience members behind something like that. Whatever the case there certainly were not 80,000+ people in the stands. I already believed the 78,000 attendance figure given by Meltzer, but I was wondering how there weren't about 80,000 in the stands. Now there is less wondering for me to do about that.
When I read, years ago, about how Meltzer learned of the real attendance being 78,000 I didn't believe it. I had gone to Silverdome.com, and the site said that the arena seated 80,325 and had a capacity of about 90,000 for wrestling, and motocross (not sure if it was motocross). That was years ago, but today I looked up the Pontiac Silverdome on google, and the stadium which is set to me demolished this spring, is listed as having a capacity of 80,311. That capacity wouldn't include floor seats, and for those who believe in the 93,173 number, and for many who believe that it was at least in the 80,000s, that is the key. The argument for there being 93,173 in attendance goes something like this. There were 80,325 seats in the stands, and the stands were full. Add in a bunch of people in floor seats, and 93,173 makes sense. If you think about it that way the 78,000 number does not make sense, so how do you explain it. Well for one even if the stands were full, there is no way there were enough people on the floor for them to have 93,173 people in attendance. That would mean there would have to have been nearly 13,000 on the floor. That would be enough to make a nice looking crowd at Madison Square Garden. There weren't nearly that many people on the floor. Then there is the stands. Today the WWE uses a huge Titantron, which blocks a number of seats. They didn't have anything like that back then, but there were still seats being blocked. It isn't easy to catch, and I haven't read anything about it. I was playing WWE 2k14, and noticed at the WrestleMania III arena there was some yellow contraption right over the ring entrance. In the game there were people seated behind it, but I was wondering if I could spot the real one watching a video of WrestleMania III, and was anyone sitting behind it. So I watched, and there it was above the entrance, and the old WWF logo
Behind it was empty seats, and at top there is a camera. Sure there aren't thousands of empty seats behind, but I found something. Looking at the event I noticed other spots in which the same type of yellow structure was used, and there were either a good number of empty seats behind it, or I couldn't tell.
Here's a shot of another area, where you can see the same type of structure, and see the empty blue behind it, which are empty seats
I saw another while watching Aretha Franklin sing America The Beautiful, and there was another that you could see when you saw the footage from the hard cam. I'm sure those weren't the only ones. For the 78,000 number to be accurate there wouldn't need to be a ton of those structures around. The WWF
had cameras all over the place that night in the Silverdome, and obviously some of them were being mounted on structures that were right in front of empty seats, besides why would you want to seat audience members behind something like that. Whatever the case there certainly were not 80,000+ people in the stands. I already believed the 78,000 attendance figure given by Meltzer, but I was wondering how there weren't about 80,000 in the stands. Now there is less wondering for me to do about that.
Monday, March 14, 2016
Advanced Metrics Not So Kind To These Greats
Advanced Metrics might not be the be all end all, but they combine with traditional statistics to give us a better viewpoint of the game, of players helps teams. Still that stats aren't always an accurate way to measure a player's greatness. In basketball due to the lack of defensive statistics some important players don't do too well in terms of modern metrics. Players such as Bruce Bowen, Dennis Rodman, and Ron Artest/Metta World Peace/Whatever get hurt because they impacted defense in ways that do not show up in statistics. For Rodman at least he got a lot of defensive rebounds. I didn't want this to be about those types of players. Dave Hollinger who created the formula for Player Efficiency Rating (PER), admits that the formula isn't a fair way to judge certain defensive players who didn't put big stats. I wanted to concentrate on certain great who did put up some big numbers in terms of traditional statistics, but aren't really rewarded in terms of modern metrics. A recent ESPN article about how Isiah Thomas fared in terms of metrics inspired me to write this, but I had already thought about this for a while. So here goes
Allen Iverson
To certain people in my age group and a little younger, Allen Iverson should be getting compared to the likes of Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, and Lebron James. I lived in Philadelphia when he first came into the league, and the city went crazy right after he crossed over Michael Jordan. There was constant talk about it, and he was being compared to Jordan in his rookie season. Not long ago Lebron James said that Iverson was pound for pound the best player ever. His reputation among the people who were young during prime is so strong, but when you get past his high points per game average, his stats don't back it up. He averaged 26.7ppg, 3.7rpg, and 6.2apg, but he played over 41 minutes a game. His per game averages look pretty good compared to Kobe Bryant (25.1ppg, 5.3rpg, 4.7apg), but he played about 5 more minutes per game. When you adjust for minutes the edge clearly goes to Kobe.
