Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Watch Out For Cowboys UDFA Tim Benford

A Stranger in a Strange Land (Part One)

The-boston-convention-center_medium

My Journey to the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Admittedly, my relationship with advanced stats, or analytics, has not always been the greatest. Even as I've come to accept things like rebounding rate and have started to look at per-minute numbers a little more closely, I'll still take a seasoned scout with a notebook full of observations over a number cruncher with a spreadsheet full of analytics.

So, it was surprising to some people when I decided, back in early December, to register for the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in Boston. Organized by Daryl Morey, the General Manager of the Houston Rockets, and Jessica Gelman, the Vice President of Customer Marketing and Strategy for the Kraft Sports Group (New England Patriots), the Sloan Sports Conference is the Mecca of sports analytics. Over a two day period, more than 50 panels were given on topics that ranged from labor relations to using statistics in professional golf. Panelists ranged from author Malcolm Gladwell to New York Giants defensive end Justin Tuck to Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

I asked my girlfriend if she wanted to go to the conference with me, but when told that it would be a two-day conference on sports statistics in Boston, in March, she quickly found some drying paint that needed watching.

Fine, I'll go by myself. Here was my experience:

Star-divide

Logan-airport-address_medium

Day 1: Arriving in Boston

Since registration for the conference began the next day at 7:30 AM, and the first panel started at 8:30, I decided to fly into Boston the day before. I thought I could take in some of the sights, maybe go on a walking tour of Beacon Hill or sample some Boston culture.

I took a cab to the Humphrey terminal of the Minneapolis airport, and as the taxi driver took a carbon imprint of my credit card while we sat outside the gate (I bet the MIT boys would be impressed by that high technology), I sent out a few texts. Unfortunately, I realized when I finally stepped foot inside of the terminal that I had left my cell phone on the seat of the cab.

Great start to weekend. 

The cab had already pulled away, so I caught my flight to Chicago, made my connection, and arrived in Boston phoneless. Instead of spending the next couple of hours visiting the Bull & Finch Pub or the New State House, I wandered around downtown Boston looking for a store that sold phones. $200 later, I was so cold and tired that I just grabbed some dinner and spent the night writing the game preview for the Wolves-Sixers game.

 

Imag0010_medium

Day 2: Culture Shock

I was so excited, I couldn't sleep. I woke up around 6, pressed some slacks and a nice shirt, and arrived right as registration began. I was also a little nervous. Although I think I can hold my own in a basketball conversation with most people, I was worried someone at the conference would ask me to define 'differential'  or explain Win Shares and I'd be exposed. Fortunately, all they asked me was my name.

Imag0103_medium

Upon registering, each attendee - the conference sold out this year with 1,500 attendees - received an MIT tote bag with some decent S.W.A.G. in it. There was a copy of ESPN the Magazine. A copy of the book "The House Advantage", written by Jeffrey Ma, who was the inspiration for the movie '21'. A Bluetooth with the ESPN logo on it. A nice pen. There was also a program that listed out the panels for the next two days with brief bios on all of the presenters and panelists.

Imag0014_medium

We rode the escalator up to the top level of the Convention Center, where people were eating pastries, drinking orange juice and talking about the days events.

Imag0012_medium

Most of the attendees belonged to one of three groups: College students; bloggers; and team employees. Depending on the team, that could be a couple of interns or it could be the team's general manager, including Rich Cho of the Portland Trail Blazers and Masai Ujiri and Josh Kroenke of the Denver Nuggets. Tom Penn, Kevin Pritchard, R.C. Buford and Mike Zarren were at the Conference as panelists, along with Cuban and Morey, of course.

The List of Attendees has Matt Bollero as the only representative of the Minnesota Timberwolves.

 

Imag0025_medium

Panel One: The Birth to Stardom: Developing the Modern Athlete in 10,000 Hours?

Moderator: Author Malcolm Gladwell

Panelists: ESPN analyst Jeff Van Gundy; CEO of Athlete's Performance, Mark Verstegen; New York Giants defensive end Justin Tuck; and Daryl Morey

In the first panel of the day, the panelists discussed the idea of nature vs. nurture in developing a pro athlete. Malcolm Gladwell opened with the question, "is there such a thing as talent?" and if there is, is there a point where natural talent can be counterproductive to success by stifling work ethic?

Everyone on the panel agreed that certain prerequisites are necessary to be a professional athlete, including both physical and cognitive abilities, but that it generally takes a good amount of practice for anyone to become great. Malcolm Gladwell, both on the panel and in his book, "Outliers", posits that it takes at least 10,000 hours of practice for anyone - not only athletes - to fully master a craft. He said when people point out that Mozart composed at the age of 5, Gladwell quips, "have you heard any of what he wrote at 5?"

Jeff Van Gundy brought up Tracy McGrady, a former player for both he and Daryl Morey in Houston, as a player with crazy athlete ability who did not always put in the necessary work ethic. Justin Tuck told a story about two players he played with growing up in Alabama: Jamario Moon and Gerald Wallace. Moon was the more talented of the two, but Wallace tried to compensate by spending more time in the gym. While Moon made the NBA, his career has not been nearly as successful as Wallace's. 

"When people are telling you that you're great, it can be easy to grow lazy," Tuck observed.

Gladwell asked the question that if talent can be counterproductive to work ethic, shouldn't GMs avoid more talented players in the draft in favor of harder working ones? Do GMs overvalue potential and lose sight of what a player really is?

Van Gundy answered by saying that to win, "you might have to make a deal with things you don't like." He said he has a rule of "Soft, Selfish and Stupid"; a player can be one of the three but not more than one.

Morey agreed that in the draft, GMs are often picking flaws more than picking attributes and making gambles on which flaws they can improve. He said that pre-draft interviews are critical to learn how coachable a player is likely to be. A player cannot simply practice for 10,000 hours unless he or she is practicing with purpose. "Otherwise, you're wasting time." Morey and Van Gundy brought up Yao Ming and Shane Battier as examples of very coachable players. Van Gundy talked about Patrick Ewing as coachable, "unless he wasn't getting the ball".

Van Gundy also said that, "coachable is just enough to get you beat. You need the T-Mac's of the world to win".

Gladwell asked each panelist to name the biggest example of a player who blew his opportunity by not working hard, despite having tremendous talent.

Van Gundy mentioned Stromile Swift. With more effort, Van Gundy felt that Swift could've lived up to his selection as the #2 overall pick, but that his expectations and Swift's expectations were at very different levels.

Morey listed Marcus Banks. He was disappointment when, during a pre-draft interview, Marcus Banks told Morey that his true passion was to be a "male fashion model".

Justin Tuck and Mark Verstegen both agreed on JaMarcus Russell. Tuck told a story of watching Russell before a high school game throw a 72-yard pass from his knee.

Verstegen ended the panel by saying that there are too many kids who are living the life and not doing the job. They forget that once they sign the contract, they actually have to go and fulfill that contract by doing the work. With analytics, there is no where for a player to hide his flaws anymore.

 

Imag0034_medium

Panel Two: The Coming War, Sports Labor Relations

Moderator: ESPN columnist Jackie MacMullan

Panelists: Former NBA Deputy Commissioner, Russ Granik; Sports Illustrated Legal Analyst, Mike McCann; President of the Postolos Group, George Postolos; Professor of Economics at Smith College, Andrew Zimbalist; and NBA Analyst Tom Penn

Panelists discussed the looming lockouts in both the NBA and the NFL and the legal implications of the CBAs in those leagues. There was some talk about the current events surrounding the NFL and the NFL Players' Association, including attempts to decertify and an attempt to get an injunction against ta lockout.

In the NFL, most teams do well financially. The Green Bay Packers (who, because they are a publicly traded company, disclose financial statements) made a 10 million dollar profit the previous season. This is unlike the NBA, where small market teams have had huge losses. Postolos said that, compared to 10 years ago, the situation in the NBA is dire. Only about 6 or 7 teams make a profit, and with players receiving a larger percentage of revenue, costs continue to go up. Postolos said that major changes should be necessary in the NBA, whereas in the NFL, only tweaks to the system are necessary.

The idea of revenue sharing was brought up, but many of the panelists thought that revenue sharing was not going to be an effective solution. Russ Granik cited David Stern's report of $370 million in aggregate losses last season, and while there was some disagreement about the exact numbers, all the panelists agreed that the losses were substantial. Simple revenue sharing would only bring down the profitable teams and would not make the teams at the bottom healthy again. Andrew Zimbalist posited that revenue sharing should not be welfare for owners and that there still needs to be incentives to get owners to act like entrepreneurs. By itself, revenue sharing only moves money around.

The topic of LeBron/Carmelo and franchise tags was brought up.

