French women don't know you should report a baseline figure when noting an increase.
That's why they don't get fat -- no one knows where they start from.
Oh, the stories I could tell, and won't.
At my graduation, the talk was titled, "Oh, the places you could go but won't."
||
(Not to worry, the story at the link is more pathetic than tragic.)
|>
My BF is switching between the hockey game and the Republican debate. I don't think I can bear the latter without an internet drinking game.
A 600% increase is significant regardless of the starting figure. Good news.
Drink half a shot every time they mention lowering taxes on the most productive members of society, drink another half a shot whenever they say that health care is not a right, drink another half if they talk about evil unions.
9: Statistically, that's just not true.
But it matters to those six women, so there.
I have very strong opinions about using statistics in news stories.
Eh, 97% of all statistics are bullshit anyway.
One of the articles linked in the link said that a group - not the 600% group - got 200 calls in two weeks. Which was a 400% increase, I guess.
That's must be the Vacation Bible School quality-assurance program.
7 Which made me wonder if all of Weiner's cock pic recipients were female.
18 cont'd: petty, you know, but great.
10: That's a good game, though I'd need to lighten it a bit or I'd die, but I need other people to play along with me and share in the suffering.
There was a pretty awesome question where they asked which presidential candidate did a better job of picking a VP. Tim Pawlenty ripped into Biden for foreign policy reasons, but Romney tried really hard to change the subject.
Today I almost referred to some kind of internet indiscretion as "pulling a Weiner," but then caught myself.
18: I thought that I was just explicitly stating something in the OP.
But maybe the sarcasm in "That's a lot of increase" was only in my head.
21:Ooooo, Somebody mentioned politics.
Numerian at the Agonist handicaps the Republican Presidential field. Reasonably funny. Best guess might be a ticket of Romney, with VP Perry to please the nutcases
But this was the good one
Digby on the Republican plan to run on Obasma's horrific record on jobs. (As Obama goes to suck banker's... make nice with financiers this week)
I loved Digby's commenters, more vicious yet more rational than usual. Of course Obama can, should, and will lose re-election on his economic record and corrupt relations with Wall Street. But also these Democrats were seriously looking at Romney, his record in Massachusetts, and starting to believe, quite sincerely, that Romney would be better for the economy than Obama. The electoral college will be impossible for O:what the F has he done for Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania? Florida?
This is what Identity/Social Issue self-satisfaction politics is going to get ya: a blip of a miserable failure with great speech sandwiched between double terms of Republicans. Hope y'all had fun.
25: I'm not quite convinced. How does Romney feel about the important issue of squirrels? I must know.
So will I have heard of this Cain guy by January 2012?
27:Follow the first link;Numerian will tell you who Cain is.
Why? If he's not prominent enough to become passively known, is there a reasons to know about him (in the presidential context)?
Cain was famous for his work as an agent for TV psychologists during the 70s. He was fiercely protective of them, once shouting, "I am Brothers keeper."
Hm. I am thinking about messaging someone on onlinedatingsite, but there is an outside chance that she is actually my last boss, based on the one picture and job description. i supposed it might increase my chance of a job or laidness, but i'm probably not smooth enough to manoeuvre both.
That sounds like one of those things that you should only do if you can commit to liveblogging it.
i've thought abut blogging, but only to have a record of neuropsych and exercise physiology speculations, and crazy shit i say.
i supposed it might increase my chance of a job or laidness, but i'm probably not smooth enough to manoeuvre both.
laidness will get you through times of no job better than jobs will get you through times of no laidness.
9, 12: What if the starting figure were zero? But yes, for any positive starting figure, it is of course significant for the individual people who decided to complain.
Of course, 11 is still important insofar as, if n is very small, we don't have reliable evidence that the 600% increase is caused by the recent Strauss-Kahn spectacle rather than, say, random variation in the underlying amount of harrassment. In which case "good news" hardly seems like the thing to say, unless you enjoy that sort of thing.
And on reflection, even with large n, we shouldn't discount the possibility that a lot of people were inspired to harass. They could well think, "if it takes physically assaulting someone to get into any actual trouble, I guess I can get away with lude comments and leering."
35: I guess a complaint is always significant for the people who lodge it. At least that is something that is free from statistical analysis.
I also guess that the underlying harassment is not impacted by DSK's coming out as an arsehole. It's also something that many might accept regardless of underlying statistics.
This leaves you with a sixfold increase. Where I do share Moby's allergy to statistics in news stories, it is unlikely (given the world we live in) that the base over which the increase was expressed wasn't very close to zero.
So I'd admit the 600% as relevant good bad news - similar statistics came out for church pedophiliacs & reporting on them was important to get people out.
The electoral college will be impossible for O:what the F has he done for Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania? Florida?
If you take the 2012 results and give Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Florida to McCain, Obama still wins 281-257.
Does that factor in the census shifts? I'm too lazy to do math yet.
Also, assuming that Romney ends up with the nomination*, I'd expect an independent candidacy on the far right (probably not Palin, but somebody in that mold) that will complicate the GOP Electoral College strategy.
*Barring additional late entries, I believe this is more likely than not.
I'm really worried Rick Perry is going to throw his hat in the rink.
And then all the skaters will trip on his hat.
There's certainly an opening for Perry, what with no viable Southerners in the race for the nomination of what has become the white Southerner party. He seems *so* stylistically similar to GWB, though, that I wonder how much of an albatross that could end up being.
He seems *so* stylistically similar to GWB, though, that I wonder how much of an albatross that could end up being.
Zero. The country has no memory of GWB's policies. What they remember is that he came off as kind of stupid. Perry is decently charismatic.
Zero. The country has no memory of GWB's policies.
Sure, but policy positions only matter a tiny bit more in presidential elections than they do in student council elections. I'd wager that most Americans couldn't list *Obama's* policies beyond "Obamacare", and they probably couldn't correctly explain any details of that either.
Are you using reverse psychology on me?
47:Agreed. And Perry has more credibility than Bush as a budget-cutter (no power in Texas, but better talk), religious nut, and neo-secessionist.
Problem is, Texas is as much of a lock for R's in the general as Cali is for D's, so he brings nothing geographical* (except for South in general) to the table. As a running mate for Romney he serves the purpose of placating the religious right, and is safer than Palin or Bachmann to the money people.
