Bio not provided
If given the choice between drinking every time Matt Underwood mentions a pitcher's pitch count and bonging beers, you'd get drunker faster going with the Underwood game. While he loves to use the term "Souvenir city!" to describe a home run ball, there's a reason that tweets tagged with #SouvenirShitty appear in the Twitter timelines of Indians fans between roughly 7-11 PM each night during the season. There's also a reason why many fans elect to mute the TV broadcast and flip on the radio call by Tom Hamilton for games.
10 months, 2 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/rate-the-local-mlb-announcers-al-central.html
@Cianaf @awfulannouncing It's not just you. At the very least, AA links take FOREVER to download on iPhones. This one specifically actually happened to be down, but for the ones that work it usually takes a couple of minutes to view the article.
1 year, 1 month ago on Twitter Wars: ESPN's Steelers beat writer embraces debate
"WHO'S LAUGHING NOW?" - Kevin
1 year, 3 months ago on UK NFL analyst picks Chiefs-Panthers Super Bowl
At least they doubled down on the mistake. Look at the second paragraph of the story itself.
1 year, 5 months ago on Columbus Dispatch reports John Elway's remarkable return to Broncos
And additionally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Graham
1 year, 9 months ago on Pre-Lottery Mock Draft: Picks 1-15
"(the only problem with this logic is that the most famous man named Otto in history is most likely Von Bismarck and he was German... Doesn’t make sense anymore, does it? And of course, I’m waiting for suggestions on “more” famous Otto's)"
Otto Porter won't even be the most popular Otto in Cleveland for a few more years.
Way to go, Nancy Drew. Now you can get to work on debunking all of those suspicious stories on The Onion.
2 years, 3 months ago on Military Absentee Ballots Delivered One Day Late, Would Have Swung Election For Romney
@kingofmyworld19 Easy jokes are easy. :-)
2 years, 4 months ago on 15-Footer 10/30/12: NBA BACK
@PleasebeFrank31 It's so awesome. I had to include it.
@wilsim The link to Part I and Part II is the first two sentences of the article.
The criteria is defined in in the very first two sentences of the piece which features a link to the other 2 parts.
"Throughout this week in leading up to tonight’s NBA draft, I have been examining the top 30 picks of the draft over the past 20 years. Click here for Part I which contains the explanations for the study and classification of players. Click herefor Part II. Today we’ll conclude the series by covering picks 1-10. "
2 years, 8 months ago on NBA Draft Analysis - Picks 1-10
It's also listed in this comments section about 5 posts below.
@MikeNicoletti He's considered a "bust" because he couldn't stay on the floor. When he actually played though, which is what I took into account, he was actually a productive player.
Mentioned it in the first part of the series:
Categorized breakdown, based on career PER, of the type of player using the following definitions:
Superstar: 22.0 or greater
Solid Starter: 16.0-18.9
Role Player: 12.0-15.9
Bust: 8.9 or below
DNP: Players who never logged a minute in the NBA
The comments section in Part I has a further explanation.
@bballpants The flaw is that those WP48 stats only go back to the 2000-01 when the entire objective of this series was to look at 20 years worth of data. If there is a list somewhere that contains the career WP48 for all 600 of the players that I looked at, please post it and I'd be happy to take a look at it. But for now, I don't see anything that has that data.
And you mention that his research threshold was a bit too low. That would be another flaw and speaks to my point that no matter what metric is used, there are going to be anomalies.
2 years, 8 months ago on NBA Draft Analysis - Picks 21-30
@DewDewJump Mentioned it in the first part of the series:
2 years, 8 months ago on NBA Draft Analysis - Picks 11-20
@BoondockSaint Oh gotcha. I thought you were looking for a something like Phoenix drafted x% Superstars, x% All-Starts, x% Solid Starters, etc. I've got a flight to Kansas City tomorrow. Might go back and add your suggestion in if I get bored.
Probably too late to go back and add at this point in the series, but could definitely be a follow up post of some sort later in the summer. The problem that immediately comes to mind are draft day type trades. For instance, do the Hornets get credit for selecting Kobe Bryant even though he never played a minute for them? Same for Norris Cole being drafted by Chicago and playing this season with Miami. It's either going to require a decent amount of time to research all situations like this to assign the stats appropriately (to LAL and MIA) or it's going to skew the data in this cases if I just go with the straight selection (CHA and CHI). Not saying it's not doable obviously; just that there are pros and cons both ways.
Glad you're enjoying the series!
@bballpants I absolutely see your point, but my statement stands that there are going to be flaws with any metric you use.