No one on the panel seemed to like the idea of a franchise tag. Russ Granik thought that some of the fans and media were overreacting to the player movement of the past season. Tom Penn brought up the point that Amar'e, Carmelo, LeBron, Bosh, etc., had all re-upped with their teams initially and had given the first 7-8 years of their careers to their original teams.

How can teams and players prepare for the lockout?

Panolos suggested that teams will start laying people off, since sponsors and season ticket holders may leave if there is a lengthy lockout. Tom Penn said that teams will still be competitive while the lockout is going on. While they cannot have contact with their players, they can still scout and will still discuss future moves with other teams. He said the smart teams will talk to players before hand about staying ready for when play resumes.

Teams can still draft players, in both the NBA and NFL, but they cannot trade, sign free agents or sign draft picks.

As far as the players are concerned, the date when most players will miss their first paycheck is November 15th. Since players may not feel a squeeze until then, Penn felt that there may not be much urgency for the players to make many concessions. Jackie MacMullen said that Shaq told her he did not notice he was not getting paid during the 1998-99 NBA lockout. A panelist also mentioned Bryant "Big Country" Reeves, who ballooned up to over 350 pounds while the lockout was going on.

What will the impact of the lockout be on the league image?

Everyone agreed that fans will start to tune out when games are canceled, but there was disagreement as to how much lasting damage that will have on the sport. While the NBA lost several hundred million dollars, according to Granik, during the 98-99 lockout, he believes that most fans have kind of forgotten the lockout.

MacMullen brought up the point about the collateral damage of a lockout, which harms bars and restaurants in the area, media outlets who cover those sports and advertisers.

Can't the league's problems all be solved by owners making wiser financial decisions?

This panel solicited questions from members of the audience. Someone asked the question about why NBA teams cannot simply make better decisions to fix revenue problems.

Tom Penn said that if you want to compete in the NBA, you have to spend money. He pointed to the opposite ends of the spectrum with the Clippers' model (where a team spends little and wins little, but makes money) and the Spurs' model (where a team spends a lot, wins a lot, but does not make money).

Zimbalist agreed and said that, sure, a player might not be worth $60 million over 5 years, but some team will give the player that money, so either the team spends to compete or loses the player and is worse off on the court. He also made the point that the 6 or 7 teams who do make money are not examples of disciplined spending, but instead, benefit from the market. Even spending very little will not, by itself, make some teams profitable.

Postolos added that the NBA has salary floors that force teams to spend a certain amount of money.

Penn ended the session by saying that there are no parades for a good balance sheet and no one hangs banners for profitability. The league should be about winning. Historically, a person would buy an NBA team, break even, win games and perhaps sell the team in the future once it has appreciated in value. Now, that does not work. Most teams do not break even and franchises are not appreciating in the same way as before.

 

Imag0039_medium

After the second panel of the day, it was lunchtime. The Conference provided several sandwich, wrap and salad options from local restaurants that were quite nice. I had a Chipotle Chicken Salad. They also had some events taking place during the lunch hour.

I chose to go watch a discussion between Olympic gold medal speed skater Apolo Anton Ohno and ESPN analyst Ric Bucher. The two discussed Ohno's training habits and diet, as well as how Ohno uses analytics to research other athletes and to improve his own performance.

Imag0037_medium

(To Be Continued...)

In Part Two: Panels led by Mike Wilbon and Marc Stein, as well as my first trip to Boston's TD Bankrnorth Garden.

Comment 174 comments  |  10 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Great write up Tim!

really enjoyed the read. Must’ve been a great time!

I watch this team, and i care so much, simply because i can’t not. It’s just a part of who i am..

by Love4MVP on Mar 8, 2011 4:43 PM CST reply actions  

Thanks. It was a lot of fun.

And there was tons to do. That’s why I had to split it all up. =)

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 8, 2011 4:48 PM CST up reply actions  

Awesome

I wanted to go this year, but I got around to planning too late. Great to see a prominent member of the CH community was able to make it. Thanks for the write up!

by BeasleBong on Mar 8, 2011 4:45 PM CST reply actions  

Very Nice!

Van Gundy’s “soft selfish and stupid” philosophy had me rolling,…

by Los Lobos Del Bosque on Mar 8, 2011 4:58 PM CST reply actions  

of course

there are meny ways to define stupid. DMC might not have fit whatever definition of stupid van Gundy was using. but yes, I agree with van Gundy’s approach that a player can only have so meny flaws before he becomes a detriment to both individual and team success.

My phillosophy of success follows the 3 “t’’s” Talent, Training and Tenacity. that two be truely successful one must have at least 2 of these. the truely great ones have all three.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 10:29 AM CST up reply actions  

I'm saving this for later reading

but a quick question: did you bring your Timberwolves pottery for discussion?

Only four more months until the lockout begins!

by PoorDick on Mar 8, 2011 5:20 PM CST reply actions  

Sounds fun, great article as always Timmy...

     I think maybe a lot of the issues with both the NFL and NBA is that the owners are trying to make money… Aren’t there a lot easier ways to make money than a very public entity that is under constant scrutiny and swayed easily by the amount of disposable income people have? Also, being profitable is not the same as winning… and a lot of players will be the first to say that it’s a business and that’s how they treat it. So they’re admitting that when they’re playing, wether they’re conscience of it or not, winning is a secondary concern to keeping their career going.

     This is one reason I’m so excited about that Nets… Prokhorov doesn’t care about the money at all. Just like his buddy Abromovich and Chelsea he can afford to lose money hand over fist and just focus on the best of anything. Cuban is similar and he’s been great for the NBA.

     Another lesson from european football… how you play is almost as important as winning. If the Knicks of the mid-late 90s had won a ring it’d be viewed as just as valid as the Showtime Lakers, but by comparison, the basketball sucked. If you’re a boring team who plays defensive in soccer, they’re disparaged to the point by their own fans that even a successful coach will be fired and players moved for pennies on the dollar.

     So if you don’t care about making money… then you can actually put the best product out there and you can ensure it’s an entertaining product, so even if you lose the fans will come back. The Wolves are attempting this, with mixed results, but this season has been WAY easier/entertaining to watch than last season, yes? We just need more billionaires to buy into the league.

by BCS13 on Mar 8, 2011 5:27 PM CST reply actions  

Good

movie?

Only four more months until the lockout begins!

by PoorDick on Mar 8, 2011 8:12 PM CST up reply actions  

ok now that I read it

thanks for going, taking photos, notes, and doing a writeup for us. always love getting insight on the inner workings of the league. it’s also cool that the panels seem to speak openly.

by illwafer on Mar 8, 2011 6:23 PM CST reply actions  

That last point is the biggest one for me...

…and why “spend your money better” rings hollow as the answer for this. It’s classic market forces….all it takes is one team willing to pay a guy big money to set the price. Then you either spend likewise to that one team, or you let that one team become overwhelmingly better

by Oceanary on Mar 8, 2011 6:23 PM CST reply actions  

It's funny

that point struck me as completely weak and useless. Great, be lemmings! Make poor investments that you know before hand suck!

That’s a garbage excuse for owners and GMs unwilling to admit that they screw up all the time and a lame attempt to push off the league’s troubles onto the players.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 8, 2011 7:02 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't know about that. I mean, we talk about it all the time what Kevin Love is worth.

Say some team is willing to give him a max deal. Is he really worth that amount of money? Maybe, maybe not. But if the Wolves don’t give him a max deal, they’ll lose a fan favorite, All-Star player and the one big thing that the team has going for it. It’s not a screw up, then, to pony up the money. But the market set the price for Love and the Wolves either have to overpay or get much worse on the court.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 8, 2011 7:06 PM CST up reply actions  

Right

It’s the Wally Sczerbiak problem, and that’s because there are both natural and “Man-made” problems with the player market. First of all, there is a shortage of good players, obviously. But the league also makes it more problematic by limiting player movement and creating artificial shortages of both players and teams (with cap space). It really has nothing to do with “market forces”.

In a classic market, you would happily let your competitors overpay for assets, since that would weaken them. Over time, the same thing happens in the NBA, but there seems to be a failure to understand economics. Instead of saying “let the other guy make the mistake” the Bucks gave Drew Gooden some absurd amount of money.

And that’s the problem. Yes, some guys who got max money are overpaid, but the real issue to me is guys like Gooden getting too much.

You know what they should do? Eliminate the cap, and make every player a free agent every year. 1 year contracts only. That would do more to hold down salaries than anything else.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 8, 2011 7:22 PM CST up reply actions  

If there weren't some restrictions to player movement

then small market teams would have an even worse chance of competing than they do now. The Clevelands and San Antonios of the world were successful because they drafted players and were able to keep them – for a while – thanks to the rookie contract structure. If LeBron and Duncan had been a free agent after year 1? Yikes.

 That would be even worse than Yankees-Red Sox stuff. The Cubans and Prokorhovs of the world would run basketball, and since the NBAD is no where close to the level of baseball’s farming system, the small market teams would have a much tougher time relying on youth – especially since the investment of training them might only come to fruition on someone else’s team.