*I have difficulty measuring the religious freak turnout factor in swing and midwest states.
Obama wants to kill old American people. GWB only wanted to kill foreign muslims. Keep things straight.
Whatever you do, don't send me $100.
I'm 90% sure the R nominee will be Romney. The money people almost always win the primaries.
Pawlenty brings a good state, but is a bit of a competence clone to Romney, and doesn't help in the South or border states.
he brings nothing geographical* (except for South in general)
The South in general is a sizable chunk of votes, though. For the GOP to win, I assume they'd have to flip Florida plus either Virginia or North Carolina back to their column. NC was razor-edge close last time but, at least so far, Obama's actually polling ahead of where he was here in 2008.
My guess is that the country will vote based on the beliefs that Republicans will make unemployment worse, and will dismantle Social Security, and so Obama will be re-elected.
Hey, I've got a good track record for estimating what kind of things are important to the public.
Just based on the advantages of incumbency and the current divisions in the Republicans, I expect Obama will win also.
The economy is bad, but it isn't nearly that bad for the people who might be persuaded to vote Republican.
Maybe Rick Perry can re-threaten to secede to force Republicans to let him be the nominee, lest they lose the GOP-strong Texas delegation. That seems like a good plan.
Today Obama is in Puerto Rico, which I predict won't go for either candidate in the presidential election. Mark my words.
The economy is bad, but it isn't nearly that bad for the people who might be persuaded to vote Republican.
I don't think this is true at all.
The problem with Mitt is similar to the problem with John Kerry; no one actually likes him. Right? Like Kerry, he looks like a total doof when trying to play homeboy to whatever beer-swilling NASCAR demographic they're trying to snuggle up to this year. And his entire campaign will be about distancing himself from the social programs of Massachusetts--trying to get laptops to public students, the whole health care thing--and about downplaying his relationship to Mormonism, which evangelicals HATE. (Seriously, don't underestimate the degree to which evangelicals despise Mormons. Worse than atheists, worse than Catholics, worse than Muslims. Mormons are terrifying.) I'm probably least afraid of Mittens, myself--he's a doof, and too hawkish, but I don't actually think he's The Great Satan. But I'm especially not afraid of him because there's pretty much zero chance of him ever winning a national election.
You don't think the economy is bad or you don't think swing voters in potential swing states have been spared more than some of the rest?
62 gets it right. The economy is bad for everyone except plutocrats, people in the health-care industry, and people in Washington DC, New York, and North Dakota.
My guess is that the country will vote based on the beliefs that Republicans will make unemployment worse, and will dismantle Social Security, and so Obama will be re-elected.
My prediction is that that idiotic prediction by the Obama administration about how unemployment would be much lower than it actually is will be brought up 1,000 billion times.
I suppose the recession has been bad for white males with less education and I may be underestimating how many of them vote and vote Democrat. I was mainly thinking geographically, like California and Illinois were hard hit, but they probably won't swing.
You don't think the economy is bad or you don't think swing voters in potential swing states have been spared more than some of the rest?
The latter.
Pawlenty brings a good state
Or not. It's easy to overstate Obama's unpopularity vis-a-vis the GOP; in the depth of the worst economy since the Depression and 2-3 unpopular wars, he's still polling ahead of all potential challengers, most of them by double digits. Most of the country just doesn't pay much attention to politics.
Here's a concrete prediction: Obama will be re-elected with the highest unemployment rate since FDR.
Maybe Pittsburgh is throwing me. The unemployment rate is up, but much lower than it was during the 80s.
Obama will be re-elected with the highest a higher unemployment rate since than FDR.
Fixed.
73: No.
According to this table the unemployment rate in 1936 was 16.9%.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
Man, Bono's ego doesn't quit growing.
It's hard to compare U6 (or any measure of unemployment) with a time when women were relatively rare in the workforce and there was little social safety net.
76: Sonny passed away, and that doesn't really count as unemployed, you insensitive lout.
U6 doesn't go back that far, but U4 is below its early 80s peak.
Like Kerry, he looks like a total doof when trying to play homeboy to whatever beer-swilling NASCAR demographic they're trying to snuggle up to this year.
I can never quite exorcise from memory this one throwaway moment from the last campaign season where Romney decides the thing to do around a bunch of black kids is awkwardly half-sing "Who let the dogs out?" It's like to die. It's like something Mr. Smithers would do.
Surely Governor Goodhair isn't a viable candidate. The gay rumors alone are a big problem. If he does run, my one thought is: Molly Ivins, thou shouldst be living at this hour. But I think that a lot anyway.
I guess discussions can start in France but will wind up inevitably in the US. Obama will win; the sign of that is only the nitwits compete in the primaries. I'd fancy Colin Powell for 2016, or Condoleeza Rice, or some of the other Republicans with a brain.
Colin Powell will be 79 years old in 2016, 24 years after the first suggestions (by people other than himself) that he could be some sort of politician. I don't think Condoleezza Rice is a politician either. Those sound like the sort of suggestions a person who lives in France would make.
81: I'll be shocked if Bob McDonnell doesn't run in 2016. I guess he could still get a VP nod in this go-round.
I'll be shocked if Bob Dole doesn't run in 2016 or if I use the toaster in the bath.
82: what you say is completely accurate except for the fact I do not live in France ;-)
63 is right. I predict that Romney will get the GOP nomination by a whisker (due to being backed by big money) and that he'll pick Bachmann for the VP candidate. Probably a deal will be cut when Bachmann drops out due to the fact that crazy only gets you so far if you don't have money. The big money people are scared of her because, well, you know, - crazy. I don't think anyone can get the GOP nomination without Tea Party support, and Bachmann is their person. Whoever cuts a deal with her gets an automatic bump, and Romney knows this. I'm willing to bet his people are already laying groundwork for getting her on their team.
I predict that Romney will get the GOP nomination by a whisker (due to being backed by big money) and that he'll pick Bachmann for the VP candidate
That won't remind anyone of McCain choosing Palin for VP! And, anyway, that worked out so well!
the sign of that is only the nitwits compete in the primaries
No. The Republicans always look like nitwits from our perspective.