Per 36 minute averages
Points Rebounds Assists
Allen Iverson 23.3 3.3 5.4
Kobe Bryant 24.9 5.2 4.7
Iverson was not efficient from the field. His career field goal percentage is 42.5. His true shooting percentage of 51.8%, which is right around average for his era. He got steals at a high rate, but got blocks at a low rate. His career PER is 20.9 is the regular season, and 21.2 in the post season, which is actually good, but not in the class of the best to ever play the game. When you look at win shares he does even worse. Iverson had 99.0 win shares in his career, which is significantly less than Chauncey Billups http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/9/10/6130879/chauncey-billups-retires-trades-pistons-celtics. His win shares per 48 minutes is .126, which is just barely above half of Michael Jordan, and David Robinson's averages. Win shares may not be the greatest way to judge a players, since it factors in a combination of how good a player's stats are, and how many wins his team gets. More team wins, means more wins for players to share. The problem is Iverson is so far below greats that he is compared to. In 2001 playoffs where Iverson "carried" the 76ers to the finals, he didn't lead his team in win shares. Dikembe Mutombo had 3.8 win shares in those playoffs, compared to 2.7 for Iverson. In terms of regular season win shares his 11.8 was comfortably ahead of the 2nd highest (6.5 by George Lynch), but that was largely because of the fact that Theo Ratliff was traded to Atlanta for Motombo, so neither spent close to a full year with the team. In his 34 games, and 875 mintues played for Philly that season Motombo got .201 win shares per 48 minutes, compared to Iverson's .190. That was his peak season in terms of win shares, and he only had 3 seasons in his career with more than 10. For comparsion Michael Jordan had 3 season with over 20 win shares. In the playoffs Iverson's staggering 29.7ppg (2nd all time behind Jordan's 33.4), belies the fact that his shooting averages were worse. His career 40.1 field goal percentage, and his 48.9 true shooting percentage are worse than his regular season percentages. While his career playoff PER is slightly higher than his regular season 20.9, his win shares per 48 minutes is only .109.
Isiah Thomas
When it comes to older basketball fans. The type that you see on ESPN talking about sports
Isiah Thomas' reputation is probably even greater than Allen Iverson's is with people in
my age group. Ask who is the greatest "little man" to ever play, and many will tell you
that it is Isiah Thomas. Unlike Iverson, Thomas won championships, 2 of them in the NBA.
Add in a college national championships, and rivalries with the likes of Jordan, Bird, and
Magic, and you have one of the all time greats. Add in some mesmerizing ball handling,
and an infectious smile, and it's understandable why he is so popular. Thomas averaged
19.2 points, 3.6 rebounds, and 9.3 assists per game in 36.3 minutes per game. Adjusting
per minutes those are right there with Iverson's numbers. There are some problems beyond
that, though. For one, Thomas played in an era of faster paced basketball. This was
especially true in the early 80s. For a lot of the decade the Pistons were a run, and gun
team. They didn't become the slow down grind it out Bad Boys until late in the decade.
Looking at his per 100 possession statistics and doing some math, it seems that the
average pace he played at was about 99 possessions per 48 minutes. Michael Jordan who
played his first 9 seasons when Thomas was playing, had a little less than 94 possessions
per 48, probably around 93.5 for his career. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird would have
played at a similar pace as Isiah. That is factored into PER. He also shot 45.4% from
the field in an era where that was a good deal below average. He had a true shooting
percetange of 51.6%, in an era where that percentage was usually around 53-54%. So while
he scored at a decent rate, his efficiency in doing so was below average. His 9.3
assists per game are great, but he also turned the ball over 3.7 times per game. His
assists to turnover ratio was still a good 2.5/1, but a turnover hurts you more than a
missed shot in terms of PER, because it ends a possessions, where a missed shot could be
rebounded by the offense. Thomas' career regular season PER is just 18.1, not a lot
higher than the average 15.0. His win shares per 48 minutes is .109, and he only had 80.7
career win shares in the regular. To Thomas's credit, he did better in the postseason.
His win shares per 48 minutes is .146 in the postseason, which still comes up well short
of Chris Paul, and John Stockton. His career postseason PER in only 19.8.