Owners do have to show more restraint. I mean, David Kahn outbid himself for Darko, basically. But in some cases, overpaying is what teams have to do to stay afloat in a lot of cases. Giving Drew Gooden a bad contract is not the reason the NBA is in such dire straits right now.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 8, 2011 7:36 PM CST up reply actions  

Well,

I think you’d be surprised at the limited player movement there would be if there was total free agency. Be that as it may, I disagree that Drew Gooden is not the reason the NBA is dire straits; he’s EXACTLY the reason.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 8, 2011 7:48 PM CST up reply actions  

I agree broadly with you points

but not with the disdain for Gooden. It is not that I like Gooden but it is tough for me to get all that worked up about paying a consistently above average big 5.8M. Unless you are making an argument regarding his durability.

It seems to me that when looking at Milwaukee’s roster their overpayment to Salmons, Redd and Maggette are more problematic especially since they apparently gauged Salmons’ value by 30 fluky games he played for them last season rather than the other 14000 minutes he played in the NBA.

by Ailuridae on Mar 8, 2011 8:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Well...Gooden was meant symbolically

clearly. But…on the other hand, and perhaps I’m wrong, but I doubt there were other teams offering that amount. Still, perhaps you are correct and this was a poor example.

Generally, the reason I don’t think that the max players are really the problem, is that the max is an artificial low. If you consider every player making max money, and try to determine that value, my guess is that overall, max players contribute plenty “per dollar.” Yes, Rashard Lewis makes too much, but on the other hand, Lebron James is radically underpaid.

My guess (without any research—yay assumptions!) is that the post rookie scale salary cohort of $6-10 million are probably the worst valued players (most overpaid as a group). This may not be true, but it makes sense given how teams do business.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 8, 2011 8:11 PM CST up reply actions  

Someone did do that study

And I’m too lazy to dig through all of Truehoop right now, but they found exactly what you’re talking about. The ratio of wins-to-dollars paid (I think it was something like how much is ‘x’ player being paid per win he produces) says that guys like LeBron are vastly underpaid, but most max contract players (Joe Johnson, Brandon Roy, etc) are overpaid.

I don’t remember if there was anything about the mid-range contracts. But I understand the point. And certainly the NBA restricts movement by allowing home teams to offer more than other teams can.

What I’m saying is that even though teams are overpaying top players a lot, they have to do it to be competitive. Take Rudy Gay for example….is he worth $80 million or whatever he got last summer? Not really. But at the same time, by choosing not to pay him that amount when Memphis did (and I realize we legally couldn’t match their offer….think hypothetically here) we also lost a 20-6-3 player who is vastly superior to any wing we have now.

On one had, you can go “well, we made a good decision not overpaying Rudy Gay”. But on the other hand, we’re a terrible team when a Rudy Gay would probably have made us pretty respectable. I think what happens a lot of the time is owners and GMs say “I’d rather overpay and be good than be economically smart and let some other team be good at my expense”. Where I think the real failure comes in is what Ailuridae is talking about, where teams misjudge who’s good and who’s not. But for those players who are good, again, all it takes is one team to say “we’re willing to overpay to get him” to set the price. If another team decides not to match that offer, they lose out on the player, and that can be the difference between ‘competitive every night’ and ‘thoroughly lottery bound’.

by Oceanary on Mar 8, 2011 8:28 PM CST up reply actions  

I personally think the league did nearly everything right when they made this system, with a few exceptions, only one of which is really relevant. They should have used a hard cap, and it should have been prohibitive. The argument against it would be that superstars would make all the money, but to me, that’s reflective of the game of basketball. LeBron James should be making ten times what the average player makes. The exponential increase in player value as you climb from player fifty to player one in the NBA is evident every game.

by Klobs on Mar 8, 2011 10:48 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

A hard cap won't work in a sport with only 12 roster spots

and fewer that matter.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 9:18 AM CST up reply actions  

A hard cap

is the only thing that can make parity a reality. look to the nfl. teams turn around year in and year out in the last 10 years not one team from the NFC has appeared in the Super bowl 2 years in a row. base ball has no cap, and look at the teams that make and go deep in the playoffs year in and year out. how meny of the last 10 world series have had either the yankees or the bosox played? yes good management counts, but a lack of a cap means (coupled with supersized markets) means that unlimited spending means that they can out talent every body else. a soft cap has no effect on super marktes like new york, LA, and boston.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 11:02 AM CST up reply actions  

Yikes. This might be the most disingenuous argument I've ever read

First, you cite the NFC, conveniently ignoring, oh, half of the league.

Second you compare it to baseball, implying that teams regularly repeat in the world series. You particularly imply that the big teams in the AL are always there. But you know how many times in the past 10 years an AL team has made the World Series twice in a row? Zero. None. Not once.

You know how many teams have done it in the NL? One. The Phillies made it in 2008 and 2009.

There might be a money/parity argument to be made that would actually have some juice to it, but it isn’t the one you made.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 11:23 AM CST up reply actions  

In reality, I think its an utterly apples-to-oranges argument

Forgetting everything about salaries, contracts, and caps, MLB and the NFL are simply not superstar leagues. Two or three top-end guys can’t carry a team like in the NBA, and the way teams are comprised lends itself to parity. The Yankees can spend their ass off, and it will often get them to the playoffs, but a playoff series is never a guarantee with that many working parts (well, unless they’re playing the Twins). Along with the large volume of players, the NFL, of course, has one-and-done playoffs, which is enough to make repeats quite difficult.

I just think there’s far too many variables amongst sports to make any of these comparisons.

The user formerly known as Bahlgren1

by BrettAhlgren on Mar 9, 2011 11:44 AM CST up reply actions  

I don’t know why there is a need to compare it to other leagues. A hard cap, and as I guess I omitted, no maximum salaries, would make parity pretty hard to avoid. Sure, James, Wade, and Bosh would take a few million less per year to play together, as they did, but if the cap is hard at $58,000,000, and James can make $35,000,000 somewhere, he’s not taking $15,000,000 to team up with three other guys.

by Klobs on Mar 9, 2011 11:54 AM CST up reply actions  

One-and-done

Is an interesting point. I really wouldn’t mind seeing the NBA playoffs go 2/3, 3/5 then 4/7 for the conf. finals and finals.

by zebano on Mar 9, 2011 1:36 PM CST up reply actions  

Hard Cap

Eric- You say a hard cap won’t work but you don’t say why. I actually agree that a hard cap as well as no max contracts would be the best way to create a more level playing field.

Let’s say they set a hard cap at $100 million(just a number thrown out there) and you have no max contracts. A team very well could pay Lebron $75 million but that only leaves them with $25 million for the rest of their roster. I think this brings a lot more strategy into the play for the GM’s of the league and I think it protects some of the smaller markets teams pulling in less revenue.

You can’t tell me it’s good for the league to have a team(Lakers) spend 215% more on salary than another team(Kings). The reason no salary cap works in baseball is because of the minor league system and the salary structure and arbitration structure for young players. They have to find a way to level the playing field a little and I think a hard cap at some point is going to be the answer.

by jama on Mar 9, 2011 11:53 AM CST up reply actions  

Exactly my thinking. Make the cap restrictive, the actual number now seems reasonable, and you’d get a much more competitive league. The players’ union would never go for it, because so few of the voting members would benefit from it, but it would change the league completely in a positive direction. I would advocate a huge disparity in NBA player salaries between the elite few and the rest of the league.

by Klobs on Mar 9, 2011 11:57 AM CST up reply actions  

True/

I’m working on a fanpost now about possible changes and solutions. I’ll try to address why I think a hard cap is going to be untenable in the NBA.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 12:04 PM CST up reply actions  

Untenable

Whether or not it’s untenable would you agree that there is a good chance a hard cap would level the playing field though? Well as long as that cap number is fair to all teams.

If all but 6 or 7 teams in the league is losing money wouldn’t it make sense to limit how much these dumb owners can actually spend? David Stern works for the Owners but some of his decisions are hurting their pocketbooks. I’m surprised more owners haven’t come out and said anything about Stern.

by jama on Mar 9, 2011 12:09 PM CST up reply actions  

I doubt it would particularly

someone would still have Lebron.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 12:14 PM CST up reply actions  

How many chamionships has LeBron won so far in his career?

by jama on Mar 9, 2011 1:28 PM CST up reply actions  

A team that gave LeBron his value would have severe financial limitations that would level the playing field. You probably could assemble the 2009 Cavs and Celtics under a hard cap. Teams would be champing at the bit go get him at two-thirds of their payroll, but there would be other teams more willing to sit back and build a more balanced, depth based roster built around, say, Dirk at two-fifths.

by Klobs on Mar 9, 2011 2:23 PM CST up reply actions  

I'll take the second one

as it is more likely to win a championship. can we name the number of teams that won it all with only 1 or 2 (or even 3) stars but no supporting cast? no depth?