89: True, but there is hardly a commentator in America who wouldn't describe the set of candidates on the stage last night as the weakest collection in modern memory. For all their lack of spark and pizzazz, Romney and Pawlenty do at least come off as educated adults. The rest of the crowd is all cranks and clowns.
90: Now that I think of it, the last time I recalled a set of candidates that everyone was calling this weak, it was the 1992 Democrats. Of course, everybody said GHWB was unbeatable and that Cuomo and other real players were wise to stay out and wait for 1996.
90: That's silly. Two candidates that come off as educated adults! That's awesome for the Republicans.
91: I was remembering the 1992 Dems too.
Also the 1976 Dems. That one is more odd, because anyone would have guessed that the Dem candidate would win that election after Watergate.
93: Ted Kennedy could bring the odd, regardless.
As with pop music, I'm think of 1980 when I really shouldn't be. Kennedy didn't run in 1976.
I couldn't remember who ran in '92 aside from Clinton, Tsongas, and Jerry Brown. Bob Kerrey, Tom Harkin, and Douglas Wilder were the other prominent figures though I guess they all dropped out quite early. I found this set of minor-candidate popular vote totals from the primaries interesting:
Lyndon LaRouche - 154,599 (0.77%)
Eugene McCarthy - 108,678 (0.54%)
Charles Woods - 88,948 (0.44%)
Larry Agran - 58,611 (0.29%)
Ross Perot - 54,755 (0.27%)
Ralph Nader - 35,935 (0.18%)
Charles Woods, who I'd never heard of until just now, had a very interesting and admirable life story, but I guess it isn't too surprising that this look didn't translate well into votes.
95: I thought you were make a subtle point -- that Ted Kennedy exerted such a powerful force that he scared everybody away even when he wasn't running in 1976. When he did run in 1980 the Beltway wisdom was that he would defeat the incumbent Carter easily. History shows the pundits have always been pretty clueless.
If Obama is reelected, of which I am not certain, 2016 is Petraeus-time, obvs.
2016 is Petraeus-time, obvs
As a Republican or a Democrat? He's described himself as a "Rockefeller Republican", which is a demographic that has mostly left the GOP.
They might come back for a dashing general with a winning smile and the sun glinting in his hair.
By 2016, Chelsea Clinton will be 35, but Jenna Bush will be only 34, so I guess that match-up is officially out.
I've had that dream too. The debate is in a pool of jello and moderated by Jennifer Garner.
102: I'd pay money to see Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in that format.
You couldn't give Jennifer Garner enough money to make her appear.
31
Hm. I am thinking about messaging someone on onlinedatingsite, but there is an outside chance that she is actually my last boss, based on the one picture and job description. i supposed it might increase my chance of a job or laidness, but i'm probably not smooth enough to manoeuvre both.
This is weird. (1) You're not sure she's your last boss? It must be a bad picture and/or bad job description. (2) How would a date with your last boss increase your chance of a job? I guess theoretically, if the date goes well, she would be more favorably inclined if you have to use her as a reference. The date can't go well enough to lead to a relationship, though, because I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't approve of the conflict of interest. So it's technically possible, but such a narrow window that it doesn't seem worth worrying about. (3) I'm still not seeing a downside here. Even if you don't get laid, you have a good chance of getting a job (sounds like you want one, right?). So you might as well go for it.
As for the Republicans, I'd bet on a Southern governor winning the primary, which seems to be limited to Rick Perry. Bachmann will not be on the ticket. This far out, though, who knows what will happen.
You couldn't give Jennifer Garner enough money to make her appear.
We could probably get Lindsay Lohan for next to nothing.
I've checked. She's allergic to jello except for lemon.
That jaundice-looking thing just ruins politics for me.
99: re:Petraeus: I was thinking Republican, but he could probably swing Dem if he wanted to for some reason. It's not like we're notably averse to electing Rockefeller Republicans.
I was thinking Petraeus might avoid running as a Dem due to lingering bitterness over the "Betray-us" thing. But maybe he doesn't hold grudges.
What possible value is there in worrying about the Republican primary? Some monstrous psychopathic asshole will emerge, and then we'll have to support our disappointed-in-but-way-better-than-the-alternative President. I'm not particularly interested in dissecting the differences between the monstrous psychopathic assholes.
96: The big names in 92 were Mario Cuomo and Bil Bradley. They both declined to run very late in 91, basically because Bush 41 looked unbeatable.
According to a rumor I heard around that time, Bill Clinton jumped into a race he couuldn't win because he figured that (1) if he won the nomination or came close, he'd be better known for 96, and (2) if most or all of his mistreses came forward in 92, that would all be old news by 96.
It's always insightful to wonder what the value of a discussion on an Unfogged comment thread is.
Clinton had positioned himself for a run in 1992 as early as 1986, but lost momentum by giving an incredibly bad speech at the 1988 convention. Kinda the opposite of Obama. My grandfather, who was a Jesse Jackson delegate (!) in 1988, thought that there was no way Clinton could ever be nominated after that speech.
I'm not particularly interested in dissecting the differences between the monstrous psychopathic assholes.
Well, not the policy differences. But the individual flavors of psychopathy are interesting. For example, I was intrigued to see that Michele "Crazy Eyes" Bachmann somehow decided that a below-the-knee A-line skirt would make her look Presidential.
What's wrong with that skirt?
Heebie will never be president.
But she might get to officiate the Jello debates.
113 -- the shoe-tying thread added tangible life improvement. So did the cold-brewed ices tea thread.
I'm more of a Karl Rove character.
I also don't see how that isn't a standard "I'm a serious woman with a job" skirt.
Sorry, 115 was me. It's just strange for the venue: a little schoolmarmish, a little informal. You'd expect a businesswoman to wear either a straight skirt or pants. However, what I find interesting about it is that it's probably a deliberately chosen signal to her religious base. Unlike Palin's clothes, it's really not sexy, but unlike Clinton's clothes, it's still very femme. It's the sort of suit you might wear to church, if your church did black and matching jackets (which mine does not).
For an objective measure of the sociopathy of Romney and Bachmann, I calculated the ratio of google hits for "+sociopath" and "". Turns out she wins with a score of 0.0193, while he has 0.0125. Even with the dog story.