For instance, the link that you provide says " The very best players in the league usually have a WP48 over 0.300." Fair enough. Per this link (http://tinyurl.com/Draft-Score) on that same site, here are the only players in the past 20 years to post a WP48 over .300: Chris Paul, Shaq, Shawn Marion, and Jerome Williams. Rounding out the top 10 in order are David Lee, Dwight Howard, Grant Hill, Andrei Kirilenko, Tim Duncan, and Rajon Rondo. Renaldo Balkman places 16th, Marcin Gortat 19th.
Keeping with the same categories I currently have, and based on "great players" being .300 and "average players" being .100 (Arturo's words), we'd have some variation of this:
Solid Starter: .150-.224
Role Player: .075-.149
Bust:: < 0.00
LeBron James posted a .237, falling well short of superstar status. Bob Sura is a .116 while Tony Parker is a .095 and Steve Nash is a .075. Andris Biedrins (.234) is almost identical to Dwyane Wade (.232). Same with Bonzi Wells (.176) and Dirk (.175). See my point?
Furthermore, while that site you provided is awesome, it is missing the last 150 draft picks since it does not contain data for the 2007-2011 drafts which is obviously an issue for my purposes here.
I will reiterate that this series is meant to be a directional guide only. How people choose to interpret the data presented is up to them. The nice thing about 20 years of data is that if you want to move players up or down levels, you simply add or subtract in 5% increments so the math is at least easy.
@bballpants PER is not used to "predict" anything. It is a stat that incorporates scoring, rebounding, assists, steals, blocks, and turnovers and per John Hollinger who developed it, "Sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." With regards to Wins Produced, if you can direct me to a site that contains WP for all 600 draft picks dating back to 1992, I'd be happy to look at it. The Wages of Wins WP page only goes back to 2000 (Link: http://wagesofwins.com/wins-produced/). All of the data used in my analysis was taken from Basketball-Reference.com. The closest thing that BR features is a Win Shares/48 stat which I actually pulled the data for but ultimately ended up not using. There are inherently going to be flaws with any objective system used. For instance, using the WS/48 metric results in Kenneth Faried being the 5th best player to be selected in the past 20 years. Greg Oden is 12th. Ryan Anderson is 13th. Tiago Splitter is 17th. You get the idea.
This is the reason that I included the disclaimer "It is important to note that these categories are to be used as a general guide only. One person’s definition of a Superstar is subjective and may be different than another person’s definition. PER was used as an objective measure as it is the most complete, single number assessment easily available for the purposes of this analysis." It's also the reason why I listed out who fell into which category so that you can get a flavor for the types of guys taken at each spot. Use this article as a directional guide, not as an absolute.
Thanks for reading!
@Brohan_Cruyff I've seriously consider it over the past couple weeks. If they get out of the second round, I may have to pull the trigger on it.
2 years, 9 months ago on NBA Playoffs: How Indiana Got Its Swagger Back
@steppxxxxz Hey thanks for reading the post. I agree that Indiana is a bit of a wildcard this year. The biggest criticism of the Pacers, and it's certainly a valid one, is that they don't have that one "go to" guy in the clutch that they can rely on to get a bucket. Theoretically, Granger SHOULD be that guy, but he's struggled to find his shot in the first two games of the series. Even when he is playing well, he doesn't give you that "superstar" vibe that someone like LeBron, Rose, Carmelo, Durant, Kobe, etc. give you which is why the general public for the most part is down on Indiana's chances.
As far are your last question, personally, I don't see anyone stopping Miami in the East right now given Rose's injury, Ray Allen's injury, and the simple fact that they flat out have more talent than the Pacers. In the end, I think Indiana can give Miami or Chicago a hard fought six game series, but beyond that, I really don't see them winning four out of seven games against either of those teams. They certainly have nothing to be ashamed of however; I had the 4 seed pegged as their absolute season prior to the season, and they managed to exceed that. They have a solid core of guys in place and have money to spend in the offseason on a free agent which could vault them into a more serious contender.
2 years, 10 months ago on NBA Playoffs: Indiana Beats The Dickens Out Of Orlando
Episode Kyrie A New Hope: If I was at my parents house in Cleveland, I absolutely would have taken a picture of and included the Bobby Sura signed ball I have in my room from over a decade ago.
2 years, 11 months ago on Ryan Hollins and One March Night
@michaeljchen Oh my God. All of this.
3 years ago on Linside the Numbers
@thejockocracy Around? Yes. But the 48 Special was in May 2007 which is before Twitter really became mainstream. Based on tweets per day alone (see the first paragraph), Twitter was only 1/60 as popular in 2007 as 2008. Today there are over 200 million per day (http://blog.twitter.com/2011/06/200-million-tweets-per-day.html). The reaction that game would have gotten in today's environment would have dwarfed the attention it received then.
3 years, 1 month ago on If Twitter Existed Then...