I do think it is possible to win it all with just 1 star, but you need a good supporting cast. people who can start on their own right, not people who are starting because its all you can afford. (it probably also helps to have a good coach and a system that fits the roster).

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 3:03 PM CST up reply actions  

you forgot philly

they have been in 2 world series since 2000. the yanks and bosox have been in 6 combined, and those 2 teams have 2 highest payrolls in that time frame. so in fact in the NL 2 teams have been in world series 4 times in the last 10 years. and as for back to backs, the bosox and yanks are in teh same division. in fact so is tampa so that would be 3 years in a row that one division represented the al in the world series, and only tampa is not a major spender (but the twins really helped them upgrade their talent cheaply that year).

as for the back to back thing. in the nfc not one team has played in 2 superbowls in the last 10 years let alone back to back years., while in the afc pitt and new england and indy have all appeared multiple times, they are regarded as the 3 most well run and coached teams in the league. in the NFL, small market teams have appeared in several superbowls the last 10 years, Indy, St. Louis and Car. While in the Baseball, St. Louis and Colo were the only reps.

soft caps in baseball and basketball have not stopped the yanks and bosox or the lakers from spending meny times more then the cap. nor have they hindered those teams from making still more money. while teams like the wolves would have great dificulty making money if they have to pay the lux tax.

the hard cap in football has most definetly increased parity. mismanagement is then big factor in teams that stay at the bottom.

in no cap systems small markte teams can only stay competitive by first drafting, and making astute trades, but once theybecome competative they have to become big spenders (look at the twins. their payroll has balloned recently, and if it didn’t they would not have been competative the last couple of years.)

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 12:03 PM CST up reply actions  

I didn't forget Philly.

’and I have no desire for the NBA to be like the NFL.

However, it’s my contention that it all has very little to do with caps and salaries and anything else, and more to do with the nature of the game.

I’ve made this argument before, but a lot of what we see as disabling non-parity in the NBA has very little to do with money and more to do with the nature of the games themselves. The NBA is problematic not because there is no hard cap, but because the better team wins too often.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 12:07 PM CST up reply actions  

The Better Team

usually wins in most sports regardless of wich sport it is. talent, management and coaching are the great differentiators. the lack of a cap keeps small market/low revenue teams from aquiring or keeping it because they simply don’t have the revenue streams to compete. rev sharing and a hard cap changes the dynamic and allows teams that would otherwise be low revenue tpo compete for talent on an equal footing. what truely makes the NFL unique is not the size of the roster, but rather the TV deal. it is the only league that has a league negotiated TV deal where the TV rev is shared equally with all teams.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 12:26 PM CST up reply actions  

Yes and no

The better team usually wins, yes. But it’s the relative frequency that matters.

To repeat myself: all sports walk a fairly fine line. If the better team doesn’t win often enough, fans view the results as random, and lose interest. But if the better team wins too often (as in the NBA), the games are drained of drama, and people stop watching.

I believe it’s the nature of the game itself, not anything to do with money that causes the better team to win in the NBA too often, but I think we blame this problem on money because it’s something we can control.

In baseball, with no cap at all, and massive, massive differences in salaries, the best team wins around 62% of the time, occasionally a little over, but rarely much more than that (about 101 wins in a 162 game season). That means that, first, your team, even if it isn’t that great, is still going to win fairly regularly, about 40% of the time even for the worst teams (a little less for particularly putrid seasons). It also means that if you have some luck, even if you really aren’t that good, you can be in a playoff race in September. It’s the nature of the game.

In the NBA, with a soft cap, and significant differences in salaries, but nowhere near what baseball has, the best teams regularly win 80% of their games. That is a problem. It would be more exciting, I believe, if the best teams rarely won more than 55 games in a season, and the worst still won around 30 or so. More competitive, exciting games. Plus, even a bad team that got some fortunate bounces could be fighting for the playoffs. None of that has to do with money, I don’t think, or at least not much of it. It has to do with the nature of the game, and I don’t know how to change that in a realistic way.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 12:41 PM CST up reply actions  

Errata

The best teams in the NBA regularly win 75% of their games; I said 80% above, which happens, but relatively rarely.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 12:52 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

I'm not totally convinced

the NFL has a hard cap, yet the worst teams struggle to win 3 games in a season (thats less then 17%), while the best teams reaguallry win 14 ( 87.5%) by the way football has way more players then baseball. one of the things that leads baseball to have less top and bottom differentials is that it is soo subdivided into single points no other sport (other then mabey crickette) is divided in such a manor. the diff between football and basketball is in how quickely a team can turn around. rev never stops an nfl team from turning around, only bad management and or coaching does.

if the Lakers didn’t have the ability to pay a max contract to every position on the court would they still be able to out talent most every other opponent year in and year out?

I am not saying the TWolves would be better then they are (again bad coaching and bad management), but the league as a whole would be more competative as the talent would be more spread out.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 12:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Football has such extremes in part because its a much shorter

season; pick out 16 games in baseball and you’ll have teams going 14-2 as well.

You are correct that one of the things that compresses baseball records is that scoring is low (though that doesn’t seem to be the case in many soccer leagues, but that’s a different argument).

That was my point; the nature of the games is different.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 1:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Little exercise: Imagine if baseball played a 16-game schedule, with a week between games.

Your ace starting pitcher starts every game now, to start with.

Imagine that football played 82, or 162, games, with a schedule like that of the NBA or baseball. Now you’re going to rotate players at key positions.

Depth becomes more, or less, important, and the probabilities change, don’t they?

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 1:04 PM CST up reply actions  

While you could shorten the baseball season

you could not shorten it to 16 games, and while you could lengthe the football season (in fact the owners are trying to do just that) certainly not to 162 games. the roster depth is often decided by the length of the schedule. thus if the football season is expanded, the rosters will also likely be expanded. i will concede that the comparitive lengths of the schedulle can help the winning/losing percentages but in the leagues, but the parity in football is what allows teams to more quickly move from losing to winning. and the hard cap, coupled with revenue sharing enables teams to not only retain their talent, but also to seek out talent when it becomes available.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 1:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Something you are also forgetting

Coaching in football is much more important than in the other sports in my opinion. There are many more variables with 22 players on the field. A certain scheme can actually win out over talent in many cases. Very seldomly do you see that work in basketball. People will say the Triangle does this but really the Triangle only works when you have one of the top 10 players of all time on the team.

by jama on Mar 9, 2011 1:33 PM CST up reply actions  

the biggest difference with coaching in the NFL

versus MLB is that the NFL requires so much more movement in exact timing than MLB does. There is definitely timing in MLB plays, but it doesn’t involve as many players. Much harder to accomplish in the NFL.

No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.

by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 9, 2011 1:37 PM CST up reply actions  

I actually agree

with you to acertain extent on this. partyly because too very common schemes were originally developed to compensate for a lack of talent on the rosters. the West Coast Offense and the 3-4 defensive scheme. however as these started to become successful, talant was assembled to fit these schemes specifically so now. but yes coaching is very improtant in football, but I dare say that coaching is important in basketball too. how meny games have th TWolves lost this year because we had the wrong players on the court for certain stretches of certain games? how often do we run plays that are counter to the strengths /weakness of the team? how meny think that our record would be bettter with better coaching?

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 1:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Coaching is important

I’m not saying coaching in the NBA is a complete waste of time, but the more talented team wins a large majority of the time no matter who the coach is. Look at the Heat, Spoelstra has done a pretty poor job with them and they are still going to win 50+ games because of their talent.

by jama on Mar 9, 2011 2:01 PM CST up reply actions  

Baseball has a much more random quality to it that gives it artificial parity. Nazr Mohammed isn’t going to drop three 40 point games on someone in the playoffs to get his team to the finals, but Cody Ross can put up a 1.385 OPS in a series and change everything.

by Klobs on Mar 9, 2011 2:28 PM CST up reply actions  

It is absolutely artificial. The parity is induced by the game and the brevity of playoff series, not the financial system. A select few teams have proven themselves year in and year out to be far better than the competition over the long and small sample size crushing regular season. The playoffs are a statistical aberration waiting to happen every season. The narrow participation in the playoffs uncovers the lack of parity, not the result of the playoffs.

by Klobs on Mar 9, 2011 2:38 PM CST up reply actions  

What? Scheduling and rules are "artificial" if they influence results,

but financial systems aren’t? How’s that work?

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 3:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Does it work better for you if I call it a “false parity” or a “parity mirage?”

by Klobs on Mar 9, 2011 4:53 PM CST up reply actions  

The elite teams in baseball every year

include, almost always, one or two teams that were nobodies at the start of the season. That’s just as consistent a trend as the Yankees making the postseason, isn’t it?