However, what I find interesting about it is that it's probably a deliberately chosen signal to her religious base.
I bet this is right.
Shit, damn tags.
Insert <candidate> into both of those quotes.
It's just strange for the venue: a little schoolmarmish, a little informal. You'd expect a businesswoman to wear either a straight skirt or pants.
Huh. It doesn't read as informal at all to me -- that is, I wouldn't find it surprising on a law-firm partner in a courtroom. It does read as, erm, my fashion vocabulary sucks, deliberately unglamorous; it's the sort of skirt I'd expect to see on someone who had made the decision that they really weren't going to try to look hot in their work clothes, and that's a slightly unconventional decision for someone who could carry off looking hot as well as most women in her demographic. But not unprofessional at all.
Great to see this thread coming alive again!
126 is the most interesting political analysis/cultural crticism I've read in a very long time. No, I'm not kidding.
True, but there is hardly a commentator in America who wouldn't describe the set of candidates on the stage last night as the weakest collection in modern memory.
Sorry to say it, but the first two stories I saw this morning by way of headlines popping out at me from Yahoo's little logging-out-of-email news feed or whatevs were to the effect of "Bachman and Romney Shine in GOP Debate."
Bachmann and Romney Chosen as Valedictorians of Summer School.
Also, I think it's impossible to handicap the Republican race or even the general at the moment. Apo's point is well taken: the overwhelming majority of voters, and swing voters especially, have other things on their mind.
That said, I'm genuinely interested in what the epic unpopularity of the GOP governors in WI, MI, OH, and FL will mean for the party's presidential nominee. I don't know if there's been any real research done on (what isn't exactly) reverse coattails. Still, it can't help the GOP that Republican governors are despised by voters in key swing states (but like I just said, I wouldn't want to predict that it will hurt much either).
135: Kasich finally did something right!
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/06/in-which-i-become-a-republican/240365/
136: I saw that -- the proclamation (I'm still in Cleveland at the moment) not the Fallows piece (I don't read blogs, except this one, any more, and you remind me that I do miss Fallows) -- and thought it very well done if a tad pathological and more than a tad pandery.
I challenge anyone to render the sentence in 138 in a less elegant fashion. Betcha can't do it!
136-138: Explain it to someone with no idea of what it's about? Why make the Mavericks honorary Ohioans?
130.--Well, I'm wearing a skirt with that cut right now (except that mine is a bright coral and doesn't fit right). But this is D.C.: the women are still wearing padded-shoulder jackets and shellacking their hair into helmets. Bachmann made a call with that skirt.
Obligatory observation about how we aren't dissecting the sartorial choices of the male candidates.
Because I'm a feminist.
140 -- apparently, Ohio is full of whiny bitches who don't think people should have the right to change employers, and they've managed to convince the professional sportswriting world to support them in their whiny bitchery.
Sorry about that. I'm using the "incognito" mode on Chrome (for no reason other chatting while at blog should feel naughty), and my name won't stick.
Oh, it's a call, and femme but not sexy is a good way to describe it. I just think it's a choice firmly within the spectrum of ordinary professional business wear, not even close to being informal or unprofessional.
140: LeBron James left Cleveland's pro basketball team to play in Miami. This was viewed in Cleveland, largely because of the theatrics surrounding hiss "decision", as a real betrayal. The Mavericks beat LeBron's Miami team in the NBA Finals. Thus they are now feted as Ohioans. Simple, really.
142: True fact. Also, of course, men's clothes are boring -- what's to dissect?
See? I just made LeBron James into a snake. That's how world-historically horrible his betrayal of Cleveland seemed. (Still, I agree with 143. The whole thing is doubly ironic in that Cleveland is still, to an extent greater than most places, a union town.)
There were motherfucking LeBrons on a motherfucking plane from Cleveland to Miami.
We haven't had enough female candidates for high office that I'm tired of looking at the fashion decisions they make. I like clothes!
147: Exactly. Men running for office dress like a lawyer from Ohio. Bachmann did the same thing. I don't see that's it is school marm-y or churchy. It's just midwestern.
The Plain Dealer front page the morning after "The Decision".
http://www.cleveland.com/frontpage/index.ssf/2010/07/the_plain_dealers_front_page_l.html
For a about a month before there was a daily front page column discussing the latest gossip on whether LeBron would bolt.
Anyway, Cleveland is full of whiny bitches, but that doesn't mean I'm not happy Dallas won.
But the men are all dressed alike*, with different colored ties. If one of them was wearing a Hillary Clinton-style coral pant suit, nothing else about the debate would even have registered. There's Pawlenty's hook!
*Herman Cain stands out by wearing a double-breasted jacket. He's a rebel.
Also, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is more dull to visit than one of those roadside Ripley's Believe it Or Not museums.
More than a few times Hillary wore a bright yellow pantsuit for campaign speeches. It was amazing. Nobody could possibly wear something like that in real life, but there she was, rocking it. Since being appointed Secretary of State, she's worn pretty much a uniform of all-black pantsuits. They look fantastic on her, and it's clearly what she wants to be wearing.
More than a few times Hillary wore a bright yellow pantsuit for campaign speeches. It was amazing. Nobody could possibly wear something like that in real life, but there she was, rocking it.
Here's the non-runway version.
I have to admit, 142 was actually pretty funny.
143, 148: People aren't complaining about LeBron's betrayal of Dan Gilbert.
158: Cryptic Ned may know less about fashion than me. That is not a pantsuit, Cryptic Ned. However, you did correctly identify the color as yellow.
I submit that the pantsuit version is less likely to be worn by the average woman in the course of her day than the dress version EVEN COMBINED WITH GLOVES AND HAT.
And it ain't just Cleveland that was rooting against LeBron.
Look at the results closely and you'll see a Red vs. Blue state divide, with LeBron getting more sympathy in the part of the country famous for it's own dramatic, treacherous exit.
You need a little background. Cleveland has not won a championship in any sport in 46 years. During that time they've lost rather dramatically over and over again ("the drive," "the fumble," "the shot," a blown save in game 7 of the world series, etc.). LeBron is from Ohio, and when they drafted him it sure seemed like he was going to be the hero who finally brought a championship home. Cleveland had obviously the best team in the NBA two years ago, but lost (mostly due to a particularly high variance team getting lucky). They were arguably the best team last year, but lost again because LeBron basically quit.