Pete Maravich
'Pistol' Pete isn't as highly rated among the all time great as Allen Iverson, and Isiah
Thomas, but I still think that he is similar. Like both of them he was a flashy ball
handler, whose spectacular plays would cover up the weaknesses in his game. Those who
are fans of Maravich are very praising of his ability as a basketball player, but the
advanced metrics do him very few favors. Before I get to that let's get into Maravich's
college career. He average a ridiculous 44.2 points per game in his college career, but
also took an insane 38.1 field goal attempts per game, making 43.8% of them, playing in
a conference that was still largely racially segregated. In his NBA career Maravich's
points, rebounds, and assists averages still look good. Playing 37.0 minutes per game,
his ppg-rpg-apg line is 24.2-4.2-5.4. One of the negatives about him is that he shot
only 44.1% from the field in an era of high field goal percentages. His true shooting
percentage was 50.0%. That was below average in the era he played in. In fact it
would've been below average any season after he played also. So like Iverson and Thomas,
he got a good number of points, but wasn't efficient. The league started counting steals,
and blocks in the 1973-74 season, and during the 7 seasons of his career that those stats
were counted he averaged 1.3 steals, and 0.3 blocks. His steals average is worse than
Thomas, and Iverson, and even though he was 6'5" he didn't get that many blocks. His
numbers also become less impressive when you consider the fast paces that teams in
the league, and most specifically his teams, played at during his career. His career PER
was 18.4, and he topped out at 20.5 in the 1975-76 season. He didn't play on good teams
for most of his career but even considering that his .092 wins shares per 48 minutes,
isn't that impressive, who you consider his reputation. Pete didn't play much in the
playoffs. He only playe din 26 playoff games in his career. His playoff PER was 17.4,
and he had .065 wins shares per 48 minutes in the playoffs. He made the postseason in
his first three seasons with Atlanta, and in his last season with Boston when he was very
close to 33 years old.
Allen Iverson
To certain people in my age group and a little younger, Allen Iverson should be getting compared to the likes of Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, and Lebron James. I lived in Philadelphia when he first came into the league, and the city went crazy right after he crossed over Michael Jordan. There was constant talk about it, and he was being compared to Jordan in his rookie season. Not long ago Lebron James said that Iverson was pound for pound the best player ever. His reputation among the people who were young during prime is so strong, but when you get past his high points per game average, his stats don't back it up. He averaged 26.7ppg, 3.7rpg, and 6.2apg, but he played over 41 minutes a game. His per game averages look pretty good compared to Kobe Bryant (25.1ppg, 5.3rpg, 4.7apg), but he played about 5 more minutes per game. When you adjust for minutes the edge clearly goes to Kobe.
Per 36 minute averages
Points Rebounds Assists
Allen Iverson 23.3 3.3 5.4
Kobe Bryant 24.9 5.2 4.7
Iverson was not efficient from the field. His career field goal percentage is 42.5. His true shooting percentage of 51.8%, which is right around average for his era. He got steals at a high rate, but got blocks at a low rate. His career PER is 20.9 is the regular season, and 21.2 in the post season, which is actually good, but not in the class of the best to ever play the game. When you look at win shares he does even worse. Iverson had 99.0 win shares in his career, which is significantly less than Chauncey Billups http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/9/10/6130879/chauncey-billups-retires-trades-pistons-celtics. His win shares per 48 minutes is .126, which is just barely above half of Michael Jordan, and David Robinson's averages. Win shares may not be the greatest way to judge a players, since it factors in a combination of how good a player's stats are, and how many wins his team gets. More team wins, means more wins for players to share. The problem is Iverson is so far below greats that he is compared to. In 2001 playoffs where Iverson "carried" the 76ers to the finals, he didn't lead his team in win shares. Dikembe Mutombo had 3.8 win shares in those playoffs, compared to 2.7 for Iverson. In terms of regular season win shares his 11.8 was comfortably ahead of the 2nd highest (6.5 by George Lynch), but that was largely because of the fact that Theo Ratliff was traded to Atlanta for Motombo, so neither spent close to a full year with the team. In his 34 games, and 875 mintues played for Philly that season Motombo got .201 win shares per 48 minutes, compared to Iverson's .190. That was his peak season in terms of win shares, and he only had 3 seasons in his career with more than 10. For comparsion Michael Jordan had 3 season with over 20 win shares. In the playoffs Iverson's staggering 29.7ppg (2nd all time behind Jordan's 33.4), belies the fact that his shooting averages were worse. His career 40.1 field goal percentage, and his 48.9 true shooting percentage are worse than his regular season percentages. While his career playoff PER is slightly higher than his regular season 20.9, his win shares per 48 minutes is only .109.