And the records that get those newcomers to the dance are regular season ones.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 5:04 PM CST up reply actions  

And yet, in college basketball coaches are practically third world dictators...

The way leagues are structured, and the specific rules in place, make a difference.

Are coaches marginal figures in European basketball? How much influence does Kurt Rambis have on the Wolves’ defense?

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 3:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Obviously I know those schedules aren't plausible.

And yeah, as I said, both roster depth and the probabilities around a given game would change, significantly, with something as simple as a different schedule. Teams would be built differently, too, to reflect the changes.

If the NBA playoffs were an all-out, every-night-a-game endurance contest, would stars be as important as they are now? Wouldn’t teams with tons of depth do better, relative to today? (Finally, a situation in which David Kahn could legitimately say the Wolves were well-stocked on the wing!)

I think the NFL’s “parity” is influenced a lot by the meat grinder the game puts its players through, if we’re talking about “the nature of the game.” There’s a lot of turnover because of that, isn’t there? It’s not all cap structure. Adrian Peterson isn’t going to be his amazing self for a decade, here, or that’s not at all likely.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 3:27 PM CST up reply actions  

barring sudden injury

AD can be great for several more years. and on avg Pro athaletes careers generaly last until their mid 30’s with only a handful of exception (and even then thats for those who’s career lasts longer then avg).

I think that if NBA playoffs were one and done then, having just one or 2 superstars would be way more important then a deep bench. we’ve all seen how a superstar can just take over a single game, but no way he can do it every game for 7 straight games over 3 or four series.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 3:44 PM CST up reply actions  

You're simply not right about most running backs.

How’s LaDanian Tomlinson doin’ these days? How about Shaun Alexander?

Sometime check out the list of NFL running backs who are, say, 30 or older. Running backs don’t last into anything like their mid-30s. Dominant runners don’t remain dominant often, not at all.

(Your point about NBA stardom vs. depth doesn’t make sense to me. You say stars would be more dominant without days off, but then say they couldn’t do it every night…)

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 4:02 PM CST up reply actions  

I suppose I should have clarified

when I said most Professional atheletes i was not limiting myself to just running backs, and AP is just 25 so he has 5 more years till he hits that mythical 30 year mark wich qualifies as several more years.

in any case Tomlinson is not the best example for over the hill RB as he had by all acounts a pretty good year, 900 yards, 4.2 yrds per att.

now I do agree that RB’s typicaly have a shorter shelf life then meny other positions, most top atheletes can compete until their mid 30’s (baring injury). there are of course some positions/sports that have drasticaly different results. there physical wear on RB’s can shorten their career’s. female balarina’s careers typicaly start in their early teens and end by the time they would be college athelets. while pro golfers can last into retirement age.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 4:39 PM CST up reply actions  

We should really suss out whether ballet companies

or NFL teams have more parity.

;-)

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 5:01 PM CST up reply actions  

Eric in Madison's point (or one of them)

is that a lack of supply (of other players like Drew Gooden) is what causes Drew Gooden to be overpaid.

The lack of supply is caused, in part, by the existing CBA structure (restrictions on free agency, etc).

If all players were free agents every year, there would be a larger supply of Drew Goodens on the market every year. If demand was the same, and why wouldn’t it be, then Drew Gooden’s price must go down.

I haven't written an insightful post in years.

by littleboxes on Mar 9, 2011 12:01 AM CST up reply actions  

Which is part of what the league's trying to do

Shorter contract lengths is a major point for the owners in the new CBA. Free agency every year is unrealistic for any sport, but shortening the number of years down to 3 or 4 max is being pushed big time. So are unguaranteed deals.

I understand that if you make more players available, there’s less need to outspend other teams for them. But that still doesn’t really solved the issue that hits with the good-but-not-great guys…the guys who are getting paid max now who don’t entirely deserve it. Not all players are created equal. Even if you flood free agency with players, there’s only a handful of Rudy Gays.

by Oceanary on Mar 9, 2011 12:23 AM CST up reply actions  

Sure

and by the way, I’m not advocating total free agency every year, I think it would cause major problems. But in terms of limiting salaries, it would probably work.

Frankly, I think unguaranteed contracts are probably as bad for owners as for players, and short contracts will lead to unintended consequences, but we’re going to find out.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 9:20 AM CST up reply actions  

Short contracts will likely lead to more selfish play

Tough to get a guy to agree to fewer touches/shots/minutes “for the good of the team” when he is often in a contract year or near one.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra

by Wile E Coyote on Mar 9, 2011 10:05 AM CST up reply actions  

it's short term vs long term decision making

Sometimes your immediate needs appear to be more dire and you make worse long term decisions. I am a much bigger fan of allowing a team to have one or two franchise players that are exempted from the cap numbers and then having a hard cap with contracts limited to let’s say 4 years or so without RFAs. Create a system where the stars can sign with any team that has an open franchise spot without even considering their cap number. That way you reward teams for building viable rosters or complementary players. Stars want to win and you need a team to do that.

That way you penalize teams for overpaying a player by making them either designate an overpaid player as a franchise player and limiting their ability to sign a star or they need to keep them on the hard cap roster and make it harder to build a functional team.

No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.

by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 9, 2011 7:49 AM CST up reply actions  

Problem

The problem with exempted cap players is that the high revenue teams are going to outbid the lower revenue teams for the best of the best. In your scenario the Knicks could have offered LeBron $100 million per year and gotten away with it because of his exception, the Cavs never would have been able to offer that much.

by jama on Mar 9, 2011 11:57 AM CST up reply actions  

Then you add in certain salary limits for franchise players

That should fix that problem. It eases up on FA restrictions and allows the teams that can construct a viable roster the ability to sell their team and market to the star because they can build said team without needing to sign and trade half of it away to fit the star under their cap.

The way I see it is that guys like Eddie Curry are a problem for all players because the contracts are so horrible that it just pilfers value from the league and takes away from the pool of cash that better players should receive. Any solution should be looked at how it impacts three points of view. The Owners. The Stars. The other players.

I’m pretty confident this works for the stars. The shortened restricted period would be a bonus to the other players and the rest would come down to the hard cap number and how it is determined. Biggest question is would the owners go for it? I guess that would depend on potential revenue sharing and where the cap is set. Not to mention the grace period for teams to get to those levels and how the intervening periods would work.

No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.

by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 9, 2011 1:16 PM CST up reply actions  

NBA Players Union

The Union isn’t made up of two seperate groups, the stars and the other guys. That’s the problem. In reality the “other players” have a much larger say in the system, as they should. There are only 10-15 star players, it would be foolish and short sighted to bargain just for those players.

by jama on Mar 9, 2011 1:36 PM CST up reply actions  

Then again

if the star players were to all walk over to europe. The other players wouldn’t get paid what they are getting. That’s a guess on my part, but I would have to imagine that fan interest would want to post jordan, pre modern era viewership. The problem has more to do with finding solutions that work for both without hurting the other, which I would like to think that my basic framework does. Too much of it all comes down to exact numbers that I don’t even think the owners are disclosing.

No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.

by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 9, 2011 1:42 PM CST up reply actions  

You want to know why their is a max level on contracts? Because the other players in the union were never going to see that amount anyway and voted for it. You think KG, Kobe, and Shaq were glad to give up $10’s of millions? No chance. The reason the real Superstars of this league are underpaid is because of how the union negotiated the last 2 contracts.

by jama on Mar 9, 2011 2:02 PM CST up reply actions  

Then again

at the time there weren’t really any viable alternative leagues, were there? You can get away with not having unlimited deals if you carve out a method for the best players to be able to play on the teams they want and still get the biggest contracts.

No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.

by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 9, 2011 3:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Stars tried to walk out on the CBA agreement that established Max contracts.

Wasn’t that the moment when Jordan et al tried to decertify the union when a CBA deal was underway?

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 3:31 PM CST up reply actions  

Maybe it bears mentioning that of the four listed players,

at least two of them – Salmons and Maggette – originally made their way to Milwaukee’s roster because they were overpaid in the first place.

The small market team attempting to climb that ladder is in a weird economic situation, for sure.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 7:38 AM CST up reply actions  

Why do you think there would be limited player movement

if there was total free agency?

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 12:00 AM CST up reply actions  

The trading deadline would be interesting.

Would nobody be willing to make ’Melo deals, because every player was about to be available anyway? Would everyone be dealt all over the place, because as each season wound down the contenders would be willing to stock themselves up for the big run? I imagine the latter.