The important thing about the Queen's fashion statement at 158 is that form follows function: her hat looks like a big cheese because that is what she is.
It should be added, re 143, that this isn't the first time that Cleveland has won over the sportswriting world by appealing to universal standards of decency. Even the NFL eventually had to relent and do the right thing when faced with the righteous wrath of Browns fans.
164: You do not see a Red/Blue divide. You see who else has basketball teams that Miami beat. Illinois was about as strong against him as anybody.
168: Good point. Also explains why the anti-LeBron sentiment runs so strong in New England states.
As I say, apparently Cleveland is full of whiny bitches. But that's at least somewhat understandable. It's the idea that we're somehow supposed to join in the condemnation that's appalling. And I rooted for Dallas in the finals, because (a) West and (b) underdogs, but still.
The opinions of a Lakers fan should be discounted accordingly.
165: And LeBron specifically evoked those high-profile defeats with "The Decision," and made it into a huge cliffhanger announcement.
Then he predicted eight championships with his new team. And he managed to be utterly classless in defeat:
"All the people that was rooting on me to fail, at the end of the day they have to wake up tomorrow and have the same life that they had before they woke up today. They have the same personal problems they had today. I'm going to continue to live the way I want to live and continue to do the things that I want to do with me and my family and be happy with that.
Cleveland had obviously the best team in the NBA two years ago, but lost (mostly due to a particularly high variance team getting lucky). They were arguably the best team last year, but lost again because LeBron basically quit.
Really? It seems like you're perhaps measuring this statistically, and though I'm not usually opposed to such things, I should note that the status of "best team" is typically bestowed on whichever team wins four games in a seven-game series, which series is the culmination of "the playoffs".
147
True fact. Also, of course, men's clothes are boring -- what's to dissect?
Well there are people who think Ron Paul could do better:
From a technical standpoint, this may sound minor, but I thought Ron Paul's shirt and suit were both ill-fitting. As I have observed before, fairly or unfairly, the visual cues are important in a debate, and this is a relatively easy thing to fix. ...
Apparently this is a long standing complaint among Paul fans.
So, when presented with the option of joining Bosh and Wade in Miami and creating a potentially world-beating dynasty, was LeBron not supposed to take it? And if your argument is "he gave up his chance to win on his own, like Jordan" you are channelling greatest asshole of all time Bill Simmons, and I will reach through the Internet and bop you on the nose.
175: You can't catch me because you don't have enough carbs in your blood to run for three miles or more.
"he gave up his chance to win on his own, like Jordan"
I hate Simmons less than I know I should, but this argument makes even me grind my teeth. Moreoever, I've been stunned at how few people have defended LeBron from a basic worker's rights point of view, especially given that the NBA, like the other pro leagues, is a pretty nasty cartel.
Having said that, let's just be honest: had LeBron gone to Boston, you'd be damning him as worse than Hitler.
I guess I've got no sympathy for the common working man.
But it should be no surprise that Hitler was, in fact, caught on tape expressing his disappointment at LeBron's failure.
177 last is certainly true. But that's because he would have joined the Celtics!
178: troll away, laughing boy, but I didn't say he was a "common working man". He is, however, labor. And he was just availing himself of his rights based on labor's contract with management.
Honestly, people should hate him all they want -- I do! -- but not because he left for Miami. He had the chance to go somewhere with a brighter future, somewhere he could play ball with friends and likely win several championships (I think that will still happen), and somewhere he wouldn't have to feel a city's hopes resting on his hometown-boy-makes-good shoulders. So that's what he did. Also, it seems to have gotten lost in the conversation that he left money on the table and stuck his thumb in the cartel's eye. Good for him, I say.
Still, he's a classless dick. So what? That makes him no different from the majority of his peers (professional athletes). It's not a morality play; it's a near-perfect expression of consumer culture mashed up with/corrupting a fun game.
Still, he's a classless dick.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Leaving for Miami, whatever. Happens all the time. Sucks for you, Cleveland, but that's just the reality of small-market professional sports in the 21st century. Holding a one-hour TV highlight special / press conference before making the announcement? Puh-leeze.
That's the other argument, but while "The Decision" was tacky, are we really holding a fucking press conference over the guy's head for eternity?
I'm not, but then I don't really follow the NBA or have any strong feelings one way or the other about Lebron James.
stuck his thumb in the cartel's eye
He's still working for the cartel.
Holding a one-hour TV highlight special / press conference before making the announcement? Puh-leeze.
Totally gross, yes. Still, whatever.
He's still working for the cartel.
What's his alternative?
183: The guy stages a huge, elaborate, deliberate insult directed at his fans. His fans - and sports fans in general - are supposed to be okay with this? Why?
Hell, the Celtics didn't even do that, yet some people manage to find a reason to despise 'em. And what's the point of being a sports fan if you need to base your loathing in solid moral reasoning?
What's his alternative?
Well, he could stick his thumb in the cartel's eye somehow. But he didn't. Which, of course, is fine with me.
Fuck, I've no idea who this LeBron person is, but you're ragging on a pro athlete for enthusiastically accepting a transfer deal? Join the 20th century, guys, it'll be good practice for the 21st!
What's his alternative?
As a natural athelete, he could have found success in any number of other sports. Hockey would be a good fit, as they don't have a fourth quarter.
The guy stages a huge, elaborate, deliberate insult directed at his fans.
Heh. God it warms my heart that Dallas crushed the dreams of those tools. "Best ever"? Back in line behind Magic Johnson, jackass.
192: You know who else was very good. Larry Bird.
190: Fuck pro athletes. The only reason I take the side of the players in labor disputes is that the owners are the only people on earth less sympathetic. If they came up with a special tax bracket for pro athletes that taxed them at 90%, but owners at 100%, I would support it.
Anyway, everyone hates LeBron now because he hosted an hour-long TV special of him making the decision of where to sign. If he'd just silently switched teams, he wouldn't be so hated.
You know who else was very good. Larry Bird.