Isiah Thomas
When it comes to older basketball fans. The type that you see on ESPN talking about sports
Isiah Thomas' reputation is probably even greater than Allen Iverson's is with people in
my age group. Ask who is the greatest "little man" to ever play, and many will tell you
that it is Isiah Thomas. Unlike Iverson, Thomas won championships, 2 of them in the NBA.
Add in a college national championships, and rivalries with the likes of Jordan, Bird, and
Magic, and you have one of the all time greats. Add in some mesmerizing ball handling,
and an infectious smile, and it's understandable why he is so popular. Thomas averaged
19.2 points, 3.6 rebounds, and 9.3 assists per game in 36.3 minutes per game. Adjusting
per minutes those are right there with Iverson's numbers. There are some problems beyond
that, though. For one, Thomas played in an era of faster paced basketball. This was
especially true in the early 80s. For a lot of the decade the Pistons were a run, and gun
team. They didn't become the slow down grind it out Bad Boys until late in the decade.
Looking at his per 100 possession statistics and doing some math, it seems that the
average pace he played at was about 99 possessions per 48 minutes. Michael Jordan who
played his first 9 seasons when Thomas was playing, had a little less than 94 possessions
per 48, probably around 93.5 for his career. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird would have
played at a similar pace as Isiah. That is factored into PER. He also shot 45.4% from
the field in an era where that was a good deal below average. He had a true shooting
percetange of 51.6%, in an era where that percentage was usually around 53-54%. So while
he scored at a decent rate, his efficiency in doing so was below average. His 9.3
assists per game are great, but he also turned the ball over 3.7 times per game. His
assists to turnover ratio was still a good 2.5/1, but a turnover hurts you more than a
missed shot in terms of PER, because it ends a possessions, where a missed shot could be
rebounded by the offense. Thomas' career regular season PER is just 18.1, not a lot
higher than the average 15.0. His win shares per 48 minutes is .109, and he only had 80.7
career win shares in the regular. To Thomas's credit, he did better in the postseason.
His win shares per 48 minutes is .146 in the postseason, which still comes up well short
of Chris Paul, and John Stockton. His career postseason PER in only 19.8.
Pete Maravich
'Pistol' Pete isn't as highly rated among the all time great as Allen Iverson, and Isiah
Thomas, but I still think that he is similar. Like both of them he was a flashy ball
handler, whose spectacular plays would cover up the weaknesses in his game. Those who
are fans of Maravich are very praising of his ability as a basketball player, but the
advanced metrics do him very few favors. Before I get to that let's get into Maravich's
college career. He average a ridiculous 44.2 points per game in his college career, but
also took an insane 38.1 field goal attempts per game, making 43.8% of them, playing in
a conference that was still largely racially segregated. In his NBA career Maravich's
points, rebounds, and assists averages still look good. Playing 37.0 minutes per game,
his ppg-rpg-apg line is 24.2-4.2-5.4. One of the negatives about him is that he shot
only 44.1% from the field in an era of high field goal percentages. His true shooting
percentage was 50.0%. That was below average in the era he played in. In fact it
would've been below average any season after he played also. So like Iverson and Thomas,
he got a good number of points, but wasn't efficient. The league started counting steals,
and blocks in the 1973-74 season, and during the 7 seasons of his career that those stats
were counted he averaged 1.3 steals, and 0.3 blocks. His steals average is worse than
Thomas, and Iverson, and even though he was 6'5" he didn't get that many blocks. His
numbers also become less impressive when you consider the fast paces that teams in
the league, and most specifically his teams, played at during his career. His career PER
was 18.4, and he topped out at 20.5 in the 1975-76 season. He didn't play on good teams
for most of his career but even considering that his .092 wins shares per 48 minutes,
isn't that impressive, who you consider his reputation. Pete didn't play much in the
playoffs. He only playe din 26 playoff games in his career. His playoff PER was 17.4,
and he had .065 wins shares per 48 minutes in the playoffs. He made the postseason in
his first three seasons with Atlanta, and in his last season with Boston when he was very
close to 33 years old.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)