I was going to suggest that fans could identify much less with their teams under those conditions, but you know, the NFL seems to do just fine with a lot of people despite players moving around a ton. Seems like a clutter to me, and people like it.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 7:43 AM CST up reply actions  

I disagree about NFL player movement

Some of the role players move a lot, but really the stars rarely do. Brian Urlacher, Payton Manning, you know who they play for and they will retire a Bear / Colt respectively. Most fans don’t care if Asher Allen jumps ship from the Vikings or if the Twolves don’t have Pavlovic. It’s when stars move that we have trouble. It was depressing to watch the Twins lose Santana and not be able to do anything about it.

by zebano on Mar 9, 2011 9:20 AM CST up reply actions  

Remind me,

Who was the Vikings quarterback 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years ago, as of the start of training camp?

No, I know what you’re saying. Whether it would be true that star players are more stable relative to the NBA isn’t clear to me, but in the NFL stuff like franchise tags keeps the biggest stars in town lots of the time.

Tell you what, though: lots of fans actually did care about their team’s second-tier players, and even their special teams hustle guys, when those players didn’t move around so often. Look around at a Vikings game, and even now people will be wearing the jersey of whoever the special teams guy is, sometimes. The free player movement has eroded that a lot, though, I think. Who was the safety from the Packers who came here for 2 or 3 years? He’s among the better veteran guys in the league… Didn’t he go to New Orleans and win the Super Bowl with them? Sharper? I find the NFL despiriting for a handful of reasons, but players like that cycling around is one of them.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 12:58 PM CST up reply actions  

I see your point but that's more of a failure of management to draft /recruit a longterm QB

As far as I can recall (going backwards):
2010 Favre
2009 Favre (debatable could be Jackson but we all knew he was coming)
2008 – either TJax or Frerotte though I think Tjax had it at the start of the season.
2007 – TJax
2006 – Brad Johson

The point about good players like Sharper is hard to argue against. I’m not sure but I believe the Packers willfully decided to go younger at that position and not bid for Sharpers services.

by zebano on Mar 9, 2011 1:48 PM CST up reply actions  

Its harder to identify with players who wear helmets anyway

The “nakedness” of the NBA probably would be a problem for identification purposes.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 9:51 AM CST up reply actions  

Among the many reasons I like basketball more. Individuality.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 12:53 PM CST up reply actions  

Well, becacuse the market would be flooded every year

so supply would be greater. Sure, the very best players would still be in demand, but if its a matter of the Drew Gooden you have and know vs. the Drew Gooden you don’t, you’ll keep your Drew Gooden.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 9:23 AM CST up reply actions  

I also would add that, given Stern's figure of $300+ million losses

that’s a heckuva lot of Drew Gooden’s.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 12:13 AM CST up reply actions  

I have a tough time taking Stern, any commissioner or any owners

claims of poverty or monetary losses seriously until they open their books up.

by Ailuridae on Mar 9, 2011 1:17 AM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Until their books are open, I say we limit them to facial expressions and waving arms.

Specific dollar figures are off limits until your accountants testify to ‘em. Stern should be hopping around like a mime, showing us how the league’s trying to march into a economic headwind, and that’s it.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 7:45 AM CST up reply actions  

Even if the figure is off by half, it's still a pretty heavy loss.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 9:52 AM CST up reply actions  

I doubt it is off by half either

NBA owners have a huge incentive to claim poverty and little if no reason to be honest with the public about their finances. Recently fully 1/6th of all MLB franchises had been demonstrated to be out and out lying about their books

http://deadspin.com/#!5615096/mlb-confidential-the-financial-documents-baseball-doesnt-want-you-to-see-part-1

In current NFL negotiations the union as every union has going back to the work stoppage in 87 is trying to get the owners to reveal their books and the owners are not interested. It really isn’t a coincidence

by Ailuridae on Mar 9, 2011 10:09 AM CST up reply actions  

And it's completely absurd to expect a union to negotiate without having the necessary information

One of the basics of good collective bargaining is that both sides come to the table prepared, understanding the economic conditions of the relevant industry and the specific business. How else can you productively bargain?

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 10:12 AM CST up reply actions  

Yet, for whatever reason

every pro sports union in America is forced to negotiate without knowing the owners actual financials nevertheless having the public aware of them. The NFL situation is particularly absurd. Several teams make 50M + a year and the league is set up such that it is essentially impossible to lose money in a small market (each team’s share of the league-wide television contract is greater than the total that any team can pay in salaries in a year). In light of that it would seem crazy that the owners are asking for an additional 1B to be cut to them (on top of the 1B that is already done so) before the players receive anything out of the 9B dollar pie.

by Ailuridae on Mar 9, 2011 10:25 AM CST up reply actions  

Nothing in sports is worse than the deal the NFL players have

in large part, I blame Gene Upshaw, who was not a good labor leader. My hope is that the new guy is better.

It’s silly because every time they wind up in court, the NFL loses (because the adopt barely colorable legal positions—see American Needle). All the way back to Freeman mcNeil. And yet still the players seem to screw themselves in collective bargaining.

The NFL is a license to print money, and the players get screwed.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 10:32 AM CST up reply actions  

I just love how the basis being used to demand

another billion off the top is stadium costs…which taxpayers largely pay for. It just kills me on the inside.

No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.

by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 9, 2011 11:52 AM CST up reply actions  

I think we can all see what would happen if the cap was eliminated and every player was a free agent every year.

The closest example we have to this is the MLB. Only in the 1-year contract paradigm the disparity between the teams willing to spend and the teams unwilling to spend would be even more stark. Rather than being saddled with expenses for players they overpaid long term, they would get to take the players who were expected to be the best every single year with only injuries and team chemistry standing in the way of the Knicks or the Lakers winning every single championship until the system turns into a European style arrangement with small and mid-market teams being a part of the lower tiers of the professional level. On the plus side, NCAA athletes might actually start to get paid.

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Mar 9, 2011 12:13 PM CST up reply actions  

I doubt it, actually

but it could happen. the every year free agent thing isn’t my idea; it was actually Charlie Finley’s idea from when he owned the A’s and free agency in baseball was on the horizon. The players probably would have gone for it back then; they wouldn’t now. He was right, though, it would have held down salaries.

One thing I think that happens is we tend to overreact to what just happened. The truth is that free agency by and large in all sports leads to more parity. It certainly did in baseball; the Yankees were more dominant before FA then after. It’s just that they had a monster run fairly recently. But the 80s and early 90s were probably their weakest run since before Babe Ruth.

In the NBA, James, Wade and Bosh team up, and we see disaster. But first, they aren’t really that great, and second, it happened once. Let’s let it play out a little before jumping to conclusions. Before FA, the Celtics won 11 titles in 13 years or something. We haven’t seen a run like that since FA started.

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 12:20 PM CST up reply actions  

When the Celtics won 11 out of 13, there were only a handful of teams (8 to be exact, I believe).

Free agency is a good thing for parity. I just don’t think completely unrestricted free agency is a good thing. I see what’s happening in baseball over the last decade or so as being indicative of what an uncapped system tends to do: shorten the window of opportunity to be competitive for small and mid-market teams with unexceptional luck and/or management. Heck, the Pirates aren’t even trying anymore. Tampa Bay is watching as their window of opportunity is coming to a close. Kansas City hasn’t been relevant in over twenty years. Minnesota is now paying through the nose to keep its window of opportunity open.
I agree that a fair amount of the public panic over this issue is an overreaction to the star player accumulation via free agency. 3 players alone do not make a championship team.

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Mar 9, 2011 8:20 PM CST up reply actions  

My initial thought on this is that they need to move to NFL style contracts or partially guaranteed contracts

If after 2 years you can see that Eddy Curry isn’t worth his massive contract you should be able to not pick up the contract for next year. Of course the downside to this is that there is little incentive for players to sign long-term contracts since they won’t be rewarded with a new contract for playing better….

by zebano on Mar 9, 2011 9:13 AM CST up reply actions  

Which leads to hold-outs. Not that I blame NFL players for doing so.

My mother was a lovely woman, rest her soul, but she never saw the irony in calling me a "son of a bitch."
- Jack Nicholson

by ynotsema2 on Mar 9, 2011 8:21 PM CST up reply actions  

Simple questions:

Who is Matt Bollero?

and

Is it really true that franchises aren’t appreciating in value “in the same way as before”? Over what span of time can that be said to be true – and does that span of time come close to the period over which the average NBA team is owned? ’Cause 2008 was disastrous for the economy, and all, but Glen Taylor bought the Wolves in 1994, for something like $88.5 million.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 8, 2011 6:26 PM CST reply actions  

This is

Matt Bollero:

Matt currently works in the Basketball Operations department for the Minnesota Timberwolves as the Basketball Operations Assistant. Matt’s experiences not only as a collegiate athlete, but as a student as well, have helped him achieve his goal of working in basketball. As the presenter for this online course, he will share countless internships and job experiences (including those with the Boston Red Sox and the Minnesota Timberwolves). As a young professional, he provides informative ways to achieve your own personal goals of working within the sporting profession.