Heh. I loves me some Bird even though he played for one of the ugliest rosters in the history of sports. Cue some Lebron fan anytime now to gush about Lebron's "physical gifts".
are we really holding a fucking press conference over the guy's head for eternity?
To be fair to the haters, it was a real press conference, not practice.
If he'd just silently switched teams, he wouldn't be so hated.
Or even if he'd have just said, "I need to not be in Cleveland." Everybody can understand that.
I don't really have strong opinions on James, though it would be nice to see him at least reach what appears to be his potential and, like, play better in big games, but for some reason, I hate the Heat. I blame the Riley years.
LeBron should try baseball. Maybe he'll be better than Jordan at that.
Or appearing with Warner Brothers cartoon characters.
172
Then he predicted eight championships with his new team. And he managed to be utterly classless in defeat:
"All the people that was rooting on me to fail, at the end of the day they have to wake up tomorrow and have the same life that they had before they woke up today. They have the same personal problems they had today. I'm going to continue to live the way I want to live and continue to do the things that I want to do with me and my family and be happy with that.
Michael Jordan didn't win "on his own," he had two HoF players beside him, a good group of role players, and a HoF coach.
The 2nd best player on Dirk Nowitzki's team is fucking Jason Terry, who can be great in the clutch but is very inconsistent and has a rep of a liability on defense. Grandpa Jason is even more a shadow of his former self than Kareeem in the mid-80s. Tyson who will sign great contract because he played next to Nowitzki. Marion has terrible hands and no jump shot. JJ Barea is Dinklage's backup for Game of Thrones and may have set a record for most shots blocked by the other team. Stevenson was a backup at Washington. Carlisle may make the HoF as a coach, but needs another decade.
Face it, there is nothing there, nothing that compares to Pippen, Rodman, Phil Jackson. Nowitzki did it on his own, all by himself by sheer force of will and by dragging his team behind him. Other players have reached the finals by themselves, like Hakeem, but I am not sure how many won the Ring, and they are in the top echelon of the Hall of Fame.
Top ten baby. Dirk is top ten all-time, based on ability, effort, and persistance, and determination.
But they aren't going to have the same life they had before. They're going to have the same life + joy in knowing James lost.
JJ Barea is Dinklage's backup for Game of Thrones
This made me laugh. Have we really not had a Game of Thrones thread yet?
Think if Karl Malone without John Stockton had beaten the Bulls.
The Mavericks were predicted to have no chance because there were Jesus-fucking great goddamn teams in the way.
The Lakers, OKC, and Miami were not fucking dogs. Before the playoffs started, each of these teams were given a good chance at a ring because they were fantastic great fucking teams. We seem to be forgetting how good they were, by any objective or numerical measure. The Lakers, for God's sake, the World Champions. Miami were not kids, they had Finals experience, and a superstar with a Ring.
The Maverick dominated Championship-level teams in three consecutive series. Beating Miami three in a row, with the last in Miami, is fucking astonishing. They owned all those fuckers, with Dirk and a group of castoffs.
Top ten Dirk. You will never see anything as good again. You won't.
The Lakers, for God's sake, the World Champions.
Lakers suck.
||
If you've been masturbating to the thought of 85-year-old Hugh Hefner marrying a 25-year-old Playmate, you should stop.
|>
Dominated Dominated Dominated.
Nowitzki and Terry, (and Kidd a little) have no fucking fear, no fucking doubt. Championship-level basketball is 100% psychological. 100%. This playoffs proved it.
The player(s) who do not believe they can lose, who knows he(they) are going to win...wins. That is all. Winners fucking intimidate losers. That is all. There are of course times when we have Magic versus Bird, and the intimidation factor evens out.
And that is what we saw this playoffs, a crazy motherfucker that scared Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, and LeBron James til they shat their pants and cried. It happens on the court. It's a look in the eye, a way of walking. It terrifies supermen.
Top ten all-time. Dirk Nowitzki.
The Lakers, OKC, and Miami were not fucking dogs. Before the playoffs started, each of these teams were given a good chance at a ring because they were fantastic great fucking teams.
This.
The Mavs were so darned good in their playoff run, it feels like a gift to NBA fans.
They didn't get lucky, they didn't have an unexpectedly easy path through the playoffs, they just played great basketball and beat great teams.
Honestly the fact that they will go into next season as underdogs again just makes it seem even more precious. Among the many nice tributes that have been written to them I liked this.
But the Mavs, from Cuban on down, looked as satisfied as you could possibly be when they won the title Sunday. I felt happy for all of them, even though I don't particularly like a lot of them. ... They're so happy they can't even put it into words. Their Facebook status updates alternated between shock and sheer jubilation. It's not the same as the "Order has been restored!" type statements made by Lakers, Celtics and Spurs fans. ...
Championship-level basketball is 100% psychological. 100%. This playoffs proved it.
Now you've lost me, I can't agree with that.
214: It's 100% psychological and 500% physical. That's how you get to 600%.
Nowitzki did it on his own, all by himself
You're ignoring the enormous psychological advantage of having Brendan Haywood on the roster.
Tyson Chandler was pretty amazing as well. I can't remember anybody else drawing that many loose-ball fouls on the other team while going after rebounds, and his defense was really, really good.
215 is perfect, I want to steal that sometime.
214:It's physical, talent, skills? As in LeBron James?
All these players can hit their 3s alone at night in the gym. Why do some hit and some miss in the last minute with an arm a little to the side of their face?
The Kareem sky-hook was never automatic. It could be, and was, missed. Except when Kareem knew it wouldn't work.
This is not a 95 mph fastball, or a receiver 80 yards downfield with a cornerback draped over him. Good defense does not beat NBA offense, unless it makes players tentative and nervous. Spoelstra explained this after game 5, that Miami had to make the basket look smaller early in the game.
Sorry. You will the basket through the hoop, and you will the other player to miss. Believe me, the players understand this. It's a brutal game.
Too many mistakes in 218. Outahere.
Top ten all-time
Unfogged commenting is 100% physical. 100%.
173: If you have a die with the numbers 1-6 on it and another with the numbers 3-8, then certainly the latter is better than the former. Nonetheless in a series of 7 rolls the former might beat the latter.