 

Education

Graduate School: Xavier University- Master in Sport Administration

College: DePauw University- Kinesiology: Athletic Training (ATEP)

High School: Cardinal Newman

Only four more months until the lockout begins!

by PoorDick on Mar 8, 2011 9:34 PM CST up reply actions  

i hope that, against all odds, this dude is a genius

with amazing interpersonal skills.

I haven't written an insightful post in years.

by littleboxes on Mar 8, 2011 11:58 PM CST up reply actions  

He can't even spell

“DePaul’ correctly.

Only four more months until the lockout begins!

by PoorDick on Mar 9, 2011 9:32 AM CST up reply actions  

To be fair

the L and the W are really close on the keyboard…

, said Mplax.

by Mplax on Mar 9, 2011 12:17 PM CST up reply actions  

at the risk of not getting this joke...

there is such a thing as DePauw University

Loisaidabasketballclub.blogspot.com
Twitter: @loisaidabbclub

by beatsandpeasnyc on Mar 9, 2011 12:26 PM CST up reply actions  

Not a risk of not getting the joke

but a certainty

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 12:32 PM CST up reply actions  

so he really did got to DepauL ?

but sees himself as a W inner, so he changed it?

Loisaidabasketballclub.blogspot.com
Twitter: @loisaidabbclub

by beatsandpeasnyc on Mar 9, 2011 12:41 PM CST up reply actions  

Depauw University Mascot:

It’s got Tiger Blood:

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 1:06 PM CST up reply actions  

brilliant

Loisaidabasketballclub.blogspot.com
Twitter: @loisaidabbclub

by beatsandpeasnyc on Mar 9, 2011 1:08 PM CST up reply actions  

"Countless internships."

How much more, and more varied, experience does Matt Bollero have than, oh…. Our Vice President of Basketball Operations?

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 7:46 AM CST up reply actions  

Great stuff TA

Well documented adventure Tim, thanx!

by will ballton on Mar 8, 2011 6:32 PM CST reply actions  

Interesting draft statement by Morey, there.
Morey agreed that in the draft, GMs are often picking flaws more than picking attributes and making gambles on which flaws they can improve. He said that pre-draft interviews are critical to learn how coachable a player is likely to be.

And then Morey said he was taken aback by Marcus Banks saying he’d be a fashion model… My gosh, the seriousness with which those interviews are taken.

What does “coachable” mean, exactly? I almost hate to being up Cousins, but as much trouble as that kid has been, his game has added new elements pretty rapidly. Going into college he was supposed to want to be a face up player – Calipari joked about him wanting to play point guard. Whatever kind of loose cannon he may be, in terms of adding to a game is he “coachable”? Westphal made some remarks about him thinking he was working hard but not understanding how hard it’d need to be this summer; is he going to be a work ethic guy, or not?

And to answer all those questions, Daryl Morey is relying on the combine interviews?? Man. Almost makes me understand McHale’s “brain type” consultant.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 8, 2011 6:36 PM CST reply actions  

Well, I think Morey would say that they are once piece of the puzzle.

One that can’t be ignored, but certainly not the only one to be considered, either. And I think he would probably say that if he had a chance to draft LeBron, but LeBron’s interview wasnt’ very good, talent could still triumph over coachability.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 8, 2011 6:38 PM CST up reply actions  

the coachability

part is probably not learned strictly from the interview, but rather in the workouts. during the workouts and drills performed at the combine, prodays, and team workouts, does teh player listen to, and respond to what the coaches ask them to do at these workouts? the interviews are more about personality then coachability.

and I would be shocked by the desire to be a male model too, it shows a potential lack of dedication to the sport that might lead to a lack of dedication to getting better. and wasn’t that just the case with marcus banks? he never really got better didn’t he?

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 11:19 AM CST up reply actions  

Adding new dimensions isn't coachability

Being coachable means you take instruction well, don’t complain, don’t cause problems in the locker room…things like that. Coachability is behavior. Do you listen to, respect, and work hard for your coach.

Adding new elements to your game is a talent thing. That’s an individual work ethic thing. It’s like if you worked for a marketing company and learned to use Photoshop. It does make you more useful and potentially more productive as an employee. But it doesn’t make you a better behaved person or someone your boss is going to get along with more.

Talent trumps coachability in most cases. Most teams are willing to deal with high tensions and arguments and stubbornness if they think a player can be really really good. But there are still extreme cases where a lot of teams will say “it’s not worth it”

by Oceanary on Mar 8, 2011 6:56 PM CST up reply actions  

A player’s “coachability” doesn’t have much to do with his attitude off the court. Does the player take the information presented to him by his coaches and use it to improve his skill set, and his play during competition? Does the player accept the coach’s authority and make decisions in the direction the coach has outlined for the team? A player who isn’t coachable doesn’t use criticism to improve his game, doesn’t apply instruction from the coaching staff to his game, likely doesn’t play with great effort, and does not play during games in a manner that coincides with what the coach has been conveying as strategy.

by Klobs on Mar 8, 2011 10:32 PM CST up reply actions  

Good point

Definitely clumsily worded on my part, because after I typed it I thought “you know, Dennis Rodman was pretty coachable”. Major headcase off the court, but his coaches loved him. Worked hard, played his role, did what he was asked. Ya, good call

by Oceanary on Mar 8, 2011 10:51 PM CST up reply actions  

Couldn't disagree more with "coachability" having little or nothing to do with building one's game.

What the heck are the coaches around for, anyway? Winning, ultimately. Kurt Rambis is trying to develop talent, but the ultimate (long, long delayed) goal is to do that so the Wolves can win.

And winning requires the players to keep their heads down, mostly, apparently… Gah, what kind of model is this you’re espousing? Put yourself on the other side of the verb, “To coach.” If you’re coaching someone, a lot of that is teaching them how to do their job right within the context of your team.

("If America ever has a dictator, it will call him ‘Coach.’ ")

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 7:54 AM CST up reply actions  

I enjoyed reading this

Mainly because there were many breaks with pictures.

NBA Draft Fanatic

by Casperkid23 on Mar 8, 2011 7:49 PM CST reply actions  

Then you would have loved

my wedding night.

Only four more months until the lockout begins!

by PoorDick on Mar 8, 2011 8:14 PM CST up reply actions  

she let you take pictures?

No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.

by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 9, 2011 7:54 AM CST up reply actions  

Actually,

we compromised on hiring a courtroom sketch artist to sit bedside.

Only four more months until the lockout begins!

by PoorDick on Mar 9, 2011 11:54 AM CST up reply actions  

Can't fool me...

…you were consulting the user’s guide…

by timmuggs on Mar 9, 2011 12:55 PM CST up reply actions  

good call on her part

nothing like an audience to add a little bit of extra excitement.

No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.

by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 9, 2011 1:20 PM CST up reply actions  

That's what I told her

but she still wouldn’t let me hang around and watch.

Only four more months until the lockout begins!

by PoorDick on Mar 9, 2011 6:47 PM CST up reply actions  

well played sir...well played.

No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.

by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 10, 2011 9:03 AM CST up reply actions  

One good change would be...

To let teams pay players a little more in states with income taxes. That playing field needs to be leveled but I never hear it brought up.

by fanslaststand on Mar 8, 2011 10:18 PM CST via mobile reply actions  

In the interest of fair play

(and to prove that Tim Allen is not more open minded than I am) I’ll now be booking my trip to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY.

by dropstep on Mar 8, 2011 10:52 PM CST reply actions   2 recs

The triceratops really needs a handlebar mustache of its own, there.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 7:54 AM CST up reply actions   1 recs

“I was a fan of the Triceratops when they were still underground.”

"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN

by nja700 on Mar 9, 2011 1:46 PM CST up reply actions  

That's gonna need an explanation. I think Gladwell is terrific.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 9:53 AM CST up reply actions  

Good writer,

bad scientist.

Only four more months until the lockout begins!

by PoorDick on Mar 9, 2011 10:37 AM CST up reply actions  

Exactly

I couldn’t even finish Outliers. His “proof” was laughable at best, and the whole premise of the book is utterly obvious.

He does make himself sound very clever, though. It just came off as narcissistic to me.

by CoffeeJanitor on Mar 9, 2011 12:33 PM CST up reply actions  

Hmm, I had no idea.

I enjoy his books.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 2:37 PM CST up reply actions  

Oh, they're very enjoyable

(methinks), but his conclusions are more anecdotal than scientific.

Which the old TimAllen would appreciate!

Only four more months until the lockout begins!

by PoorDick on Mar 9, 2011 3:31 PM CST up reply actions  

(It would amuse me to know if Tim Allen has read the Heinlein title by this name.)

Were you trying to “Grok” the numbers?

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 8:12 AM CST reply actions  

Unfortunately, I have not. I'm not much of a sci-fi fan.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 9:53 AM CST up reply actions  

It's the sort of book I loved when I was 12.