Most years there's too small of a gap between teams to know which is actually the best. Furthermore there's matchup issues that mean that there might not even be a best team (A tends to beat B who tends to beat C who tends to beat A). But the 2008-2009 Cavs were really really good. The odds are very good that the were the best team that year (and reasonably good that they were in the top handful of the decade).
Also, keep in mind that Orlando shoots a lot of three-pointers, so you should expect them to be relatively likely to upset a better team (as happened with the Cavs) and also relatively likely to get upset by a worse team (as happened to them this year) depending on whether there shots are falling.
218
All these players can hit their 3s alone at night in the gym. Why do some hit and some miss in the last minute with an arm a little to the side of their face?
A lot of this is just luck. But people like to construct elaborate narratives about clutch performance.
Look, you develop the skills, put in the hundreds of practice hours...to get your mind right.
LeBron James has a point, about not working or not developing a post-up game. Will admitting his faults and believing his skills are inadequate wreck his confidence?
Yes it will, and then after a while it will come back.
This was Dirk. 1-12 in the first half of game six, and not one of shots was a miss, not one was a mistake, bad form, a loss of touch. They damn well should have gone in, it wasn't Dirk's fucking fault they bounced off. Dirk's gonna shoot til God finally gets it right.
222:Number crunching on Dallas in the clutch, collated for about seven years.
Back in April, Tom Haberstroh had a great piece which noted that the definition of "close games" should not be based on the final score, but rather, whether a game is close at any time in the last five minutes. Check his chart: by that measure, Dallas' record in close games was an exceptional 35-18 (.660) through April 25 (regular season and playoffs). Since that time, Dallas is 10-3 in such situations, running its overall close-game record to 45-21 (.682).)
Certainly, Jason Kidd has performed exceptionally well in the clutch for Dallas, but take a step back, and an even clearer picture develops: the Mavericks lineup of Jason-Kidd-Jason Terry-Shawn Marion-Dirk Nowitzki-Tyson Chandler appears to be the greatest clutch lineup on Earth.
Wrong as usual, Republican.
222: Not only are most of the affects random, but to the extent that the statistics give any evidence that some players are clutch they don't really match the narratives. (Chris Paul appears to actually be better in the ends of games, Kobe Bryant not so much.)
Top ten all-time
I'm a sucker for this sort of question.
Honestly, I have no idea how to compare players across a significant historical gulf. In some very real way the game is not the same as it was in the days of Russell / Wilt / West / Robertson.
If you take the Modern Era as starting sometime after the addition of the three-point line, any list of top players is going to start with (in some order):
Jordan
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Duncan
Hakeem
Kobe (who I can't stand, but clearly belongs)
I'd be comfortable putting Moses Malone, Dirk, and KG at 8, 9, and 10 (again in some order).
Everybody on that list has at least 1 MVP, 1 championship, and, other than KG, 1 Finals MVP.
Without in any way taking away from Dirk's accomplishments, he did not do it on his own. The entire Mavs team played above where almost everyone thought they could play -- mostly because they were incredibly well coached.
Games 2 and 6 of the finals and most of the Lakers series were the first times I've really noticed good coaching to that extent in major NBA playoff games. Carlisle figured out how to best use his limited tools against some fantastic opponents, and outfoxed the competition again and again. Just a remarkable performance by an NBA coach.
Number crunching on Dallas in the clutch, collated for about seven years.
Personally I tend to have the same thought as Kevin Pelton.
My skepticism has never been about whether the final minutes of NBA games legitimately differ from the first 43 or so; it's clear that teams adjust the way they run their offenses, meaning that the arguments used against the notion of clutch hitting in baseball aren't relevant. Instead, the problem is that sample sizes are so small that it's difficult to tell what is truly clutch performance apart from random chance.
As I've said, I loved the Mavericks run, I don't think it was luck, but I still wouldn't bet on them to do the same thing again next year.
Is there some extremely detailed compendium of end-of-game basketball stats out there? I would like to continue to avoid work check things such as:
Does Jason Kidd shoot better at the end of games? It seems like he's more likely to make free throws and 3s at the end of the game; his overall percentages aren't great.
Did Robert Horry always make 3s at the end, or do we just remember those games?
And so on.
I'm not sure why you have Kobe (lots of rings but not the best player on his team) but not Pippen or Rodman. You seem to be very heavily weighting championships since you don't have Barkley.
229 Horry had a memorable game losing 3-point miss at the buzzer of a Spurs/Lakers game 5.
Btw, comment 227 makes a subtle but I believe accurate point counter tonsils of those UPETGI(9) has been making on these threads. And the quote in 228 is great, and a great example of how fraught importing sabermetrics into the NBA is.
Btw, comment 227 makes a subtle but I believe accurate counterpoint to the arguments UPETGI(9) has been making on these threads. And the quote in 228 is great, and a great example of how fraught importing sabermetrics into the NBA is.
And why define close as "within 5 at some point in the last five minutes"? While you're at it, why not use more than one measure? It shouldn't be any more difficult to run the numbers for "tied (or within 2 or within 3) at some point in the last five minutes", which I would think is a better measure. I've seen lots of games where the lead fluctuates between 10 and 5 and the game never seems all that close. Five's a pretty dumb number to pick if you believe that the possibility of losing the lead on the next possession affects how teams play.
I'm not sure why you have Kobe (lots of rings but not the best player on his team) but not Pippen or Rodman.
Honestly I'm so far away from being objective about Kobe that I'm deferring to the collective opinion of many people that I trust. I'm a stats guys, but I've seen enough people who are (a) savvy about advanced basketball statistics and (b) no fans of the Lakers say that Kobe has played amazing basketball that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Pippen, Rodman, and, say, Chauncey Billups seem like they're all clearly elite players that are a cut below that list. Barkley is a tougher call, and I'd be be open to the argument that he should bump somebody off that list. I'd have to look at the stats a little more closely to decide where I'd come down on that one.
Well, there's this.
It seems to indicate that James and Nowitzki are normally roughly equal in close game situations.
Further to 235, you could also make an argument for Karl Malone or Stockton. I intentionally decided to limit the list to just players with championships, because I do think that matters, but that's not something that I feel strongly about at all.
I really do believe that you could make a case for Barkley, Malone, or Stockton as a top 10 player of the modern era, but I also feel okay with leaving all three of them off the list.
236: Thanks. Neither team ahead by more than five makes a lot of sense too. Maybe I misread the other measurement.
Here's a good quote, from Roland Beech, founder of 82games.com, stat geek, and consultant for the Mavs this season:
When you win, everything you did is given credit as 'the right thing' to do. I don't get how putting Barea in the starting lineup caused him to go from a .260 shooter to a .660 shooter. If you demote a 90% shooter (Stevenson) to get the 26% guy in the lineup, that's either crazy or brilliant, depending on the outcome.
The Mavs shot better, passed better, and they were deeper. They scored 50.6% of the points and were lucky it didn't go 7.
Also I forgot David Robinson. I think you could make a good case for Robinson being better than KG.
Well, sure, but sometimes you make decisions that are the right thing to do. E.g., running the staggered pick and roll late in game 2 or the zone in game 6.
Regardless of whether there are some actual clutch shooting going on, the randomness in a given close basketball game is really really huge. Say there's a huge clutch affect and so because X is shooting it at the buzzer instead of Y the odds go up from 45% to 55%. You still have to play 10 close games for that difference to be likely to have swung a single game! Playoff series are really short and randomness impacts them a lot.
Another prediction: Rick perry will get the nomination.
The non-stats based argument against trying to determine 'clutch' performance is that if it is to mean anything it's simply performance at the most stressful moments, and not all last two or five minutes are equal. The same goes for earlier periods. I'm pretty sure the stress level in the 2nd quarter of game six was higher for both Lebron and Dirk than the last minute of a tie game in November, or even in an easy early round playoff series.
I'm not sure why you have Kobe (lots of rings but not the best player on his team) but not Pippen or Rodman
Rodman?! In any case 'not as good as Shaq in his prime' doesn't mean not top ten. None of the big men on that list were ever as good as Shaq in those Laker years. I'd certainly put Kobe in the top ten of the last thirty years and I'm a devout Celtics fan. Pippen doesn't, but not because he wasn't as good as Jordan.
Certainly "not as good as Shaq in his prime" isn't automatically disqualifying. I'd also argue that he's not clearly better than Gasol when he got his next two rings. Anyway my position is that Kobe is certainly one of the best handful of shooting guards of his generation mostly because of his durability. On a per minute basis he wasn't better than Wade, Ginobili, or McGrady, but he played at a high level for a lot more minutes because he's extremely durable. But shooting guard is a relatively weak position, and I don't think "arguably the best shooting guard of the last 10 years" makes a strong case for "top 10 in the past 30 years." We're picking 3 a decade, so you have to better than just the best at your position.
Championships might not be everything, but McGrady shouldn't even be in this discussion.
I'd probably go: Magic, Bird, Jordan, Barkley, Robinson, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, LeBron. But I don't really know the 80's so maybe Moses Malone should bump someone there.
Obviously McGrady shouldn't be in the discussion because of injuries, but at his best he was better than Kobe at his best.
But that doesn't really mean a lot in an all-time discussion. Part of making it to all-time is being able to play all the time. There are probably other non-greatests you could offer up to oppose potential greatests. Bill Walton, for example. (Wrong decade, but first example I could think of.)
Fair enough. Penny Hardaway is another good example of someone very good very briefly. And indeed the value of Kobe is his durability. But anyway, do you think Kobe was ever one of the top two players in the NBA and if so when? It seems weird to me to put someone in the top 10 of the last 30 years just because they were in the top 10ish players in the league for a long time.
For me the hard part is sorting out how many of each of the triples Shaq/Robinson/Olajuwan and Duncan/Garnett/Nowitzki to put on the list. They all play the same position at similar times, so it seems like the third best of them shouldn't make the list. But it's not really so clear who's the third best in each of those triples.
I also kind of want to include another pointguard. But all of Stockton, Kidd, Nash, and Paul seem like stretches to me.
Also looking back through some old stats the Barkley over Malone decision really isn't so clear...
Kobe has been NBA 1st Team nine times, 2nd team twice
Wade has been NBA 1st Team twice, 2nd team three times.
On defense Kobe has a zillion 1st teams, Wade has none.
Not at all definitive, and I think they significantly overstate the difference.
Not sure about top two, my memory of the details isn't good enough, but 2005-6, 2006-7, 2007-8?
I also kind of want to include another pointguard. But all of Stockton, Kidd, Nash, and Paul seem like stretches to me.
As a point guard, I'd rank Isiah Thomas over all four of them (though Chris Paul could end up better by the end of his career). Shitty coach/GM and apparently a complete dick off the court, but still.
Depending on the year I think you've got to pick most of Nowitzki, Garnett, Duncan, and LeBron over Kobe in those years. But he probably does crack the top 5 in the league a couple of those years.
253: Isiah's just before my time, so I can't really evaluate him directly. I vaguely had the impression that he was the Iverson of his era (best offensive player on a team whose success was tied to its defense, but you need one of those to put together a team full of non-scorers). But that might not be fair.
Also, I'm not sure if Moses Malone qualifies due to the time cutoff, and if he does, how about Kareem who was still very, very good for the first couple years of the three point era.
I wouldn't include Paul (or Lebron) for career date reasons as well, they haven't played long enough.
Duncan is basically a center who plays a very different style than Nowitzki. Of those six I would definitely include Shaq, Hakeem, and Duncan while probably dropping Nowitzki and Garnett. Not sure about Robinson.
I probably should stay out of this now that I've realized how little I've paid attention to stats over the years, but I started watching the NBA around the Isaih-Magic rivalry years and I think of him as someone able to put his team over the top, while Iverson always seemed like someone able to pull his team close enough to almost win a championship, but just not quite enough. Of course, that might be saying more about their respective teams.
LeBron has already been a top one or two player in the league for five seasons. I was counting him only based on what he's done. Though I admit that if he actually never played another season then the inclusion is pretty borderline.
I was looking back through some old Robinson stats, and man he was really really good.
There was a time when Dominique Wilkins was in these discussions, I think, but I think he's been pushed off the list by recent players.
Oh, and that guy ogged hates. Bill Lambeer. He was the bestest of them all.
Bill Bradley is easily in my top ten of former NBA players I almost voted for in a presidential primary. Easily.