The only lasting impression is the “Grokking” and the sex of the thing. Sort of reminds me of Ayn Rand in that way; I mostly came away from Atlas Shrugged wondering why nobody used birth control.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 12:22 PM CST up reply actions  

Ayn Rand is exactly right

Stranger was written after Heinlein decided to start doing his own editing. His book got much, much longer, made much less sense and tarnished his reputation considerably. The subsequent Time Enough for Love is one of the most widely reviled books in science fiction despite Heinlein being one of the most popular SF authors ever.

[deleted after giving it further thought]

by TMiss on Mar 9, 2011 1:23 PM CST up reply actions  

The writer who is above being edited: Ew.

Anyone who’s read the Harry Potter series – out loud – can tell you when Ms. Rowling decided she could do without. Book Four will always be memorable for me, because the premise is so flawed that the entire plot is completely unnecessary. And how about Order of the Phoenix, in which we have approximately 1,000 pages of wooden exposition up front for no reason?

An editor with any influence, or a publisher that wasn’t under extreme deadline pressure, would have trimmed either of those books with a Bowie knife. The series is spoiled by #4.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 3:37 PM CST up reply actions  

I stopped reading HP after reading book 4.

God that book was awful.

I only post cotton candy. Because it's delicious.

by Prevenge on Mar 11, 2011 3:11 PM CST up reply actions  

Still haven't read the other three

making me one of five people who haven’t [or thereabouts]

I only post cotton candy. Because it's delicious.

by Prevenge on Mar 11, 2011 3:12 PM CST up reply actions  

I haven't read a word of a Harry Potter book.

I tried watching LOTR, but I fell asleep about 30 minutes into the first one and haven’t tried with the series since then.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 11, 2011 3:14 PM CST up reply actions  

It is obvious to me that

the smartest person in this story is your girlfriend.

Your fantasy football expert since Jerry Rice's rookie year.

by Odin on Mar 9, 2011 12:38 PM CST reply actions  

It's true.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 2:24 PM CST up reply actions  

Hmmm

I’d love to send this thread to her for a reaction. What’s that email address again?

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 2:30 PM CST up reply actions  

barrefaeli@hotmail.com

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 2:34 PM CST up reply actions  

I thought it was

stuckwitim@helpme.com.

No wait, isn’t it mybfisawolvesfan@imwithstupid.com?

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 2:57 PM CST up reply actions  

I'd be a little scared if both of my gf's e-mail addresses referenced me

in them. That’s just not very professional.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 2:59 PM CST up reply actions  

Ah, that explains it

she’s a professional!

I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!

by Eric in Madison on Mar 9, 2011 3:08 PM CST up reply actions  

Wait. Tim has *two* girlfriends!

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 3:38 PM CST up reply actions  

I would've gone with you :(...but what its worth...

in my sociology class last year, i had to do a big write up on the 10,000 hours to achieve perfection. You first have to have all the necessary tools and such. For example Bill Gates had access to super computers( something like that) and had the pleasure of working with them long as he wanted too. Eventually he reached his 10000 hours and the rest is history. there was a lot more i wrote about, but i don’t remember a lot from high school. did too many drugs…dont anymore but sad i don’t remember a lot of high school.

by coolminnesota on Mar 9, 2011 1:05 PM CST reply actions  

+1

which is not to say that I’m not a little bit scared of Tim now that I know just how obsessed he is with sports stats.

[deleted after giving it further thought]

by TMiss on Mar 9, 2011 1:19 PM CST reply actions   1 recs

just wait until Tim comes up with the TA Stat to Rule them All

It may involve a color coded flashing light, heat index, apparent random ratios and percentages as well as the all mighty exclamation point. Oh yeah, and an eye icon whose size determines how totally awesome the player is according to NBA wide talent scouts.

Maybe there will even be a claymation like player death match platform to definitively determine who is the best. After all, there can be only one.

No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.

by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 9, 2011 1:34 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

I'm imagining signs in Target Center, posted in places like the three-point line.

Underneath the big eye icon – genius – it reads:

“The Department of Range Shooting has determined the three-pointer threat be raised to
ORANGE
Please be aware of the increased threat.
Report any unattended shooters.”

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 3:42 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

or fake eye glass whose pupils bug out when total awesomeness saunters by

Think about it. You could even sell them at all the concessions stands.

Tim-O-Vision. Inspired by Tim “Duncan wishes he was as cool as me” Allen

No one is getting Rubio's rights unless they pry them from our cold dead fingers.

by TheEvilProfessor on Mar 9, 2011 4:53 PM CST up reply actions  

The eyes would be modeled on those of Bill Simmons's father.

He’s the one who had all those “Oooh” reactions to people like David Robinson.

"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco

by feral on Mar 9, 2011 5:05 PM CST up reply actions  

Well Tim, lost your phone

but at least you weren’t this guy.

The user formerly known as Bahlgren1

by BrettAhlgren on Mar 9, 2011 2:21 PM CST reply actions  

Yikes. That wouldn't have been fun.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 2:27 PM CST up reply actions  

you said 200 dollers?

i hope you got the Evo, that is an awsome phone.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 3:11 PM CST reply actions  

I did. And it is awesome.

The barcode scanner is totally unnecessary and something I’ll probably never actually use, but its so friggin’ cool. I went around my house and just started scanning things I already own.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 4:11 PM CST up reply actions  

don't

worry, you’ll find uses for the app. and you can blog from your phone. if you go to a game, you can record snippits and then post them to the site! and a lot, lot more.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Mar 9, 2011 4:45 PM CST up reply actions  

Most likely tomorrow.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 4:10 PM CST up reply actions  

Tim,

Your place in the pantheon of Great CHers has long been cemented, but your visit to Boston and tales thereof put you up in GOAT territory.

Thank you!

Only four more months until the lockout begins!

by PoorDick on Mar 9, 2011 4:17 PM CST up reply actions  

Much appreciated, sir. It was definitely my pleasure.

I’d definitely recommend Sloan to anyone who can make it next year.

Everything in the computer need my face on it. Mega Gigabytes, son!

by TimAllen on Mar 9, 2011 4:46 PM CST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Canis Hoopus is straight T-Wolves straight from Minnesota.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Rubio_wolfrider_small
2011/2012 Rookie Review
Abby_s_030_small
Top Ten Reasons David Kahn is a Better Basketball Mind than Sam Presti
Rubio_wolfrider_small
Ricky Rubio: Probably not as good as you think...
Small
Around the League: Atlanta Hawks

Recent FanPosts

Rubio_wolfrider_small
PA100 Atlantic Division
Small
End of Dan Harmon - Community
New_look_primary_logo_1989-96_100_small
Jae Crowder participated in NJ combine...
Small
Possible that Perry Jones = Paul George?
Small
Evan Fournier
557415_10101880206283470_13960869_76835255_1401292386_n_small
Poll: Do the NBA playoffs live up to their potential?
Rubio_wolfrider_small
PA100 Northwest Division

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Canis Hoopus Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Hoopus Features

    HOOPUS FAQ

    Salary Cap Info

    Draft Info

    Player Movement Flow Charts

    Draft Boards

    Former Tag Lines:

    • In desperate need of an epic dose of basketball Viagra
    • Your source of radical left wing politics cleverly disguised as basketball fandom
    • Palin-Free since before statehood
    • Despairy Home Companion
    • The world's leading exporter of small area quickness
    • Sorry…I have no idea who is Joe Mauer
    • Home of the Peja deep douche
    • Vote McGrady!
    • Bork, bork, bork, bork, bork
    • Wir Sind Darko
    • Weird, unhealthy Darko mania
    • les goûts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas
    • Basketball success makes character issues forgivable
    • Building the Boogie Bandwagon
    • Building the Dream....One Power Forward At A Time
    • Kids, Puppy Dogs, And Long Walks In The Park
    • SWITCH THE FLIP!!!
    • Team Red Pill.
    • December is Bunny Month. Survive it with insincerity and Merle Haggard.
    • Like having a really good seat at a beheading.
    • We've got to have rules and obey them. After all, we're not savages. We're Wolves fans, and Wolves fans are best at everything.
    • Getting Real Mythological
    • Trapped in Punxsawawney
    • BIIYYYOOOMMMBOOOOOOO!!!
    • Estoy llevando mi talento a Minnesota
    • Where sharks do battle with giant eagles
    • You don’t put a saddle and reins on a magical unicorn, you bareback it and put faith in nature
    • Toeing the line between nerd and loser
    • If Theo Ratliff’s Expiring Contract could see us now...

    Hoopus Recipe Book

    Let's Settle This:


    Self-Promotion

    BallHype Sports Blog Rankings


    Managers

    Dr wyn

    Journey_small Stop-n-Pop

    Rviy7fbgmhz5ht2dpgo6q0jfu_small TimAllen

    Editors

    Wolveslogo_small Oceanary

    Authors

    Small SG

    Hrbek_small Jon Marthaler